Incriminating Videotape
Spectro
When another minion takes de equipment of the minion with this one, does
he choose a new minion to cannot block him ?
[]'s
Spectro
Halcyan 2
>he choose a new minion to cannot block him ?
No, you cannot tape over the original incriminating footage. Think of it as a
normal CD as opposed to one of those rewritable CD-R's.
If the tape is stolen, then the chosen minion is unable to block the new
possessor of the tape (and can now block whoever used to have it). If the tape
is removed from play, its effect ends. [TOM 19960114]
Halcyan 2
reyda
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020701215208...@mb-cc.aol.com...
what if the possessor of the tape is banished then come back ?? =)
LSJ
If he is banished or contested, the effect continues once he is back
in play.
--
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/
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
wrote:
>reyda wrote:
>>
>> "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20020701215208...@mb-cc.aol.com...
>> > >When another minion takes de equipment of the minion with this one, does
>> > >he choose a new minion to cannot block him ?
>> >
>> >
>> > No, you cannot tape over the original incriminating footage. Think of it
>> as a
>> > normal CD as opposed to one of those rewritable CD-R's.
>> >
>> >
>> > If the tape is stolen, then the chosen minion is unable to block the new
>> > possessor of the tape (and can now block whoever used to have it). If the
>> tape
>> > is removed from play, its effect ends. [TOM 19960114]
>>
>> what if the possessor of the tape is banished then come back ?? =)
>
>If he is banished or contested, the effect continues once he is back
>in play.
>
It was my understanding that when the same minion re-entered play by
any means, it was not 'remembered' by cards associated with that
minion....contracts, etc etc.
So which is it?
T
LSJ
Depends. For contesting/banishment, it's the same vampire - he remembers
stuff and stuff remembers him. For burned, all is forgotten.
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
wrote:
>> >
>>
>> It was my understanding that when the same minion re-entered play by
>> any means, it was not 'remembered' by cards associated with that
>> minion....contracts, etc etc.
>>
>> So which is it?
>
>Depends. For contesting/banishment, it's the same vampire - he remembers
>stuff and stuff remembers him. For burned, all is forgotten.
>
So as a vampire re-enters play once the contest is given up or through
re-influencing him into play after a banishment, why is this different
from a new copy of the same vampire entering play from the
uncontrolled region?
T
LSJ
Because it is.
There is no reason other than "that's the way it should be", sorry.
LSJ
>
> Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:44:24 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> It was my understanding that when the same minion re-entered play by
> > >> any means, it was not 'remembered' by cards associated with that
> > >> minion....contracts, etc etc.
> > >>
> > >> So which is it?
> > >
> > >Depends. For contesting/banishment, it's the same vampire - he remembers
> > >stuff and stuff remembers him. For burned, all is forgotten.
> > >
> >
> > So as a vampire re-enters play once the contest is given up or through
> > re-influencing him into play after a banishment, why is this different
> > from a new copy of the same vampire entering play from the
> > uncontrolled region?
>
> Because it is.
>
> There is no reason other than "that's the way it should be", sorry.
P.S. You'll notice that the contested vampire returns to play with the
same Discipline cards, Corruption counters, etc. he had when he left.
Likewise a Banished vampire.
Contrast with a new copy of the same vampire.
See?
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:44:24 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It was my understanding that when the same minion re-entered play by
>> >> any means, it was not 'remembered' by cards associated with that
>> >> minion....contracts, etc etc.
>> >>
>> >> So which is it?
>> >
>> >Depends. For contesting/banishment, it's the same vampire - he remembers
>> >stuff and stuff remembers him. For burned, all is forgotten.
>> >
>>
>> So as a vampire re-enters play once the contest is given up or through
>> re-influencing him into play after a banishment, why is this different
>> from a new copy of the same vampire entering play from the
>> uncontrolled region?
>
>Because it is.
>
>There is no reason other than "that's the way it should be", sorry.
>
IOW, there is no reason. Ridiculous.
T
reyda
<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d24a74f.143571049@news...
> >> So as a vampire re-enters play once the contest is given up or through
> >> re-influencing him into play after a banishment, why is this different
> >> from a new copy of the same vampire entering play from the
> >> uncontrolled region?
> >
> >Because it is.
> >
> >There is no reason other than "that's the way it should be", sorry.
