Grotesque Q.
js_vtes
----------
Grotesque
Camarilla. Tremere slave. Non-unique.
When played, choose a location you control not chosen for a Grotesque.
Remove this Grotesque from the game if you no longer control the
location.
----------
So, if you have no locations (or they're already selected for another
Grotesque), this doesn't affect them at all, right?
That is, there's no reason you CAN'T play a Grotesque without a
location to choose for it. Or is there...?
The Lasombra
>----------
>Grotesque
>Camarilla. Tremere slave. Non-unique.
>When played, choose a location you control not chosen for a Grotesque.
>Remove this Grotesque from the game if you no longer control the
>location.
>----------
>So, if you have no locations (or they're already selected for another
>Grotesque), this doesn't affect them at all, right?
Wrong.
>That is, there's no reason you CAN'T play a Grotesque without a
>location to choose for it. Or is there...?
There is.
If there is no location, there cannot be a Grotesque.
LSJ
Correct. The Grotesque enters play. You fail to choose a location. The Grotesque
removes itself from the game.
floppyzedolfin
> From the Heirs to the Blood preview:
>
> ----------
> Grotesque
> Camarilla. Tremere slave. Non-unique.
> When played, choose a location you control not chosen for a Grotesque.
> Remove this Grotesque from the game if you no longer control the
> location.
> ----------
I shouldn't start asking questions, but I can't stop the frenzy..
I play a Grotesque, and choose my Dummy Corporation.
* This Grotesque gets Banished.
- Is the Dummy Corporation still "chosen for a Grotesque" ?
- I influence out the same Grotesque again. Must I choose a location
not chosen for a Grotesque?
* The Grotesque is burned.
- Is the Dummy Corporation still "chosen for a Grotesque" ?
* A Grotesque is in my ash heap.
- If I play Possession on it, must I choose a location not chosen for
a Grotesque?
js_vtes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, gents. That's what I thought at first, but the wording
flummoxed me a bit. I suppose the lack of "you may" text kind of
implies "you must," but I wanted to be sure.
Vincent
> Thanks, gents. That's what I thought at first, but the wording
> flummoxed me a bit. I suppose the lack of "you may" text kind of
> implies "you must," but I wanted to be sure.
The "no longer" is also confusing.
If would have rather wrote :
When moved from your uncontrolled region in play, choose a location
you control not chosen for a controlled Grotesque. Remove this
Grotesque from the game if you can't choose a location or no longer
control the location.
I don't really know what the "played" mean in the original version
(you can't "play" a vampire. Or does it mean the game "plays" vampires
when there's enough blood on it to get out? Or is it the same thing as
"comes into play"?) What happens with a Chain of Command? Are they
"played"?
I don't know neither the designer intent. Maybe the Grotesque, even
banished, should still be bound to a location? The wording really
isn't clear.
cthulukitty
> Correct. The Grotesque enters play. You fail to choose a location. The Grotesque
> removes itself from the game.
This isn't a direct response to the question or LSJ's fairly obvious
clarification, but it seems to belong in this thread if anywhere. Why
does Grotesque use the language it does? Crypt cards are never played,
and if my memory serves there has never been a reference to playing
one on any other VTES card or rule. Why not use the language on
vampires like Anarch Convert rather than the novel and incorrect
language chosen? What does it mean to play a vampire? Does Undue
Influence at [qui] count? What about Chain of Command? What if a ready
vampire at full capacity is banished and then returns to play without
the controller doing anything?
It seems like the rules and wording of VTES keep becoming more and
more confusing and inconsistent, when simply sticking to the existing
language would be much clearer.
Jesse
floppyzedolfin
Crypt cards (at least vampire) are played.
http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510e3e7a18ef5686
Vincent
> Crypt cards (at least vampire) are played.http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510e3...
Sure, but by who? And when? (above is only the answer about their
state while they're in play).
LSJ
> Why does Grotesque use the language it does? Crypt cards are never played,
Because crypt cards are played.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510e3e7a18ef5686
> and if my memory serves there has never been a reference to playing
> one on any other VTES card or rule. Why not use the language on
> vampires like Anarch Convert rather than the novel and incorrect
> language chosen?
Brevity, correctness, and consistency.
> What does it mean to play a vampire?
