One-trick-pony-majority-rules-you-have-got-to-be-kidding...
Brendan
rulings are "canon" not opinions; I am sure deliberation and playtesting
preceeded their "news" - these are the game's representatives (some keen
player is going to better understand the game's development?) - player
opinions are really fun to read (and laugh at - ha ha ha) but in truth, most
of the outrage is because a "trick" that was used (and there was a nice hole
in the rules with the Changeling or Talaq BoS) no longer becomes as
effective as it was.
I for one think the ruling is tre cool, those that have trouble with it are
just gonna have to cope (or whinge pointlessly, giving me more opportunity
for a good chuckle). Give them a Flak Jacket you pansies...
For all those players offended by their Shadow Court Satyr's or Talaq's
"newly defined" limitation - tough, find another plan; if it is too hard,
find another game.
tetragrammaton
"Brendan" <mel...@bigpond.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ulIA8.2817$b5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> No - democracy is for politics or schoolrooms - LSJ and the rules team's
> rulings are "canon" not opinions; I am sure deliberation and playtesting
> preceeded their "news" - these are the game's representatives (some keen
> player is going to better understand the game's development?) - player
> opinions are really fun to read (and laugh at - ha ha ha) but in truth,
most
> of the outrage is because a "trick" that was used (and there was a nice
hole
> in the rules with the Changeling or Talaq BoS) no longer becomes as
> effective as it was.
<snip>
> For all those players offended by their Shadow Court Satyr's or Talaq's
> "newly defined" limitation - tough, find another plan; if it is too hard,
> find another game.
>
Indeed if those rulings are going not to be changed, finding another game
it's just
what i'll do in short time (and my playgroup too).
I just can't believe this madness has come out to be official rulings...
Ciao
Emiliano, :ekn Prince of Rome
>
>
>
>
>
CurtAdams
>Indeed if those rulings are going not to be changed, finding another game
it's just
>what i'll do in short time (and my playgroup too).
>I just can't believe this madness has come out to be official rulings...
I agree this BoS business is pretty bizarre from a world-view standard
but I wouldn't quit the game because of one bizarre ruling. It's relatively
corner-case, it's just that one particular (IMO cheesy) deck trick had
been built around it.
In general, though, I notice a difference between the "house rules consensus"
of many years ago and the rulings coming out lately. Even when I was on
the wrong side of the house rules consensus I don't ever recall rolling my
eyes in frustration over the consensus, except the political action ->
referendum
metamorphosis. I have seen several eye-rolls lately.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
tetragrammaton
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20020504155329...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> Emiliano writes:
>
> >Indeed if those rulings are going not to be changed, finding another
game
> it's just
> >what i'll do in short time (and my playgroup too).
> >I just can't believe this madness has come out to be official rulings...
>
> I agree this BoS business is pretty bizarre from a world-view standard
> but I wouldn't quit the game because of one bizarre ruling.
Imho, the bizarre rulings are more than one,
most notably the recent "effects in addition to combat ends"
( i untap with majesty during combat but i take damage from catatonic fear
after it)
"atomic bloodhunt", among the others.
> It's relatively
> corner-case, it's just that one particular (IMO cheesy) deck trick had
> been built around it.
It is not.
The big picture is that we don't need at all such ruling (among some other),
and no argument in favor of such ruling(s),
that could prove a benefit (game balance, better simplicity..)
for the game has been made.
In which way allies entering to torpor could help the game as a whole?
> In general, though, I notice a difference between the "house rules
consensus"
> of many years ago and the rulings coming out lately.
I think that this is not house rule consensus.
This is just being pissed off by unnecessary rulings.
Emiliano
<snip>
Robert Goudie
news:ZOYA8.7654$5k4.2...@twister2.libero.it...
>
> "CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:20020504155329...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> > Emiliano writes:
> > It's relatively
> > corner-case, it's just that one particular (IMO cheesy) deck trick had
> > been built around it.
>
> It is not.
> The big picture is that we don't need at all such ruling (among some other),
> and no argument in favor of such ruling(s),
> that could prove a benefit (game balance, better simplicity..)
> for the game has been made.
> In which way allies entering to torpor could help the game as a whole?
Someone mentioned in another thread that the Shadow Court Satyr playing a
mummify could have accomplished this long ago. I don't know if this is true but
if it is then the new ruling seems pretty inconsequential. Clearly, the rules
team didn't make this decision because they thought it would be neat to send
allies to torpor.
> > In general, though, I notice a difference between the "house rules
> consensus"
> > of many years ago and the rulings coming out lately.
>
> I think that this is not house rule consensus.
> This is just being pissed off by unnecessary rulings.
As can be seen with some of the other rulings on the list (the ending of
complexities regarding the chaining of post-combat effects), the intent of the
rulings is always to reduce errata, eliminate inconsistencies, restore designer
intent, etc. Sometimes, (though not necessarily in your case) players don't
understand the problems, inconsistencies, and complexities well enough to
appreciate how a new ruling actually improves a situation.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
tetragrammaton
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:R44B8.58$DH...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZOYA8.7654$5k4.2...@twister2.libero.it...
> >
> > "CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:20020504155329...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> Someone mentioned in another thread that the Shadow Court Satyr playing a
> mummify could have accomplished this long ago. I don't know if this is
true but
> if it is then the new ruling seems pretty inconsequential. Clearly, the
rules
> team didn't make this decision because they thought it would be neat to
send
> allies to torpor.
Ah, but that was just an effect given by cards,
so, with the golden tenet, nobody could argue
against that.
This is different, because a rulings addendum
just makes that silly scenario (allies entering in torpor)
more and more actual, not just a very corner case.
> > > In general, though, I notice a difference between the "house rules
> > consensus"
> > > of many years ago and the rulings coming out lately.
> >
> > I think that this is not house rule consensus.
> > This is just being pissed off by unnecessary rulings.
>
> As can be seen with some of the other rulings on the list (the ending of
> complexities regarding the chaining of post-combat effects), the intent of
the
> rulings is always to reduce errata, eliminate inconsistencies, restore
designer
> intent, etc. Sometimes, (though not necessarily in your case) players
don't
> understand the problems, inconsistencies, and complexities well enough to
> appreciate how a new ruling actually improves a situation.
>
So, please, explain me how the new rulings addenda
could improve the situation,
either simplifying things (effect handlings),
giving more game balance and/or reducing
the damn rulings list.
Emiliano
Wes
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> Sometimes, (though not necessarily in your case) players don't
> understand the problems, inconsistencies, and complexities well enough to
> appreciate how a new ruling actually improves a situation.
Agreed... so it might be prudent to enlighten the gentle newsfolk as to why
the change was deemed necessary in the first place. I don't actually care
that much about this ruling either way but it seems to me that an
explanation might be useful in allaying a lot of the concerns some of us are
having.
