[LSJ] Chaundice the Menace?
wumpus
Playing my latest DOM/POT rush deck with a Gargoyle prey last night,
we ran into a question that apparently hasn't been asked before: Can
Chaundice use both of xer (don't remember if the picture gives any
clues about gender, and the name doesn't help) prevents on the same
strike (or on multiple strikes in the same round)?
There were a few at the table who thought that the wording on xer
special 'Twice...up to 2...that round', might mean that xe had to use
the prevent in two separate rounds.
Example: In our first combat, Gustaphe Tore off a Signpost and then
Slammed Chaundice for 5 damage. We ruled that Chaundice could prevent
4 of it, using up all her prevent for the combat. Was that right?
(It kind of sucked for my deck, but I agreed that that was probably
the correct interpretation.)
Thanks,
Alex
-----
Chaundice
Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Twice each combat, Chaundice may
prevent up to 2 non-aggravated damage from the opposing minion's
strikes that round. Flight.
LSJ
> Howdy,
>
> Playing my latest DOM/POT rush deck with a Gargoyle prey last night,
> we ran into a question that apparently hasn't been asked before: Can
> Chaundice use both of xer (don't remember if the picture gives any
> clues about gender, and the name doesn't help) prevents on the same
> strike (or on multiple strikes in the same round)?
Yes.
> There were a few at the table who thought that the wording on xer
> special 'Twice...up to 2...that round', might mean that xe had to use
> the prevent in two separate rounds.
Doesn't seem defensible.
> Example: In our first combat, Gustaphe Tore off a Signpost and then
> Slammed Chaundice for 5 damage. We ruled that Chaundice could prevent
> 4 of it, using up all her prevent for the combat. Was that right?
Yes.
Kevin M.
> Howdy,
>
> Playing my latest DOM/POT rush deck with a Gargoyle prey last night,
> we ran into a question that apparently hasn't been asked before: Can
> Chaundice use both of xer (don't remember if the picture gives any
> clues about gender, and the name doesn't help) prevents on the same
> strike (or on multiple strikes in the same round)?
>
> There were a few at the table who thought that the wording on xer
> special 'Twice...up to 2...that round', might mean that xe had to use
> the prevent in two separate rounds.
>
> Example: In our first combat, Gustaphe Tore off a Signpost and then
> Slammed Chaundice for 5 damage. We ruled that Chaundice could prevent
> 4 of it, using up all her prevent for the combat. Was that right?
>
> (It kind of sucked for my deck, but I agreed that that was probably
> the correct interpretation.)
It's funny that I find this more difficult to read, with all the goofy
xe and xer crap than I do Spanish, or even the French I can
barely read. Wow, funny.
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 bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
J
> xe and xer crap than I do Spanish, or even the French I can
> barely read. Wow, funny.
xeally?
-- J
Rehlow
> wumpus wrote:
> > Howdy,
>
> > Playing my latest DOM/POT rush deck with a Gargoyle prey last night,
> > we ran into a question that apparently hasn't been asked before: Can
> > Chaundice use both of xer (don't remember if the picture gives any
> > clues about gender, and the name doesn't help) prevents on the same
> > strike (or on multiple strikes in the same round)?
>
> > There were a few at the table who thought that the wording on xer
> > special 'Twice...up to 2...that round', might mean that xe had to use
> > the prevent in two separate rounds.
>
> > Example: In our first combat, Gustaphe Tore off a Signpost and then
> > Slammed Chaundice for 5 damage. We ruled that Chaundice could prevent
> > 4 of it, using up all her prevent for the combat. Was that right?
>
> > (It kind of sucked for my deck, but I agreed that that was probably
> > the correct interpretation.)
>
> It's funny that I find this more difficult to read, with all the goofy
> xe and xer crap than I do Spanish, or even the French I can
> barely read. Wow, funny.
>
Maybe its because I am used to looking at code and variables, but xe
and xer don't cause me any problems at all. :)
Later,
~Rehlow
Chris Berger
> > Howdy,
>
> > Playing my latest DOM/POT rush deck with a Gargoyle prey last night,
> > we ran into a question that apparently hasn't been asked before: Can
> > Chaundice use both of xer (don't remember if the picture gives any
> > clues about gender, and the name doesn't help) prevents on the same
> > strike (or on multiple strikes in the same round)?
>
> > There were a few at the table who thought that the wording on xer
> > special 'Twice...up to 2...that round', might mean that xe had to use
> > the prevent in two separate rounds.
>
> > Example: In our first combat, Gustaphe Tore off a Signpost and then
> > Slammed Chaundice for 5 damage. We ruled that Chaundice could prevent
> > 4 of it, using up all her prevent for the combat. Was that right?
>
> > (It kind of sucked for my deck, but I agreed that that was probably
> > the correct interpretation.)