> >
>
> IOW, there is no reason. Ridiculous.
Heyheyhey !!
It's a CARD game pal ! why does you start with 7 cards in hand ? There's no
reason !! except that it's in the rules.
LSJ
No. The reason, as given, is because that's the way it should be.
You'll notice that the contested vampire returns to play with the
same Discipline cards, Corruption counters, etc. he had when he left.
Likewise a Banished vampire.
Contrast with a new copy of the same vampire.
See?
(Or is that you don't understand why a burned vampire who returns to
play doesn't keep the cards he had on him?)
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:35:29 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
>> >> So as a vampire re-enters play once the contest is given up or through
>> >> re-influencing him into play after a banishment, why is this different
>> >> from a new copy of the same vampire entering play from the
>> >> uncontrolled region?
>> >
>> >Because it is.
>> >
>> >There is no reason other than "that's the way it should be", sorry.
>> >
>>
>> IOW, there is no reason. Ridiculous.
>
>No. The reason, as given, is because that's the way it should be.
>
>You'll notice that the contested vampire returns to play with the
>same Discipline cards, Corruption counters, etc. he had when he left.
>
>Likewise a Banished vampire.
>
>Contrast with a new copy of the same vampire.
>
No that would BE the same vampire. Therefore it shouldn't be able to
take the same action it has already done that turn. Thats the big
issue for me.
There was another card interaction I was concerned with but I cant
remember what it was now. I thought it was Contract but that goes
into the ash heap as normal so it wasnt that.
T
LSJ
>
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:24:57 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:35:29 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> >> >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> So as a vampire re-enters play once the contest is given up or through
> >> >> re-influencing him into play after a banishment, why is this different
> >> >> from a new copy of the same vampire entering play from the
> >> >> uncontrolled region?
> >> >
> >> >Because it is.
> >> >
> >> >There is no reason other than "that's the way it should be", sorry.
> >> >
> >>
> >> IOW, there is no reason. Ridiculous.
> >
> >No. The reason, as given, is because that's the way it should be.
> >
> >You'll notice that the contested vampire returns to play with the
> >same Discipline cards, Corruption counters, etc. he had when he left.
> >
> >Likewise a Banished vampire.
> >
> >Contrast with a new copy of the same vampire.
> >
>
> No that would BE the same vampire. Therefore it shouldn't be able to
> take the same action it has already done that turn. Thats the big
> issue for me.
So I've noticed, as evidenced by my replies which directly address that issue.
> >See?
> >
> >(Or is that you don't understand why a burned vampire who returns to
> >play doesn't keep the cards he had on him?)
So again I point out: this vampire who would BE the same vampire in your
world no longer has the cards or counters on him that he had before. If
he's the same vampire (as you claim he would be in your world), why the
difference?
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
>> >
>> >(Or is that you don't understand why a burned vampire who returns to
>> >play doesn't keep the cards he had on him?)
>
>So again I point out: this vampire who would BE the same vampire in your
>world no longer has the cards or counters on him that he had before. If
>he's the same vampire (as you claim he would be in your world), why the
>difference?
>
Answer me this; if Arika leaves play and I influence another copy of
Arika out...is it Arika or not?
T
LSJ
It's Arika (card text).
But it's not the *SAME VAMPIRE*.
Arika with 10 Corruption counters leaves play and you influence another
copy of Arika out. How many Corruption counters does she have? The
SAME VAMPIRE would have the same number of Corruption counters and
the same Master: Discipline cards that had been played on him, etc.
Sheesh. You'd think this wasn't a painfully obvious parallel, as many
times as I've had to illustrate/explain it to you.
W. Mark Woodhouse
>Answer me this; if Arika leaves play and I influence another copy of
>Arika out...is it Arika or not?
>
If you desperately need a game-world justification...
Arika 1 & Arika 2 are the same vampire. However, once Arika 1 burns,
you have lost your influence over her, and she vanishes back into
obscurity and out of the Jyhad. You then begin to rebuild your
influence over her from scratch. When you influence out Arika 2, this
Arika is free of all the effects she gained/suffered while working for
you before - since she dropped out of the Jyhad entirely for a time,
and presumably you have influenced her through different means.