Of course, LSJ has already stated that this is going back under review, so
the point my be moot.
For the record though, I don't like secret councils... though I can
understand why the 'rules team' operates with some anonymity. If their
identities were known, I'm sure Noal would have already shown up at their
houses personally to beat the crap out of them :)
Still, it seems that there are often times when the consensus of the players
(or at least those *here*) should be striven for. If the majority of people
on this newsgroup find a ruling to be ridiculous, I think that this should
be indication enough that consensus has not been achieved and that something
is very wrong. If White Wolf cares, they should do their best to make sure
that those concerned are all happy with the decision, even if that decision
itself has consequences down the road.
Would it be possible to inquire as to how the selection process for the
rules team is made? (without endangering the lives or reputations of those
currently enlisted on it :)
Cheers,
WES
The Lasombra
> For the record though, I don't like secret councils... though I can
> understand why the 'rules team' operates with some anonymity. If their
> identities were known, I'm sure Noal would have already shown up at their
> houses personally to beat the crap out of them :)
> Still, it seems that there are often times when the consensus of the players
> (or at least those *here*) should be striven for.
The vast majority of the people reading this newsgroup (or any other)
will never post to it. Upwards of 90% or so I have heard. How should
a consensus of those people be taken?
> If the majority of people on this newsgroup find a ruling to be ridiculous,
> I think that this should be indication enough that consensus has not been
> achieved and that something is very wrong.
How will you recognize a majority?
> If White Wolf cares, they should do their best to make sure
> that those concerned are all happy with the decision, even if
> that decision itself has consequences down the road.
Ok.
> Would it be possible to inquire as to how the selection process
> for the rules team is made?
It would be possible.
This is the information that has been made public, and is quoted
from the FAQ section 4.1.1.
"The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain
anonymous. The RT has members from different play groups from a
total of three continents. The protocol is discussion and playtesting
among the members of the playgroups and reports of findings via e-mail.
The topics for discussion are suggested by the Net.Rep (LSJ). Ideas for
playtesting are culled from the newsgroup (by LSJ) and/or suggested by
the members of the RT. Members of the RT are also free to add their own
topics of discussion (well, not at first since we had a full itenerary
already, but once the initial fixes were out of the way).
No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus.
The topics come from one or more of: the newsgroup/mailinglist,
private e-mail to LSJ, or members of the RT. Mostly from the newsgroup.
The solutions may be "rarely" seen on the newsgroup prior to the RT
post,
but the problems are almost always brought up on the newsgroup prior
to being discussed by the RT. "
> (without endangering the lives or reputations of those
> currently enlisted on it :)
Not being on it, I am certain my life and reputation are only
endangered by my own actions. I'm sure most of the members
would feel the same.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Wes
>
> > If the majority of people on this newsgroup find a ruling to be
ridiculous,
> > I think that this should be indication enough that consensus has not
been
> > achieved and that something is very wrong.
>
> How will you recognize a majority?
I concede that it would be very hard.
Additionally, the people most vocal are often going to be only the ones most
angry rather than the most representative of everyone. I've kept my mouth
shut for most of the recent controversies, mostly because I didn't really
care enough to add anything. I don't find Meddling of Semsith to be broken,
nor do I find these latest rulings are that big of an issue. But clearly a
lot of people do right now. They should definitely be heard (and I applaud
LSJ for placing it back on the agenda for further RT discussion).
Note however that I care more about consensus than majority... there is a
difference, however slight.
By stiving for consensus, I'm referring to a process that takes as many
points of view into consideration and tries to work out any differences in
opinion in a way that is the least objectionable to the majority of people.
Obviously this is not going to be ideal at all times and considering only
the newsgroupies obviously is going to leave a lot of the V:tES community
without representation. However, a lot of playgroups do have representation
of some sort right here and if a ruling is made via the internet, it's
either going to get to people through those of us here or not at all. I
don't think those who never hear about allies going to torpor are going to
be that upset about it :)
I am not suggesting any particular system at this time, merely that White
Wolf and LSJ and the Rules Team members do their best to represent the
wishes of the community as a whole. They may indeed be trying to do this but
by the looks of this forum right now, they have failed. As we don't know who
they are and don't elect them or have any way to recall them or replace
them... well, the system doesn't appear to be very democratic.
But how democratic can it really be? I don't know...
This is not a complaint. Merely an observation based on a large amount of
experience with such matters.
> > If White Wolf cares, they should do their best to make sure
> > that those concerned are all happy with the decision, even if
> > that decision itself has consequences down the road.
>
> Ok.
You can just snip the parts you agree with man... :)
> > Would it be possible to inquire as to how the selection process
> > for the rules team is made?
>
> It would be possible.
>
> This is the information that has been made public, and is quoted
> from the FAQ section 4.1.1.
Ahh cool, let's look at it then... Here it is again with my comments:
> 4.1.1. Who is the Rules Team (RT)?
> As per LSJ's post on rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad -
> The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain
> anonymous.
I don't like this aspect though I do understand the reasoning behind it.
> The RT has members from different play groups from a total
> of three continents.
Good. An effort to include as much of a diverse area as possible is
admirable.
> The protocol is discussion and playtesting among
> the members of the playgroups and reports of findings via e-mail.
Probably difficult but the best way given the distance of the players
involved.
> The topics for discussion are suggested by the Net.Rep (LSJ). Ideas for
> playtesting are culled from the newsgroup (by LSJ) and/or suggested by
> the members of the RT.
Sure.
> Members of the RT are also free to add their
> own topics of discussion (well, not at first since we had a full
> itenerary already, but once the initial fixes were out of the way).
Good.
> No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus.
Awesome. I'm barking up the wrong tree then :)
> The topics come from one or more of: the newsgroup/mailinglist,
> private e-mail to me, or members of the RT. Mostly from the newsgroup.
Obviously the newsgroup *is* the best means of communicating with the most
players. Not all but most. I don't know what the forums or the various
Yahoogroups activity is like at this point. Last time I was on either, the
discussions were mostly about stuff that bored the piss out of me.
> The solutions may be "rarely" seen on the newsgroup prior to the RT
> post, but the problems are almost always brought up on the newsgroup
> prior to being discussed by the RT.
Cool. So we do have some representation and influence, even if we don't even
know it. Good to hear.
However, the selection process is not mentioned here. How do these people
*become* RT members? Are they hand-picked by LSJ? White Wolf? Based on what
criteria? Am I, as a long time player and fair-minded member of the
community allowed any say in who is going to represent me/us on the RT? I
don't actually know if any of the local players are on the RT... they could
well be, though I doubt it. If there are members of the RT that are making
atrocious decisions or not representing the community to the best of their
ability, should the community not have a method of recalling those persons?