>
> It's funny that I find this more difficult to read, with all the goofy
> xe and xer crap than I do Spanish, or even the French I can
> barely read. Wow, funny.
>
Yeah, I see how it would be more difficult to read a post with 2 words
that you don't like as opposed to one entirely written in a language
that you don't speak.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Yeah, I see how it would be more difficult to read a post with 2 words
> that you don't like as opposed to one entirely written in a language
> that you don't speak.
Those aren't words!
Janne Hägglund
Tell that to Lewis Carrol, Shakespeare, and other coiners of neologisms.
ObVTES: How about a house rule that rewrites and reinstates the banned
Madness of the Bard? Instead of players having to speak in rhyming
sentences, the use of gendered pronouns is banned and results in pool loss.
"Xadness xof xe Xard".
HG
Matthew T. Morgan
> Tell that to Lewis Carrol, Shakespeare, and other coiners of neologisms.
Dear Lewis Carrol, Shakespeare, and other coiners of neologisms:
How are you? I am well, although it's hot here and I'm having trouble
getting enough players to play a decent game of futbol or vtes (the heat
shouldn't be a problem there though). How's being dead (except some of
you others)?
Anyway, I'm writing to tell you that "xe" and "xer" are not words.
Okay, got to go. Take it easy!
Yours sincerely,
Matt Morgan
wumpus
Heh. Funnily, this was kind of a misuse of xe/xer, as Chaundice
presumably has a definite gender. I just don't remember what it is.
And so when I had to supply a pronoun, I just used xe/xer as
essentially a variable which can take on either value. ('He or she'
isn't really appropriate when referring to a 'person' by name.) Can
you tell that I'm a programmer too?
Alex
LSJ
> On Jul 9, 7:12 am, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote:
> > Maybe its because I am used to looking at code and variables, but xe
> > and xer don't cause me any problems at all. :)
>
> Heh. Funnily, this was kind of a misuse of xe/xer, as Chaundice
> presumably has a definite gender. I just don't remember what it is.
?
This is exactly the proper circumstance to use xe/xer.
wumpus
I guess I'm kind of splitting hairs, but what I mean is that in the
case of a specific 'person' whose gender _should be known_ it's not
really proper to say 'he or she'. (If the person is present, then xe
is likely to take it as an insult.)
'He or she' is (to me) properly used when the person xerself is
indeterminate, and thus could be of either gender. E.g. 'the reader',
or (more controversially) 'the doctor'. In this case the variable was
the gender; in the usual case the variable is the person.
But then I can hardly claim to be an authority on the subject, so it's
entirely possible that both cases are 'proper'.
Alex
LSJ
> On Jul 9, 11:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 1:51 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 7:12 am, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote:
> > > > Maybe its because I am used to looking at code and variables, but xe
> > > > and xer don't cause me any problems at all. :)
>
> > > Heh. Funnily, this was kind of a misuse of xe/xer, as Chaundice
> > > presumably has a definite gender. I just don't remember what it is.
>
> > ?
> > This is exactly the proper circumstance to use xe/xer.
>
> I guess I'm kind of splitting hairs, but what I mean is that in the
> case of a specific 'person' whose gender _should be known_ it's not
> really proper to say 'he or she'. (If the person is present, then xe
> is likely to take it as an insult.)
Xey may be insulted that you cannot distinguish xeir gender, sure.
But that doesn't mean this the example is a misuse of the terms.
You used the terms properly. It is your inability to ascertain xeir
gender that offends, not your choice of words.
> 'He or she' is (to me) properly used when the person xerself is
> indeterminate, and thus could be of either gender. E.g. 'the reader',
> or (more controversially) 'the doctor'. In this case the variable was
> the gender; in the usual case the variable is the person.
It is also properly used in those cases, yes.
The antecedent has a gender but that gender is not known to the
speaker.
(This is also true in the case of Chaundice above.)
> But then I can hardly claim to be an authority on the subject, so it's
> entirely possible that both cases are 'proper'.
Correct.
Aaron Clark
http://www.braddolman.com/misc/xe.html
Isn't that interesting? So the next time someone asks you how to
pronounce the indefinite personal pronouns for a new millennium, you
can tell them.
(And in case you missed the irony, I did use "them" to refer to a
person of indefinite gender.)
LSJ
> I found out how xe and xer are supposedly pronounced: zee/zur
>
> http://www.braddolman.com/misc/xe.html
Yep.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fe5dd984823a4e52
Or xey (zay), xeir (xair) -- just replace "th" with "x" and the "th"
sound with the "x" sound when found at the beginning of a word (which
is the same as "z" sound).
they -> xey
them -> xem
their -> xeir
Daneel
wrote:
> 'He or she' is (to me) properly used when the person xerself is
> indeterminate, and thus could be of either gender. E.g. 'the reader',
> or (more controversially) 'the doctor'. In this case the variable was
> the gender; in the usual case the variable is the person.