If, on the other hand, you seize control of Arika from another
Methuselah, she retains all prior effects, since she never left the
Jyhad.
Banishment is a special case.
Mark Woodhouse
Prince of Minneapolis
(who has been influenced and burned so many times he can't remember
anything...)
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
>>
>> Answer me this; if Arika leaves play and I influence another copy of
>> Arika out...is it Arika or not?
>
>It's Arika (card text).
>
>But it's not the *SAME VAMPIRE*.
>
>Arika with 10 Corruption counters leaves play and you influence another
>copy of Arika out. How many Corruption counters does she have? The
>SAME VAMPIRE would have the same number of Corruption counters and
>the same Master: Discipline cards that had been played on him, etc.
>
>Sheesh. You'd think this wasn't a painfully obvious parallel, as many
>times as I've had to illustrate/explain it to you.
>
Because you insist on mis-using this 'same vampire' terminology.
Arika is a vampire. Arika #2 is the same vampire by exact card name.
Whether she has the same # of corruption counters (0-10) or not is
immaterial to determining if she is the same vampire or not. Your
current logic scheme would have Bob with a red shirt one day, and a
blue shirt the next day, become a 'different person'.
T
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
All of which would make her the 'same vampire'. =]
T
LSJ
Since you keep ignoring the points I make, I have to assume that
you're not as dense as all that and that you're just being obstinate.
Nice for you. You know the official rules.
Play the game however you like with your house rules.
Joshua Duffin
<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d343a13.44239422@news...
Not at all. The color of the shirt isn't a permanent effect applied
to Bob the person. Corruption counters are. So are disciplines.
A closer analogy: If Bob had one of his arms cut off and then the
next day you saw Bob and he had both his arms, would you think he
was the same person?
Sure, that can't happen in real life, but it can in VTES. So, there
are rules for when a vampire is "the same" and when it's not. If
it becomes contested and then uncontested, it is "the same" and all
permanent effects applied to it persist. Same for becoming
uncontrolled and then recontrolled. But if a vampire is burned, no
effects survive its burning. It has effectively "left the game".
It can return to the game by being influenced out again (or other
means, eg Possession, Soul Gem), of course, because that's been
legal since day one. But that doesn't make it suddenly remember
its prior incarnation. It got burned and then came back. When
you die and return to life, your old life isn't very relevant
anymore.
Josh
my eyes! the goggles do nothing!
Xian
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:agc8g7$kd0or$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
Talonz wrote:
[something about Bob and shirts]
> Not at all. The color of the shirt isn't a permanent effect applied
> to Bob the person. Corruption counters are. So are disciplines.
> A closer analogy: If Bob had one of his arms cut off and then the
> next day you saw Bob and he had both his arms, would you think he
> was the same person?
Oh, man. Now I understand why they had to start wearing name tags when I
started working with my new department. They change clothes every day, unlike
my previous department!
:)
Xian
tired...stupid getting home at 1am (CST)
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
wrote:
>>
>> Because you insist on mis-using this 'same vampire' terminology.
>>
>> Arika is a vampire. Arika #2 is the same vampire by exact card name.
>>
>> Whether she has the same # of corruption counters (0-10) or not is
>> immaterial to determining if she is the same vampire or not. Your
>> current logic scheme would have Bob with a red shirt one day, and a
>> blue shirt the next day, become a 'different person'.
>
>Since you keep ignoring the points I make, I have to assume that
>you're not as dense as all that and that you're just being obstinate.
>
>Nice for you. You know the official rules.
>Play the game however you like with your house rules.
>
Nice deflection. Or rather, refusal to consider the point I was
making.
T
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Not at all. The color of the shirt isn't a permanent effect applied
>to Bob the person.
So if Arika had a leather jacket and the new one didn't, that would be
ok? You'd consider her the same vampire then? [grin]
>A closer analogy: If Bob had one of his arms cut off and then the
>next day you saw Bob and he had both his arms, would you think he
>was the same person?
>
Sure I would. I'd think it was a bloody miracle, but I know Bob when
I see him.
> But if a vampire is burned, no
>effects survive its burning. It has effectively "left the game".
>It can return to the game by being influenced out again
"It" being the same vampire you mean. =]
I'm not even sure why this 'ruling' is in place. It seems very silly
to me to differentiate between the old vamp and the new one. He/she
lost all his stuff already, so why is it important?