To put it anew into play (i.e., to introduce it to the history stream of the
game). Playing it in the usual fashion at the end of the influence phase
(assuming it wasn't there from a Banishment) or to play it from a state in which
it has no memory. Examples given per the list you provide below.
Same as the circumstances under which Incriminating Videotape can choose a
minion.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a4b73bb13668619f
> Does Undue
> Influence at [qui] count?
Yes, assuming no prior history (e.g., no Banishment)
> What about Chain of Command?
Yes, assuming no prior history.
> What if a ready
> vampire at full capacity is banished and then returns to play without
> the controller doing anything?
Xe has done something: xe returned the vampire to play.
But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating Videotape
rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen selection.
> It seems like the rules and wording of VTES keep becoming more and
> more confusing and inconsistent, when simply sticking to the existing
> language would be much clearer.
Because he doesn't switch if Banished (or contested, if the language is used on
a unique crypt card).
Vincent
> On 12/17/09 7:57 , cthulukitty wrote:
>
> > What does it mean to play a vampire?
>
> To put it anew into play (i.e., to introduce it to the history stream of the
> game). Playing it in the usual fashion at the end of the influence phase
> (assuming it wasn't there from a Banishment) or to play it from a state in which
> it has no memory. Examples given per the list you provide below.
>
> Same as the circumstances under which Incriminating Videotape can choose a
>
> But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating Videotape
> rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen selection.
>
So, from what I understand :
On Dec 16, 9:18 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I play a Grotesque, and choose my Dummy Corporation.
> * This Grotesque gets Banished.
> - Is the Dummy Corporation still "chosen for a Grotesque" ?
Yes (same as Incrimidating video tape). Small doubt still because the
Grotesque isn't in play anymore.
> - I influence out the same Grotesque again. Must I choose a location
> not chosen for a Grotesque?
No (same as Incrimidating video tape). The Grotesque isn't played.
Furthermore, it keeps its choice of location.
> * The Grotesque is burned.
> - Is the Dummy Corporation still "chosen for a Grotesque" ?
No. There is no more Grotesque that has chosen it (but it's a little
conflicting with the Banished Grotesque)
> * A Grotesque is in my ash heap.
> - If I play Possession on it, must I choose a location not chosen for
> a Grotesque?
Yes, because it's a "new" vampire. It's played at that time.
LSJ
> On Dec 17, 2:55 pm, LSJ<vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/09 7:57 , cthulukitty wrote:
>>
>>> What does it mean to play a vampire?
>>
>> To put it anew into play (i.e., to introduce it to the history stream of the
>> game). Playing it in the usual fashion at the end of the influence phase
>> (assuming it wasn't there from a Banishment) or to play it from a state in which
>> it has no memory. Examples given per the list you provide below.
>>
>> Same as the circumstances under which Incriminating Videotape can choose a
>> minion.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a4b7...
>>
>> But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating Videotape
>> rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen selection.
>>
>
> So, from what I understand :
>
> On Dec 16, 9:18 am, floppyzedolfin<floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I play a Grotesque, and choose my Dummy Corporation.
>> * This Grotesque gets Banished.
>> - Is the Dummy Corporation still "chosen for a Grotesque" ?
>
> Yes (same as Incrimidating video tape). Small doubt still because the
> Grotesque isn't in play anymore.
Correct.
>> - I influence out the same Grotesque again. Must I choose a location
>> not chosen for a Grotesque?
>
> No (same as Incrimidating video tape). The Grotesque isn't played.
> Furthermore, it keeps its choice of location.
Correct.
>> * The Grotesque is burned.
>> - Is the Dummy Corporation still "chosen for a Grotesque" ?
>
> No. There is no more Grotesque that has chosen it (but it's a little
> conflicting with the Banished Grotesque)
Correct (no conflict, or at least no more than having Banished things remember
more than burned things).
>> * A Grotesque is in my ash heap.
>> - If I play Possession on it, must I choose a location not chosen for
>> a Grotesque?
>
> Yes, because it's a "new" vampire. It's played at that time.
Correct.
cthulukitty
> > Why does Grotesque use the language it does? Crypt cards are never played,
>
> Because crypt cards are played.
>
It's totally awesome when innocuous rulings serve as stealthy rules
changes.
> > What does it mean to play a vampire?