Just use 'xe or xhe' instead. Retains the necessity to use multiple words
to express something most languages should be able to express with a
single word (e.g. hungarian uses a double-accented "o" - pronounced like
the u in burn - to mean both he and she; hard to get shorter than
that...),
while still being artificial and contrived like this Scottstalk "xe". Not
to mention the crude irony of the mind-bending redundancy...
I think I just opened a new chapter in the history of English! ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
salem
sometimes I wish newsgroups had a 'like' button...
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Janne Hägglund
Yes, very witty.
But you're still just reinstating your position ("xe" and "xer" are not
words), while not giving any reasons or explanations as to why it should be
so.
If they are not words, then what are they? Tigers? Space shuttles? Victory
points?
HG
Damnans
[...]
>> Maybe its because I am used to looking at code and variables, but xe
>> and xer don't cause me any problems at all. :)
>
> Heh. Funnily, this was kind of a misuse of xe/xer, as Chaundice
> presumably has a definite gender. I just don't remember what it is.
> And so when I had to supply a pronoun, I just used xe/xer as
> essentially a variable which can take on either value. ('He or she'
> isn't really appropriate when referring to a 'person' by name.) Can
> you tell that I'm a programmer too?
Why didn't you just use "it" instead of "xe", or "its" instead of "xer"?
From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it
Main Entry: it
Pronunciation: \?it, ?t\
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hit — more at he
Date: before 12th century
1 : that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of
[...] a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded <don't know
who it is>,[...]
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
LSJ
> > Heh. Funnily, this was kind of a misuse of xe/xer, as Chaundice
> > presumably has a definite gender. I just don't remember what it is.
> > And so when I had to supply a pronoun, I just used xe/xer as
> > essentially a variable which can take on either value. ('He or she'
> > isn't really appropriate when referring to a 'person' by name.) Can
> > you tell that I'm a programmer too?
>
> Why didn't you just use "it" instead of "xe", or "its" instead of "xer"?
Because, as he said, he presumes Chaundice has a gender. "It" in some
contexts implies lack of gender (or worse).
"Who is it?" is fine. "It's me" is fine, even though, presumably, "me"
knows xeir own gender.
But "It has flight" is less so.
In all those cases, though, "just" using the xey forms works just
fine, too.
Izaak
""Janne Hägglund"" <h...@iki.fi> schreef in bericht
news:m3hbk7a...@nothung.homelinux.net...
Definately space shuttles.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Because, as he said, he presumes Chaundice has a gender. "It" in some
> contexts implies lack of gender (or worse).
"It" might be more appropriate in the case of vampires (reproduce
asexually) and particularly Gargoyles (made of bits of other vampires).
Matthew T. Morgan
> But you're still just reinstating your position ("xe" and "xer" are not
> words), while not giving any reasons or explanations as to why it should be
> so.
They aren't in any dictionary as far as I can find. I'm using the same
criteria for why "aawasdfjfeiasd" isn't a word.
As for comparisons to Shakespeare, I could sneeze in a napkin and call it
art, but it still won't be, even though it may resemble a Jackson Pollock.
Daneel
>
> ""Janne Hägglund"" <h...@iki.fi> schreef in bericht
> news:m3hbk7a...@nothung.homelinux.net...
>> But you're still just reinstating your position ("xe" and "xer" are not
>> words), while not giving any reasons or explanations as to why it should
>> be
>> so.
>>
>> If they are not words, then what are they? Tigers? Space shuttles?
>> Victory
>> points?
>
> Definately space shuttles.
I'd go with the Victory points. 'cause then we can go into the discussion
about maximizing them. (There's an "x" in "maximize", so go figure!)
--
Regards,
Daneel
suoli
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Janne H?gglund wrote:
> > But you're still just reinstating your position ("xe" and "xer" are not
> > words), while not giving any reasons or explanations as to why it should be
> > so.
>
> They aren't in any dictionary as far as I can find. I'm using the same
> criteria for why "aawasdfjfeiasd" isn't a word.
I wonder how people communicated before dictionaries invented words.
(Also this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xe)
squidalot
Being a preparer of company financial statements, in the real world,
if I tried to use 'xer/xe' instead of his/her or even their I would be
sacked!
Totally in agreement with Matt 'My King' Morgan.
Janne Hägglund
> On Jul 10, 6:29 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10 heinä, 17:55, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Janne Hägglund wrote:
> > > > But you're still just reinstating your position ("xe" and "xer" are
> > > > not words), while not giving any reasons or explanations as to why it
> > > > should be so.
> >
> > > They aren't in any dictionary as far as I can find. I'm using the same
> > > criteria for why "aawasdfjfeiasd" isn't a word.
> >
> > I wonder how people communicated before dictionaries invented words.