Again, these are not complaints... I'm honestly interested in the process
and seeing that it is or becomes democratic and representative of this
community as a whole. I hope anyone reading this is able to appreciate my
comments in that light.
> > (without endangering the lives or reputations of those
> > currently enlisted on it :)
>
> Not being on it, I am certain my life and reputation are only
> endangered by my own actions. I'm sure most of the members
> would feel the same.
I'm sure you're safe :)
Cheers,
WES
The Lasombra
> However, the selection process is not mentioned here.
> How do these people *become* RT members?
At the time LSJ was invested with his "Official NetRep" title
by Wizards of the Coast (1997), there was no requirement from them
to have a Rules Team. He mentioned that there would be one, and
what their function and protocol would be, but has never publicly
declared how they were selected.
> Are they hand-picked by LSJ?
One would assume so.
> White Wolf?
Probably not, as the Rules Team probably simply continued from
the one LSJ started back in 1997.
> Based on what criteria?
No clue.
> Am I, as a long time player and fair-minded member of the
> community allowed any say in who is going to represent
> me/us on the RT?
Nope.
> I don't actually know if any of the local players are on
> the RT... they could well be, though I doubt it. If there
> are members of the RT that are making atrocious decisions
> or not representing the community to the best of their
> ability, should the community not have a method of recalling
> those persons?
No errata without representation, eh? Not too likely.
This is another reason the Michigan Jyhad League moved from
a mailing list to a rules making body.
> Again, these are not complaints... I'm honestly interested
> in the process and seeing that it is or becomes democratic
> and representative of this community as a whole. I hope anyone
> reading this is able to appreciate my comments in that light.
One might assume that volunteers resumes are always being accepted,
but without knowing the qualifications, it is highly unlikely
new positions are being created.
There are very few people I would trust with the job, and some
of them will never agree with the others, so I don't know that
there is much point in nominating them, but I will since every
one likes top 10 lists so much.
In no particular order:
James Coupe
Josh Duffin
Peter Bakija
Noal McDonald
James McClellan
Rob Treasure
Paul Echevarri
Christian Herro
Rob Grau
R. David Zopf
Jasper Phillips, if he was still playing
R. Brian Smith, if he was still playing
Mark Langsdorf, if he was still playing
I wouldn't do it, myself, and for the same reasons
I wouldn't be a playtester. I like to play the game.
I have no interest in building it, creating it, or
arguing about how it should change.
You build the blocks, I'll build the tower with the blocks
and then knock them down and play again.
lehrbuch
> Ah, but that was just an effect given by cards,
> This is different, because a rulings addendum
> just makes that silly scenario (allies entering in torpor)
> more and more actual, not just a very corner case.
It is exactly the same. The scenario is still limited to corner case
situations, presented by card text. It is not "the end of the game as
we know it". All that the ruling does is define what the card text "as
a vampire" means.
There is not an abundance of methods that can get allies to torpor,
for example: the only two methods which (I think) a Rafastio Ghoul can
get to torpor are through playing Burst of Sunlight or Rutor's Hand.
A SCSatyr can also use mummify, kraken's kiss, ashes to ashes, breath
of the dragon, and possibly body of sun (it needs to gain some life
somehow though) to get to torpor. We are still only talking about a
limited number of situations.
Finally, as an ally in torpor is useless, players aren't going to go
out of their way to put their own allies there. Therefore it won't
happen very often. All that the ruling does is severely limit the
effective use of some cards with some allies (to the extent that those
combos probably won't be played), and alleviates judges from having to
come up with ad hoc rulings on the use of these ally/card combos.
That is, it seems a perfectly adequate ruling to me.
* lehrbuch
Robert Goudie
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
> However, the selection process is not mentioned here. How do these people
> *become* RT members? Are they hand-picked by LSJ? White Wolf? Based on what
> criteria?
I seem to recall LSJ answering this at some point by saying that one criteria is
that a person must display a deep understanding of the rules. For him, I
suppose that if you ask questions on the newsgroup that make it clear that you
understanding how the game works now, he'd possibly take notice.
-Robert
Sten During
lehrbuch wrote:
>
> Finally, as an ally in torpor is useless, players aren't going to go
Hmm, anyone up to creating the sick Auktarsis Persecution deck? :)
Sten During
berni...@attbi.comholdlespam
Allow me to pose a different question.
When was the last time a new person has been selected for the Rules
Team? That should be a fair question.
BernieTime
Noal McDonald
> It is exactly the same. The scenario is still limited to corner case
> situations, presented by card text. It is not "the end of the game as
> we know it". All that the ruling does is define what the card text "as
> a vampire" means.
>
> There is not an abundance of methods that can get allies to torpor,
There's something even else people are glossing over. Since vampires
don't burn when they go to zero blood, an ally may play a card "as a
vampire" that costs all of their life and they won't burn until the
card resolves.
Therefore, Blood Brother Ambush can play Burning Wrath and it will
resolve before they burn. The !Brujah stock just went up a notch.
Regards,
Noal
LSJ
No.
The ally, having zero life, is burned. This (the burning) is not
a part of the resolution of the card.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CD5859B.2DA85831%40white-wolf.com
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
CurtAdams
>Noal McDonald wrote:
>> Therefore, Blood Brother Ambush can play Burning Wrath and it will
>> resolve before they burn. The !Brujah stock just went up a notch.
>No.
>The ally, having zero life, is burned. This (the burning) is not
>a part of the resolution of the card.
So the ally suffers damage as a vampire but pays costs as an
ally? Now that's an arbitrary split.
LSJ
>
> vte...@white-wolf.com
> >Noal McDonald wrote:
> >> Therefore, Blood Brother Ambush can play Burning Wrath and it will
> >> resolve before they burn. The !Brujah stock just went up a notch.
>
> >No.
>
> >The ally, having zero life, is burned. This (the burning) is not
> >a part of the resolution of the card.
>
> So the ally suffers damage as a vampire but pays costs as an
> ally?
No.
He pays the cost as a vampire (life for blood), per card text.
Then, completely unrelated to the resolution of the play of the
card, he finds himself empty (and an ally) and burns.
Sorrow
> > ally?
> No.
> He pays the cost as a vampire (life for blood), per card text.
> Then, completely unrelated to the resolution of the play of the
> card, he finds himself empty (and an ally) and burns.
Please, then, revisit your response to jspektr in the thread for
"[LSJ] Logical Inconsistencies -- call to revise". In an example
that jspektr put forth regarding Talaq and a fictional card, you
said that Talaq would not burn and would actually get the two
life. That answer is completely counter to the answer you give
above.
Which is it?
Sorrow
---
"I am Jack's wasted life."
- Narrator
Peter Muto
> "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > Sometimes, (though not necessarily in your case) players don't
> > understand the problems, inconsistencies, and complexities well enough to
> > appreciate how a new ruling actually improves a situation.