>
> To put it anew into play (i.e., to introduce it to the history stream of the
> game).
Is this the same for library cards? If so, then I can DI a weapon
brought into play by Concealed Weapon. If not, the rules are
inconsistent.
> Xe has done something: xe returned the vampire to play.
> But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating Videotape
> rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen selection.
So bringing a vampire into play counts as playing the vampire some of
the time and doesn't count at other times. Doing the exact same thing
in situation X and Y either constitutes playing a card or doesn't. How
is this consistent?
Jesse
LSJ
> LSJ answered some of my questions:
>>> Why does Grotesque use the language it does? Crypt cards are never played,
>>
>> Because crypt cards are played.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510e...
>
> It's totally awesome when innocuous rulings serve as stealthy rules
> changes.
>
>
>>> What does it mean to play a vampire?
>>
>> To put it anew into play (i.e., to introduce it to the history stream of the
>> game).
>
> Is this the same for library cards?
Sure.
> If so, then I can DI a weapon
> brought into play by Concealed Weapon. If not, the rules are
> inconsistent.
No. DI only works on cards played "in the normal fashion". That has been a
long-standing inconsistency, if you want to label it that. Either way, it's the
rule.
>> Xe has done something: xe returned the vampire to play.
>> But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating Videotape
>> rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen selection.
>
> So bringing a vampire into play counts as playing the vampire some of
> the time and doesn't count at other times. Doing the exact same thing
> in situation X and Y either constitutes playing a card or doesn't. How
> is this consistent?
As described.
See Videotape.
Kevin M.
> cthulukitty wrote:
>> What if a ready vampire at full capacity is banished and
>> then returns to play without the controller doing anything?
>
> Xe has done something: xe returned the vampire to play.
> But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating
> Videotape rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen
> selection.
Will the new rulebooks have this wacky 'Xe'/'Xer' language?
If so, great. If not, and it will continue to refer to Methuselahs
as female and minions as male, why not use that language here?
Why the need for dual-styles, especially one so confusing and
unusual, and especially given our non-native English speakers?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> cthulukitty wrote:
>>> What if a ready vampire at full capacity is banished and
>>> then returns to play without the controller doing anything?
>>
>> Xe has done something: xe returned the vampire to play.
>> But in this case, to maintain consistency with the Incriminating
>> Videotape rulings, the Grotesque maintains his previously-chosen
>> selection.
>
> Will the new rulebooks have this wacky 'Xe'/'Xer' language?
Since there is no wacky Xe/Xer language, the answer is inescapably "no".
If you meant "will the new rulebooks use this 'xe' language?" the answer is
still no, but at least it's a question.
> If so, great. If not, and it will continue to refer to Methuselahs
> as female and minions as male, why not use that language here?
Cause there's no footnote here, and here is a place of discussion (exchanging
ideas) rather than a place of dissemination like a rulebook is.
> Why the need for dual-styles, especially one so confusing and
> unusual, and especially given our non-native English speakers?
It isn't confusing.
Further, it is easily explained in the rare instances when someone is confused
by it.
Chris Berger
> On 12/18/09 10:57 , Kevin M. wrote:
>
>
> > Will the new rulebooks have this wacky 'Xe'/'Xer' language?
>
> Since there is no wacky Xe/Xer language, the answer is inescapably "no".
>
> If you meant "will the new rulebooks use this 'xe' language?" the answer is
> still no, but at least it's a question.
>
> > Why the need for dual-styles, especially one so confusing and
> > unusual, and especially given our non-native English speakers?
>
> It isn't confusing.
> Further, it is easily explained in the rare instances when someone is confused
> by it.
I find it a little confusing, but also awesome. Please keep using it,
especially if it annoys people... =)
Daneel
> On 12/18/09 10:57 , Kevin M. wrote:
>> Will the new rulebooks have this wacky 'Xe'/'Xer' language?
>
> Since there is no wacky Xe/Xer language, the answer is inescapably "no".
Since the above language is clearly wacky, the above answer is moot.
> If you meant "will the new rulebooks use this 'xe' language?" the answer
> is still no, but at least it's a question.
The two questions mean the same thing - merely one of them omits an
obvious descriptor.
>> If so, great. If not, and it will continue to refer to Methuselahs
>> as female and minions as male, why not use that language here?