T
Joshua Duffin
<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d2e2beb.171705980@news...
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:44:22 -0400, "Joshua Duffin"
> <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Not at all. The color of the shirt isn't a permanent effect applied
> >to Bob the person.
>
> So if Arika had a leather jacket and the new one didn't, that would be
> ok? You'd consider her the same vampire then? [grin]
Wha? No, I'm saying that the color of Bob's shirt isn't
relevant to his continuity as a person. Likewise if Arika
has a Leather Jacket one turn and doesn't the next, that
doesn't reflect one way *or* the other about her continuity
as a vampire.
> >A closer analogy: If Bob had one of his arms cut off and then the
> >next day you saw Bob and he had both his arms, would you think he
> >was the same person?
>
> Sure I would. I'd think it was a bloody miracle, but I know Bob when
> I see him.
There are actually some more subtle points here about identity
and how we know who we and other people "really" are, or what
it means to "be" the same person.
The "cuts off his arm and it reappears" example may not be the
best one, since it doesn't address what we consider to be the
core or determining aspect of "selfness". Really, what that is
(I think) is memory: you "know" that you're the same person as
you were yesterday because you remember having been that person.
If Bob forgets everything he ever experienced, and instead has
a whole new set of memories - essentially remembering a different
life - is he the same person?
That's more or less what happens when a vampire is burned and
then the same vampire card is brought into the game: it has
"forgotten" everything it ever knew and now has "a new life".
That's the logic behind it not remembering anything that it
ever did, or anything that was ever done to it.
> > But if a vampire is burned, no
> >effects survive its burning. It has effectively "left the game".
> >It can return to the game by being influenced out again
>
> "It" being the same vampire you mean. =]
By title, yes. Like Renegade Garou and another Renegade Garou.
Or, if you object to that because Garou's not Unique, like
Demonstration. If a Demonstration is burned, another one can be
played and will remember nothing about what happened to the first
one. Likewise if an Arika is burned and a new one is played,
the new one doesn't know anything about what the old one did, or
had done to it. It's as if she's a new vampire.
> I'm not even sure why this 'ruling' is in place. It seems very silly
> to me to differentiate between the old vamp and the new one. He/she
> lost all his stuff already, so why is it important?
It sounds like you're interpreting what happens when a vampire
is burned backwards here. They "lose all their stuff" *because*
of this philosophy of burning; it's not just a coincidence. If
we used a "same vampire" philosophy of burning, then on the one
hand a new copy of the vampire *should* have all the equipment/
effects/etc., and on the other hand we'd probably think that it
shouldn't even be *possible* to influence out another copy: if
the first one is burned, that vampire is *dead*, right? And
there's no coming back from that.
If it *is* possible to bring out another copy of a vampire that's
been burned, the sensible way to think about it (from my point
of view) is either that that copy of the vampire card only
represents one of several identical vampires that you as a
Methuselah could recruit to your cause (in which case the new
one certainly shouldn't "remember" anything about the old one),
or that the original vampire never *really* died, it just "went
away" for a while - in which case the new copy should probably
remember *everything* about its "prior life".
Josh
reincarnation?
Andrew S. Davidson
>There are actually some more subtle points here about identity
>and how we know who we and other people "really" are, or what
>it means to "be" the same person.
>...
>That's more or less what happens when a vampire is burned and
>then the same vampire card is brought into the game: it has
>"forgotten" everything it ever knew and now has "a new life".
>That's the logic behind it not remembering anything that it
>ever did, or anything that was ever done to it.
Identity is a matter of definition. At one extreme you cannot step
into the same river twice and you are not the same person that you
were a minute ago. At the other, we are all part of the same
universe; linked in a shared identity.
CCGs tackle in this in various ways. Doomtown has the concept of
"card memory" which means that when a dude is returned to play, he
does remember his previous state changes - whether he is wanted, has a
different value, etc. Shadowfist, however, is like VTES, I suppose.
If card leaves play even for an instant then it is washed clean of any
prior effects. The Doomtown method is more naturalistic but requires
a bit more bookkeeping. Either method works. You mainly get problems
when you move from one game to another - these fundamental principles
are rarely explained clearly and so tend to cause confusion if they
are not intuitive.
Andrew