>
> Agreed... so it might be prudent to enlighten the gentle newsfolk as to why
> the change was deemed necessary in the first place. I don't actually care
> that much about this ruling either way but it seems to me that an
> explanation might be useful in allaying a lot of the concerns some of us are
> having.
Yes I realize the inherent paradox of what I am about to say but here
I go:
I think the problem with Jyhad (and is only going to make it worse) is
the newsgroup. I think the newsgroup is slowly destroying the game. If
LSJ and WW want to improve the game, they should categorically stop
posting anything here.
The newsgroup doesn't even come close to representing Jyhad players;
it's literally about 20 loud, opinionated people who have been posting
for a longtime, and dislike change from their own little insular
group. The more LSJ/WW listens to the NG, the worse Jyhad will get.
"let's listen to the NG and just do whatever they want;" that's not
good for the game since we're 100% biased and have no legitamcy to
make decisions about the rules of the game. You don't let baseball
players change the rules of the games as they see fit, in their goal
to win they'd ruin the game.
>
> Of course, LSJ has already stated that this is going back under review, so
> the point my be moot.
Case in point.
I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
going to re-consider?
<snip>
Peter Muto
VEKN Prince of Toronto
The Lasombra
> I think the problem with Jyhad (and is only going to make it worse) is
> the newsgroup. I think the newsgroup is slowly destroying the game. If
> LSJ and WW want to improve the game, they should categorically stop
> posting anything here.
> > Of course, LSJ has already stated that this is going back under review, so
> > the point my be moot.
> Case in point.
> I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
> but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
> ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
> going to re-consider?
Not at all.
Exactly one person said: "Wouldn't using X fix the problem as
welll without conflicting with the RPG background?"
This is the only reason it was put back on for review. People
complaining here have almost no chance of getting things changed.
Logical, complete, and accurate alternatives presented in a positive
light have every chance of getting things changed.
Derek Ray
megatr...@yahoo.com (Peter Muto) mumbled something about:
>Case in point.
>I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
>but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
>ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
>going to re-consider?
Nope. Because one person named Josh Duffin suggested a reasonable
alternative that seems to work better under the current version, LSJ is
going to resubmit it to the Rules Team for review.
This doesn't mean that it will be changed back. Only that it is under
review. If the Rules Team finds that Josh's idea doesn't work better
after all, then it won't be changed.
Witness the "7/7" rulings; a lot more people on the NG were a lot louder
about things with a lot better reasons than now, and nothing got changed
back or even put on the RT list for review. But of course, nobody
suggested reasonable alternatives then that seemed to work better,
either... perhaps this suggests a correlation.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Wes
>
> Yes I realize the inherent paradox of what I am about to say but here
> I go:
>
> I think the problem with Jyhad (and is only going to make it worse) is
> the newsgroup. I think the newsgroup is slowly destroying the game. If
> LSJ and WW want to improve the game, they should categorically stop
> posting anything here.
I disagree. It's a useful tool that most players either have immediate
access to or can access the rulings etc by proxy through a Prince/friend
whatever. It's not perfect granted, but it is a useful means of
disseminating information to as many players as possible. I'm not sure how
else this can be done. White Wolf's web page would of course be the best
place to post any changes to the game, which it already does. I don't know
if their forums are used in much the same way as this one is as I no longer
go there.
It must make LSJ's job harder having to check all the posts that are made
here, and the amount of posts seems to have increased since this time last
year. Mostly due to all the new cards no doubt but also due to new players
(which is great).
I feel bad for LSJ having to re-answer questions over and over again but I
disagree that he should ignore this venue altogether. If the job is too
much, maybe 'deputies' should be appointed :) I really don't know...
> The newsgroup doesn't even come close to representing Jyhad players;
> it's literally about 20 loud, opinionated people who have been posting
> for a longtime, and dislike change from their own little insular
> group.
I don't think that this newsgroup is always going to represent anything
approaching consensus, hence my original questions and concerns, but given
that it's the best we have... I think that opinions posted here should count
for something (and they do apparently).
But you're probably right that we shouldn't consider "20 loud, opinionated
people" as being representative of the V:tES community as a whole.
> The more LSJ/WW listens to the NG, the worse Jyhad will get.
I am confident that LSJ and White Wolf are able to properly filter signal
from noise. Though sadly there has been a *lot* more noise lately...
> "let's listen to the NG and just do whatever they want;" that's not
> good for the game since we're 100% biased and have no legitamcy to
> make decisions about the rules of the game. You don't let baseball
> players change the rules of the games as they see fit, in their goal
> to win they'd ruin the game.
Games can change though. I imagine that baseball is very different from what
it started as...
I'd actually like to see the players have more input into the progress of
the game (within reason). From the amount of player-designed cards that show
up in this very newsgroup, it's obvious that we have a fountain of
creativity that is mostly untapped. I personally hope that many of those
cards never see the light of day but I love that we have a community here
who is creative and brave enough to share cool card ideas.
> > Of course, LSJ has already stated that this is going back under review,
so
> > the point my be moot.
>
> Case in point.
> I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
> but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
> ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
> going to re-consider?
The people complaining are not all idiots though (Derek may beg to differ :)
and they do have a vested interest in this game as consumers. I don't
particularly care about this ruling... or most of them actually. I'm just
worried that the company might not listen to the people who are complaining.
It seems that they are though, so I'm mostly satisfied.
Cheers,
WES
CurtAdams
>I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
>but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
>ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
>going to re-consider?
This newsgroup - and a few similar things scattered about - is the
forum where people who care enough about Jyhad to discuss it
communicate. There's no better way to know what serious Jyhad
players think. You can't make decisions based on unknown opinions.
There's no reason to expect the general population differs much
from interested parties on this subject anyway.
Derek Ray
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) mumbled something about:
>players think. You can't make decisions based on unknown opinions.
>There's no reason to expect the general population differs much
>from interested parties on this subject anyway.
Actually, the general population wants even LESS to see their kick-ass
cool combos broken, and can be expected to have even LESS concern for
the balance of the game, and far MORE personal bias. You don't really
want to hear what the general population thinks. =)
Ben Peal
> Yes I realize the inherent paradox of what I am about to say but here
> I go:
>
> I think the problem with Jyhad (and is only going to make it worse) is
> the newsgroup. I think the newsgroup is slowly destroying the game. If
> LSJ and WW want to improve the game, they should categorically stop
> posting anything here.
> The newsgroup doesn't even come close to representing Jyhad players;
> it's literally about 20 loud, opinionated people who have been posting
> for a longtime, and dislike change from their own little insular
> group. The more LSJ/WW listens to the NG, the worse Jyhad will get.
> "let's listen to the NG and just do whatever they want;" that's not
> good for the game since we're 100% biased and have no legitamcy to
> make decisions about the rules of the game. You don't let baseball
> players change the rules of the games as they see fit, in their goal
> to win they'd ruin the game.