>
> Cause there's no footnote here, and here is a place of discussion
> (exchanging ideas) rather than a place of dissemination like a rulebook
> is.
[OFF]
Also, on the forums you sometimes get real life examples with real
people whose gender is determined. Then sometimes those examples
become partly hypothetical, and start involving people of unknown
gender.
In a rulebook you can be consistent in your reference because all
examples are hypothetical.
[/OFF]
>> Why the need for dual-styles, especially one so confusing and
>> unusual, and especially given our non-native English speakers?
>
> It isn't confusing.
True - it is not confusing, but rather confusing and silly.
> Further, it is easily explained in the rare instances when someone is
> confused by it.
Which means you keep on having to explain something silly instead
of something useful on your time.
Xorry, X xouldn't xesist xhe xpportunity... :)
--
Regards,
Daneel
suoli
> Why the need for dual-styles, especially one so confusing and
> unusual, and especially given our non-native English speakers?
As a non-native English speaker I find gender-specific pronouns
confusing, unusual and arbitrary.
Aaron Clark
You know, English-speakers have been using the third-person plural
pronoun to refer to a person of an unknown gender for a long, long
time. Heck, there are English-speakers in America right now who use
it even when they know the person's gender, but the person's gender
has not been revealed in conversation.
We'll never create a new, gender neutral singular third-person pronoun
in English. There's no reason to since we have already have a
solution to the problem, even though the solution is not recognized by
prescriptive grammarians.
Malone
Hear, hear! Jane Austen uses gender-neutral singular "they" and she's
got more authority than a bushel of prescriptive grammarians. Still,
there are contexts where singular "they" could be confusing, e.g. when
there are both singular and plural antecedents to which it could
refer. For the rulebook, the feminine methuselah, masculine minion
device is really quite good.
Kevin M.
Sure, which is why the rulebook, cards, and online language
should be properly changed to gender-nonspecific wording,
as I suggested.
Juggernaut1981
Yes because other foreign languages aren't known for their gender-
termed oddities.
French has genders for inanimate objects implied by various particles.
Italian does similar and Chinese has the words for "he" and "she" have
identical pronunciation.
English is not alone in doing odd things with gender and things other
than self.
Blooded Sand
> ... is not alone in doing odd things with gender and things other
> than self.
/off
man, taken out of context that is one hell of a sentence.....
./off
Hyllan
I was confused for perhaps 5 minutes the first time I encountered the
use of xe in a ruling, but since then I've found it to be both more
elegant and more versatile than the use of s/he and his/her or random
he and she. Personally, I like it.
Aaron Clark
In French and other Indo-European languages, gender is not "implied."
It is an instrinsic part of each noun. Gender in that context is a
grammatical concept, even though it is often related to biological sex
when referring to animate things. Masculine, feminine, and neuter do
not necessarily mean male, female, and sexless, respectively.
English, too, has grammatical gender, which is often called natural
gender. Animate or named individuals have masculine or feminine
gender (he or she), while everything else has a neutral gender (it).
I understand that some languages, such as Farsi, do not have natural
gender. They use the same pronoun for both male and female people.
None of this is odd - it's just linguistics.
Other languages that have gender seem to be able to handle it more
maturely than modern English-speakers. Languages like French are
clearly and for the most part unapologetically sexist: the masculine
gender is used when the gender of the person is unknown or if there is
a mixed group of male and female people. It doesn't mean that the
societies using these languages are more or less sexist that those of
the Anglo-Saxon world; it just means they realize saying "he or
she" (or "xe/xer") every time is too annoying to be bothered with.
Kevin M.
> I was confused for perhaps 5 minutes the first time I encountered
> the use of xe in a ruling, but since then I've found it to be both more
> elegant and more versatile than the use of s/he and his/her or random
> he and she. Personally, I like it.
Masculine and feminine pronouns aren't random in VTES.
"...references to players (Methuselahs) will be feminine ("she" and
"her"), while references to minions (characters represented in the
game) will be masculine ("he" and "his"). These pronouns are not
intended to identify gender; this is merely a useful method to avoid
both cumbersome "he or she" constructions and ambiguity."
Which is why the wacky new-age speak isn't needed. It's just
another layer upon an already reasonable, defined layer.