> > (Also this:http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xe)
>
>
>
> Being a preparer of company financial statements, in the real world,
> if I tried to use 'xer/xe' instead of his/her or even their I would be
> sacked!
You'd also be sacked if you wrote: "Eat flaming death, yuppie scum!" Even
though those are perfectly legitimate and estabilished words certainly found
in dictionaries.
> Totally in agreement with Matt 'My King' Morgan.
If you agree with him, then I'll ask you as well: If "xe" and "xer" are not
words, then what are they?
HG
Amenophobis
> If you agree with him, then I'll ask you as well: If "xe" and "xer" are not
> words, then what are they?
I'd say they are quite unnecessary things to make things more complex
when there is no pressing need to.
Is "Zr" a word? How can "Xe" then be one? Just because someone says it
is a word, it doesn't automatically become one.
squidalot
> squidalot <hugh.angsees...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> You'd also be sacked if you wrote: "Eat flaming death, yuppie scum!" Even
> though those are perfectly legitimate and estabilished words certainly found
> in dictionaries.
>
> > Totally in agreement with Matt 'My King' Morgan.
>
> If you agree with him, then I'll ask you as well: If "xe" and "xer" are not
> words, then what are they?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Janne - that's true but xe/xer have a point in that in a set of
financial statements you generally refer to Directors - and as these
can be male or female it often involves a silly him/her himself/
herself etc
xe/xer are unnecessary constructs that are also an attempt to ber
overly politically correct. In the case of VTES for instance does it
really matter if we refer to female vampires as 'him' or the otherway
round? It doesn't cause any offence and it certainly makes it easier
to read!
Peter D Bakija
<ec1490b4-db68-4e2b...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Amenophobis <preac...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Is "Zr" a word? How can "Xe" then be one? Just because someone says it
> is a word, it doesn't automatically become one.
Well, no. But if people use it enough, it becomes one eventually.
See: Doh, Meh, Cromulent.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Amenophobis
> In article
> <ec1490b4-db68-4e2b-9251-4b37963bb...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Amenophobis <preache...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Is "Zr" a word? How can "Xe" then be one? Just because someone says it
> > is a word, it doesn't automatically become one.
>
> Well, no. But if people use it enough, it becomes one eventually.
>
> See: Doh, Meh, Cromulent.
>
> Peter D Bakija
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
Cromulent? Can you explain?
James Coupe
>Cromulent? Can you explain?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cromulant
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> xe/xer are unnecessary constructs that are also an attempt to ber
> overly politically correct.
There are a lot of unnecessary constructs in the English, then, esp.
since xe/xer are actually non-redundant (other forms of xe/xer
excepted, like hu and so on), instead of strictly redundant.
And, for what it's worth, I use xey/xeir to to "overly" numerically
correct.
In the case of VTES for instance does it
> really matter if we refer to female vampires as 'him' or the otherway
> round? It doesn't cause any offence and it certainly makes it easier
> to read!
Using exclamation points uncessarily doesn't make things easier to
read.
Referring to female vampires as him makes it harder to read, as it
confuses the reader.
suoli
> On 11 Jul., 15:01, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote:
>
> > If you agree with him, then I'll ask you as well: If "xe" and "xer" are not
> > words, then what are they?
>
> I'd say they are quite unnecessary things to make things more complex
> when there is no pressing need to.
"Xe" is more complicated to someone who is only used to gender
specific pronouns but way more logical and simpler for someone who
isn't. If English wants to be a lingua franca it needs to get with the
times :)
> Is "Zr" a word? How can "Xe" then be one? Just because someone says it
> is a word, it doesn't automatically become one.
That is pretty much exactly how it becomes a word. Yes, every word in
existence is completely made up.
Dark_Toz
Well, one could argue that "Zr" is a word as it is the symbol for
Zirconium and as such it is used all over the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium
/T
Matthew T. Morgan
> If English wants to be a lingua franca it needs to get with the
> times :)
What makes you think English wants that? I assure you it only desires to
continue to be an annoying, overly-complicated butthead of a language.
>> Is "Zr" a word? How can "Xe" then be one? Just because someone says it
>> is a word, it doesn't automatically become one.
>
> That is pretty much exactly how it becomes a word. Yes, every word in
> existence is completely made up.
That's completely wrong. Nothing becomes a word because "someone" says it
is. It becomes a word when it enters common usage, when a lot of someones
start using it. "Xe" and "xer" are not there yet. The only place I ever
see anyone using them is here and I've never heard anyone just casually
use them in speech.
Jason
> If you agree with him, then I'll ask you as well: If "xe" and "xer" are not
> words, then what are they?
a) Delusions of a fevered imagination
b) Nonesense gibberish
c) PC Horsesh*t
d) All of the above
aaaaaaaaaand GO!
jase