The ally-playing-a-card-as-a-vampire ruling going back to the Rules Team
for further review may set a very irritating precedent, as it may give
players even further conviction to rant and rave on the newsgroup in the
hopes of getting their way. Mind you, the decision to bring it back to
the Rules Team was for very sound reasons (and the result of a very sound
suggestion by Josh Duffin), but this forum has no shortage of people who
feel they have very sound arguments and suggestions.
At the same time, part of the reason why this game is alive is due to
the efforts, comments, and suggestions made by the players of this game
over the past several years. Remember that LSJ himself started off as
just a player of this game, making his own efforts, comments, and
suggestions. White Wolf has been very receptive to all of this, and it's
been for the better.
Also, we should understand that the root cause of this particular issue
with allies is the fact that the rules and card texts regarding allies
playing cards requiring disciplines were written very haphazardly by WotC,
and subsequent similar cards printed by White Wolf tried to maintain as
much consistency as possible. As such, the problems with the way allies
have been handled have been perpetuated to the point where LSJ and the
Rules Team realized that a mechanically sound way of handling things was
needed. The recent ruling regarding allies playing cards requiring
disciplines is very mechanically sound, though unsatisfactory on a
representational level. Hopefully a better alternative can be found, but
in the interim, I'm happy to have more sound mechanics.
We should also understand that LSJ, the Rules Team, and White Wolf really
are making a serious and beneficial effort to fix the problems of the game
they've inherited. From Day One under WotC, the game suffered many major
and minor problems with mechanics, development, playtesting, rules, and
errata. White Wolf and LSJ did not create these problems, but they've
undergone the very monumental task of fixing them. Sometimes they have to
break the bone again in order to set it properly, but they do consider
every step very seriously before making a decision.
Do continue to post comments and suggestions here. LSJ reads every single
one of them. Just be polite and non-insulting about it, especially since
how you present an idea can make all the difference in how well it's
received and used.
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
lactamaeon
> I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
> but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
> ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
> going to re-consider?
I have never seen LSJ reconsider anything just because people didn't
like it (I admit I haven't always been the most studious reader of
this group). Sometimes, though, they've either pointed out an actual
contradiction between two or more rulings and/or suggested a 'better'
ruling. When someone puts forth a (logically) strong argument or
suggestion, LSJ listens, as he should.
Lactamaeon.
CurtAdams
> LSJ and the
> Rules Team realized that a mechanically sound way of handling things was
> needed. The recent ruling regarding allies playing cards requiring
> disciplines is very mechanically sound, though unsatisfactory on a
> representational level. Hopefully a better alternative can be found, but
> in the interim, I'm happy to have more sound mechanics.
Hard to judge "sound", but they certainly appear confusing, judging
by the number of different interpretations that have shown up here.
It seems almost nobody reading the rule interprets it as LSJ thinks
it's written. Decks with ally-as-vampire shticks will obviously
generate a lot of judging headaches for some time.
Actually, isn't Burst of Sunlight the only card which generates a "what
the hell is going on" reaction? While there's a lot of confusion about
what happens with other cards, I'm not stressed out on whether
Tariq burns himself playing a Theft on his last life. Mummify sending
an ally to "torpor" doesn't burn me up either - nobody wrapped up
like that is going to get anything done until rescued :-)
Wes
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> This is the information that has been made public, and is quoted
> from the FAQ section 4.1.1.
>
> "The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain
> anonymous. The RT has members from different play groups from a
> total of three continents. The protocol is discussion and playtesting
> among the members of the playgroups and reports of findings via e-mail.
> The topics for discussion are suggested by the Net.Rep (LSJ). Ideas for
> playtesting are culled from the newsgroup (by LSJ) and/or suggested by
> the members of the RT. Members of the RT are also free to add their own
> topics of discussion (well, not at first since we had a full itenerary
> already, but once the initial fixes were out of the way).
I just wanted to highlight those last two sentences because a lot of people
aren't paying attention...
If I am reading this correctly, LSJ *does not* have the authority to 'make a
ruling' or 'change a ruling'. He submits the issue to the RT and by
consensus they decide together what to do about it.
Therefore LSJ is merely one of the people on the RT, not the person who
decides what does what.
It seems a lot of people are asking LSJ to reconsider. If the above
information is accurate, then it isn't really up to LSJ and he has already
done as much as he can to get this changed, ie putting it back on the list
for review.
While I still don't like the idea of secret rules teams, I'm confident that
this issue will be resolved in a fair and sensible manner.
Cheers,
WES
jspektr
I too see the inconsistancy. If damage resolution is part of the
period when an ally is a vampire if it involves agg. damage (Burst of
Sunlight) then damage resolution is part of the same period of being a
vampire for the purposes of having zero blood. Otherwise you're
claiming that the "as a vampire" rule applies only to some cards and
not to others, with no logical distinction.
Other, similar commments are in the thread being referred to by Sorrow
above.
JSpektr
LSJ
The two are not in conflict.
In jspektr's question, regarding an action card's effect, the cost and the resolution were applied simultaneously (as per normal for actions).
In [attribution snipped]'s question, regarding a strike card's effect, the
cost and resultion were not (as per normal for strikes).
CurtAdams
>Imho, the bizarre rulings are more than one,
>most notably the recent "effects in addition to combat ends"
>( i untap with majesty during combat but i take damage from catatonic fear
>after it)
>"atomic bloodhunt", among the others.
I don't understand that either. If LSJ wants to make a change to weaken
the Combat Ends + something cards, why make errata for
Majesty to save it from the effect? If any CE card needed toning down,
it's Majesty. So we get errata to pump Majesty up? I though errata
was only for when it was really necessary? If we're to see errata to
pump up underpowered or rooked-over cards, let's see it for Chainsaw,
Concealed Weapon, or Guard Duty before Majesty, please.
Joshua Duffin
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
>
> "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > This is the information that has been made public, and is quoted
> > from the FAQ section 4.1.1.
> > ***No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus.***
>
> I just wanted to highlight those last two sentences because a lot of
people
> aren't paying attention...
>
> If I am reading this correctly, LSJ *does not* have the authority to 'make
a
> ruling' or 'change a ruling'. He submits the issue to the RT and by
> consensus they decide together what to do about it.
I don't think that's quite right. LSJ, as netrep and design
official, is from WW's point of view solely responsible for
VTES rules. He's chosen to "share" his authority by having a
Rules Team, and RT rulings are produced (as described above)
by consensus. But LSJ is also empowered on his own to give
rulings and errata, and does so on the newsgroup sometimes for
things that aren't "involved" enough to require RTRs.
Josh
with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun
LSJ
>
> nospam_a...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >Imho, the bizarre rulings are more than one,
> >most notably the recent "effects in addition to combat ends"
> >( i untap with majesty during combat but i take damage from catatonic fear
> >after it)
> >"atomic bloodhunt", among the others.
>
> I don't understand that either. If LSJ wants to make a change to weaken
> the Combat Ends + something cards, why make errata for
> Majesty to save it from the effect? If any CE card needed toning down,
> it's Majesty. So we get errata to pump Majesty up? I though errata
> was only for when it was really necessary? If we're to see errata to
> pump up underpowered or rooked-over cards, let's see it for Chainsaw,
> Concealed Weapon, or Guard Duty before Majesty, please.
Majesty has no errata.
It is ruled that the untap effect is not delaying to some point
after combat but rather occurs when the effect resolves. This is
not errrata, as you probably knew already.
For reference, note that the RTR 01-MAT-2002 is composed of
different sections and note which one the Majesty ruling is in.
Curevei
>I go:
>
>I think the problem with Jyhad (and is only going to make it worse) is
>the newsgroup. I think the newsgroup is slowly destroying the game. If
>LSJ and WW want to improve the game, they should categorically stop
>posting anything here.
>The newsgroup doesn't even come close to representing Jyhad players;
>it's literally about 20 loud, opinionated people who have been posting
>for a longtime, and dislike change from their own little insular
>group. The more LSJ/WW listens to the NG, the worse Jyhad will get.
>"let's listen to the NG and just do whatever they want;" that's not
>good for the game since we're 100% biased and have no legitamcy to
>make decisions about the rules of the game. You don't let baseball
>players change the rules of the games as they see fit, in their goal
>to win they'd ruin the game.
Has it gotten worse since the founding of the newsgroup?
Feedback is a good thing. What alternative would you suggest for getting it?
>> Of course, LSJ has already stated that this is going back under review, so
>> the point my be moot.
>
>Case in point.
>I don't like the ruling, it may help or harm the game in the long run,
>but just because LITERALLY like 10-20 people on the NG don't like the
>ruling out of THOUSANDS of jyhad players across the world, LSJ is
>going to re-consider?
Listening to one person who makes sense is valuable. You seem to think LSJ
doesn't ignore most of what is said for some reason. Not sure why.
CurtAdams
>Majesty has no errata.
>It is ruled that the untap effect is not delaying to some point
>after combat but rather occurs when the effect resolves. This is
>not errrata, as you probably knew already.
Well, let me put it this way. How does TT slice the resolution
of Rotschreck in half but not the resolution of Majesty?
In both cases the resolution of a single card produces 2
effects.
LSJ
>
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
> >Majesty has no errata.
>
> >It is ruled that the untap effect is not delaying to some point
> >after combat but rather occurs when the effect resolves. This is
> >not errrata, as you probably knew already.
>
> Well, let me put it this way. How does TT slice the resolution
> of Rotschreck in half but not the resolution of Majesty?
> In both cases the resolution of a single card produces 2
> effects.
Rotschreck works differently. It ends combat and then, after ending
combat, it moves the victim to torpor.
Noal McDonald
>>>> So the ally suffers damage as a vampire but pays costs as an
>>>> ally?
>>> No.
>>> He pays the cost as a vampire (life for blood), per card text.
>>> Then, completely unrelated to the resolution of the play of the
>>> card, he finds himself empty (and an ally) and burns.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> The two are not in conflict.
How so? I quote an earlier reply of yours:
"Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire."
Vampires do not burn from paying the cost of a card, even if it brings
them to zero blood. If you literally pay the cost "as a vampire" as
you state above, you would not burn until after the card resolves.
You can't have it both ways. You have to take the good with the bad.
This was probably the single biggest blunder the rules team has ever
made. In attempting to "clear up inconsistencies," you've made bigger
ones. If there are better alternatives, I wish they had been
considered before implementing this mess. Hopefully, this garbage will
all officially get cleared up by June 1 so that this won't screw up
Origins.
That said, I wouldn't want to be the poor sap that shows up with a
Rafastio Ghoul/Burst of Sunlight deck. We may need to make sure
restraints are available.
Noal
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD82374...@white-wolf.com...
> CurtAdams wrote:
> > Well, let me put it this way. How does TT slice the resolution
> > of Rotschreck in half but not the resolution of Majesty?
> > In both cases the resolution of a single card produces 2
> > effects.
>
> Rotschreck works differently. It ends combat and then, after ending
> combat, it moves the victim to torpor.
Why is the movement to torpor "after" ending combat rather
than "inseparable from" ending combat? Is it because the
card text is split into sentences there? I hadn't thought
that sentence breaks were enough to grant interruptability
of effects.
Josh
bring out the bushmill's and bring on the band
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> So the ally suffers damage as a vampire but pays costs as an
> >>>> ally?
> >>> No.
> >>> He pays the cost as a vampire (life for blood), per card text.
> >>> Then, completely unrelated to the resolution of the play of the
> >>> card, he finds himself empty (and an ally) and burns.
> >>
> >> That answer is completely counter to the answer you give above.
> >> Which is it?
> >
> > The two are not in conflict.
>
> How so? I quote an earlier reply of yours:
>
> "Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire."
This is true. He pays the blood cost as a vampire. He could not pay such
a cost as an ally, since allies do not have blood.
> Vampires do not burn from paying the cost of a card, even if it brings
> them to zero blood. If you literally pay the cost "as a vampire" as
> you state above, you would not burn until after the card resolves.
There is no "burn this vampire if he is empty" effect of the card,
correct.
There is a rule, independent of the play of the card, that says that
allies without life are burned.
> You can't have it both ways. You have to take the good with the bad.
True. But, in this case, the "two ways" are not imcompatible. You take
the good (playing cards that require disciplines and blood costs)
with the bad (burning when empty, since you're an ally).
> This was probably the single biggest blunder the rules team has ever
> made.
I'm happy to hear that you find the bar to be so high, since this,
as blunders go, is very small.
> In attempting to "clear up inconsistencies," you've made bigger
> ones.
I have yet to see any pointed out.
> If there are better alternatives, I wish they had been
> considered before implementing this mess. Hopefully, this garbage will
> all officially get cleared up by June 1 so that this won't screw up
> Origins.
Of course, I'd be much happier if all the best alternatives were
considered at time 0, that way they'd have been implemented and
no changes/rulings/clarifications would ever need to be made.
LSJ
No. It's because it's been ruled that way. [LSJ 29-JUL-1998]
tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CD91142...@white-wolf.com...
> Noal McDonald wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > >>>> So the ally suffers damage as a vampire but pays costs as an
> > >>>> ally?
> > >>> No.
> > >>> He pays the cost as a vampire (life for blood), per card text.
> > >>> Then, completely unrelated to the resolution of the play of the
> > >>> card, he finds himself empty (and an ally) and burns.
> > >>
> > >> That answer is completely counter to the answer you give above.
> > >> Which is it?
> > >
> > > The two are not in conflict.
> >
> > How so? I quote an earlier reply of yours:
> >
> > "Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire."
>
> This is true. He pays the blood cost as a vampire. He could not pay such
> a cost as an ally, since allies do not have blood.
>
> > Vampires do not burn from paying the cost of a card, even if it brings
> > them to zero blood. If you literally pay the cost "as a vampire" as
> > you state above, you would not burn until after the card resolves.
>
> There is no "burn this vampire if he is empty" effect of the card,
> correct.
>
> There is a rule, independent of the play of the card, that says that
> allies without life are burned.
Ok, but there's no a separate rule that makes blood on vampires
to be burned in excess of his/her current capacity ?
Then , if the ally is playing "as a vampire of a 3 capacity" a theft of
vitae, would not
the blood (life) he gains in excess of 3 to be burnt immediatedly?
Thanks,
Emiliano
<snip>
LSJ
As previously answered, no.
It drains off after being gained (by which point it's life, not blood,
and by which point the resolution of the card is ended so he's no
longer treated as a vampire by anything).
Noal McDonald
> There is a rule, independent of the play of the card, that says that
> allies without life are burned.
There is also a rule that says that torpor is resevered for wounded
vampires. If your bent on breaking other rules to take phrase "as a
vampire" to an extreme, why not break that one, too? After all, if it
pays like a vampire and resolves like a vampire, then it should wait
until the card has resolved before burning like an ally.
I still don't see why any of this is necessary. The allies in question
say that they "play the card as a vampire" but say nothing about
resolving it like one. I'd be happier if Mummify had no effect when
played by allies other than a wasted strike and Charming Lobby could
only be used by the Herald to call votes that allies can call...which,
I think, is none.
>> This was probably the single biggest blunder the rules team has
ever
>> made.
>
> I'm happy to hear that you find the bar to be so high, since this,
> as blunders go, is very small.
Well...violating WoD canon in such a blatant fashion is a fairly
significant one to some. However, I'd be willing to suspect that the
7/7 rulings, which certainly had significant consequences, was never
considered to be a blunder by yourself. I also recognize that while we
didn't agree on a number of them, I did grant that they were the
appropriate result given your priorities when making rulings.
So...even if this is a very small blunder, it's still probably the
biggest one.
> Of course, I'd be much happier if all the best alternatives were
> considered at time 0, that way they'd have been implemented and
> no changes/rulings/clarifications would ever need to be made.
Sure. But then you'd have nothing to do with all your free time! :-D
Seriously, this ruling in particular doesn't feel like there was
sufficient brainstorming or debate on the issue. I could be wrong, but
you had to know this was likely to raise some people's ire. That alone
would give me pause to consider whether there may be better
alternatives.
Regards,
Noal
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > There is a rule, independent of the play of the card, that says that
> > allies without life are burned.
>
> There is also a rule that says that torpor is resevered for wounded
> vampires.
Which rule would that be?
The rules state that Torpor is for wounded vampires.
They do not say that it is reserved only for them.
(I had this conversation not too long ago with someone on the
Rustwurk forum, BTW, if you feel like checking it out.)
> If your bent on breaking other rules to take phrase "as a
> vampire" to an extreme, why not break that one, too? After all, if it
> pays like a vampire and resolves like a vampire, then it should wait
> until the card has resolved before burning like an ally.
No. It is, as I've said, an ally.
Only the resolution of the card play, as I've said, treats it
like a vampire. It doesn't, as I've said, become a vampire until
the card play is resolved.
[...]
> would give me pause to consider whether there may be better
> alternatives.
I'll be happy to hear them.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CD82374...@white-wolf.com...
> > > CurtAdams wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, let me put it this way. How does TT slice the resolution
> > > > of Rotschreck in half but not the resolution of Majesty?
> > > > In both cases the resolution of a single card produces 2
> > > > effects.
> > >
> > > Rotschreck works differently. It ends combat and then, after ending
> > > combat, it moves the victim to torpor.
> >
> > Why is the movement to torpor "after" ending combat rather
> > than "inseparable from" ending combat? Is it because the
> > card text is split into sentences there? I hadn't thought
> > that sentence breaks were enough to grant interruptability
> > of effects.
>
> No. It's because it's been ruled that way. [LSJ 29-JUL-1998]
If you're referring to the post I think you are, you went on
to rule in that thread that Rotschreck *couldn't* be interrupted
by Pulled Fangs "or other combat cards". Seems like the question
of "can combat-ending effects be interrupted" has gone back
and forth a few times over the years. If I'm tracing it correctly,
it was:
29-Jul-1998: Can play "as combat is ending" effects against
S:CE but not against Rotschreck.
28-Sep-1998: Can't play "as combat is ending" effects against
S:CE, either.
20-Oct-2000: Can play "as combat is ending" effects against
S:CE, but still not Rotschreck.
1-May-2002: Can play "as combat is ending" effects against
Rotschreck too, and if a new combat is started or the current
one is continued, any "after combat" effects of the "end combat"
effect are canceled.
Frankly the current one may be the most consistent, since
if Rotschreck is a two-step process there's no obvious
reason for it to be exempt from interruption when S:CE's
resolution isn't. But there's no card-text reason (that I
can see) that Rotschreck's effects require more than one
step in the first place. Any chance the rules team could
revisit Rotschreck and consider making it uninterruptible
(like most other non-strike cards)?
Josh
pressed for time
Ulugh Beg
> "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
>
> > *become* RT members? Are they hand-picked by LSJ? White Wolf? Based on what
> > criteria?
>
> I seem to recall LSJ answering this at some point by saying that one criteria is
> that a person must display a deep understanding of the rules. For him, I
> suppose that if you ask questions on the newsgroup that make it clear that you
> understanding how the game works now, he'd possibly take notice.
>
> -Robert
Hi all, I think that the people can opine about the rules if the
changes concern strongly in the game, so, that the rules team take
care about our oppinions, well , the best form of make a game more
greater is with the help of the players that played it. So, we as
players must help if we think that a rule/s can do the game less
playabled. after , it is only a matter of rules team take our advise
as a help o sipmly as a critic.
Thatæ„€ all m8s.
Ulugh Beg ( upgrade tremre IC justicar )
spanish drunken guy.... HUm ;-)...
LSJ
> step in the first place. Any chance the rules team could
> revisit Rotschreck and consider making it uninterruptible
> (like most other non-strike cards)?
Rotschreck either ends combat with the target still ready or
it ends combat with the target not ready. The former (current)
situation allows Psyche!, for example. The latter situation
would allow Amaranth, for example.
The two have been considered, with the result that the current
method is the official one.
Xian
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > step in the first place. Any chance the rules team could
> > revisit Rotschreck and consider making it uninterruptible
> > (like most other non-strike cards)?
>
> Rotschreck either ends combat with the target still ready or
> it ends combat with the target not ready. The former (current)
> situation allows Psyche!, for example. The latter situation
> would allow Amaranth, for example.
Aha! I knew there was something I hadn't thought of. Of course, one
could tack on "Minion cards may not be played during this action after
Rotschreck has been played." But that almost certainly sets a bad
precedent, and is clunky.
> The two have been considered, with the result that the current
> method is the official one.
Makes sense.
I suspect that you would find more agreement from backstory-following
players if you allowed Amaranth in response to Rotschreck rather than
Psyche/TT, simply because it "makes sense" to be able to Amaranth
someone on their way to torpor (because of whatever reasons), but "it
doesn't make sense" to be able to use Celerity or Auspex (or whatever)
to avoid Rotschreck (and the going to torpor). But I've got no major
bones with it.
Keep up the good work. :)
Xian
CurtAdams
>Rotschreck either ends combat with the target still ready or
>it ends combat with the target not ready. The former (current)
>situation allows Psyche!, for example. The latter situation
>would allow Amaranth, for example.
>The two have been considered, with the result that the current
>method is the official one.
I can understand why you don't want Amaranth after Rotschreck.
But, if Rotshreck is uninterruptible (regardless of internal order,
if any), you can't Amaranth because combat is over and Amaranth
is a combat card.
LSJ
>
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
> >Rotschreck either ends combat with the target still ready or
> >it ends combat with the target not ready. The former (current)
> >situation allows Psyche!, for example. The latter situation
> >would allow Amaranth, for example.
>
> >The two have been considered, with the result that the current
> >method is the official one.
>
> I can understand why you don't want Amaranth after Rotschreck.
> But, if Rotshreck is uninterruptible (regardless of internal order,
> if any), you can't Amaranth because combat is over and Amaranth
> is a combat card.
That argument is unteneble.
Whenever a vampire is unreadied (sent to torpor), combat ends.
By the argument above, Amaranth would never be playable.
vermillian
> Noal McDonald wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > >>>> So the ally suffers damage as a vampire but pays costs as an
> > >>>> ally?
> > >>> No.
> > >>> He pays the cost as a vampire (life for blood), per card text.
> > >>> Then, completely unrelated to the resolution of the play of the
> > >>> card, he finds himself empty (and an ally) and burns.
> > >>
> > >> That answer is completely counter to the answer you give above.
> > >> Which is it?
> > >
> > > The two are not in conflict.
> >
> > How so? I quote an earlier reply of yours:
> >
> > "Play like a vampire, pay like a vampire."
>
> This is true. He pays the blood cost as a vampire. He could not pay such
> a cost as an ally, since allies do not have blood.
>
> > Vampires do not burn from paying the cost of a card, even if it brings
> > them to zero blood. If you literally pay the cost "as a vampire" as
> > you state above, you would not burn until after the card resolves.
>
> There is no "burn this vampire if he is empty" effect of the card,
> correct.
>
> There is a rule, independent of the play of the card, that says that
> allies without life are burned.
Hmmm... isn't there a rule that says allies treat agg damage as normal?
~SV
lactamaeon
> > allies without life are burned.
>
> Hmmm... isn't there a rule that says allies treat agg damage as normal?
>
> ~SV
Yes.
If you refer to Rafastio Ghoul playing Burst of Sunlight, he is not
being treated as an ally, and therefore does not treat the damage as
agg.
Be a man, wear a flak jacket. Or just die to your opponents Undead
Strength and forget about this whole Torpor thing. Or use Rotschrek.
Etc. In rare, bizzare corner-cases, an ally can go to torpor. Dang.
Lactamaeon.
tetragrammaton
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ab8u6h$g8jje$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
> news:ab7es...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > This is the information that has been made public, and is quoted
> > > from the FAQ section 4.1.1.
>
> > > ***No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus.***
> >
> > I just wanted to highlight those last two sentences because a lot of
> people
> > aren't paying attention...
> >
> > If I am reading this correctly, LSJ *does not* have the authority to
'make
> a
> > ruling' or 'change a ruling'. He submits the issue to the RT and by
> > consensus they decide together what to do about it.
>
what "consensus" actually means here?
That a decision about a ruling(or errata) must
have the "consensus" of *all* the members of RT
to become actual?
Thanks in advance
Emiliano, v.ekn Prince of Rome
<snip>
Joshua Duffin
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:URNC8.37770$5k4.8...@twister2.libero.it...
> > > "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > This is the information that has been made public, and is quoted
> > > > from the FAQ section 4.1.1.
> >
> > > > ***No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus.***
> Forgive my bad english here:
> what "consensus" actually means here?
> That a decision about a ruling(or errata) must
> have the "consensus" of *all* the members of RT
> to become actual?
Yes, that's what consensus means: all the people involved have
to agree to achieve consensus. (Strict unanimity may or may
not be required to use the word, but it does imply at least a
general agreement.)
Whether that's exactly what was meant by the person supplying
the information about the workings of the Rules Team I can't
answer, but it is the usual meaning of consensus.
Josh
implied consent
CurtAdams
>CurtAdams wrote:
>> I can understand why you don't want Amaranth after Rotschreck.
>> But, if Rotshreck is uninterruptible (regardless of internal order,
>> if any), you can't Amaranth because combat is over and Amaranth
>> is a combat card.
>That argument is unteneble.
>Whenever a vampire is unreadied (sent to torpor), combat ends.
>By the argument above, Amaranth would never be playable.
No, Amaranth assumes a "going to torpor" state, because it forbids playing it
while in that state. It must be played on a minion in the "going to torpor"
state or the restriction would be meaningless - once the target has actually
gone, the playing vampire can no longer be in "going" state.
The exactitude of entering torpor isn't explicit because it's very intuitive.
If you wanted to write up explicit steps while respecting that V:tES isn't
supposed to have interupts, you'd come up with:
"Go to torpor" or "Enters torpor" event put a vampire immediately in the "going
to torpor" state. Cards may be played in that state (I don't know if you need
a restriction to cards that affect torporization or if that is adequately
covered by current timing rules). Once there's nothing else to play, the
vampire actually enters torpor.
Anyway, with Rotschreck, since it's not interruptable, the vampire would pass
into the "going to torpor" state simultaneously with the end combat. So the
vampire would be going to torpor outside of combat, as opposed to the standard
"going to torpor" while still in combat.
Terminology isn't exact, since it's all so intuitive, but I think the current
cards and rules would work if "enters torpor" refers to changing to the "going
to torpor" state while "go to torpor" actually puts a minion there. That would
be a terminology shift, though; the current interpretation of "go to torpor"
involves entering the implicit "going to torpor" phase. This would make
Rotschreck explictly non-Amaranthable. I haven't looked through the cards to
make sure that shift doesn't screw something else up.