Uncontrolled region questions
Andrew
1) Assuming a player has adequate space at the table, is there any rule on
how the vampires in the uncontrolled region must be laid out?
Specifically, is placing 4 uncontrolled vampires in a 2x2 grid legally the
same thing as placing all four of them in a row? (Assuming that all the
vampires are clearly together in the uncontrolled region)
2) Is there any prohibition against rearranging the order of vampires in
the uncontrolled region during play? I am not aware of one, but doing so
would be detrimental to a player watching specific card in the uncontrolled
region with the intention of playing a Brainwash.
Thank you,
--Andrew
pd...@lightlink.com
Andrew wrote:
> I have two questions about the uncontrolled region.
>
> 1) Assuming a player has adequate space at the table, is there any rule on
> how the vampires in the uncontrolled region must be laid out?
> Specifically, is placing 4 uncontrolled vampires in a 2x2 grid legally the
> same thing as placing all four of them in a row? (Assuming that all the
> vampires are clearly together in the uncontrolled region)
Why would it make a difference?
> 2) Is there any prohibition against rearranging the order of vampires in
> the uncontrolled region during play? I am not aware of one, but doing so
> would be detrimental to a player watching specific card in the uncontrolled
> region with the intention of playing a Brainwash.
I'm not so much sure how it would do that. You don't know what vampires
are face down, so identifying one by the place it has in the
uncontrolled reigon is unlikely to be helpful, unless it has pool
counters on it, in which case you know how many pool counters are on it
and can identify it by those.
Like, what kind of situation are you envisioning here where the layout
and/or order of uncontrolled vampires are identified? Using Banishment
or something?
-Peter
LSJ
> 1) Assuming a player has adequate space at the table, is there any rule on
> how the vampires in the uncontrolled region must be laid out?
No.
> Specifically, is placing 4 uncontrolled vampires in a 2x2 grid legally the
> same thing as placing all four of them in a row? (Assuming that all the
> vampires are clearly together in the uncontrolled region)
Yes.
> 2) Is there any prohibition against rearranging the order of vampires in
> the uncontrolled region during play? I am not aware of one, but doing so
> would be detrimental to a player watching specific card in the uncontrolled
> region with the intention of playing a Brainwash.
No.
d
> Andrew wrote:
> > 2) Is there any prohibition against rearranging the order of vampires in
> > the uncontrolled region during play?
> Like, what kind of situation are you envisioning here where the layout
> and/or order of uncontrolled vampires are identified? Using Banishment
> or something?
>
> -Peter
Here's a situation:
Your prey influences out 2 vampires and then starts drawing from his
crypt. You want to Brainwash the latest card drawn from the crypt - not
the two he didn't bother transferring to in the first place.
pd...@lightlink.com
d wrote:
> Here's a situation:
> Your prey influences out 2 vampires and then starts drawing from his
> crypt. You want to Brainwash the latest card drawn from the crypt - not
> the two he didn't bother transferring to in the first place.
Yeah, the more I thought about it, the more instances I could think of
where it would make some sort of difference--banish someone, get
someone new, etc.
-Peter
Andrew
news:1149507580.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Andrew wrote:
>> 1) Assuming a player has adequate space at the table, is there any
>> rule on how the vampires in the uncontrolled region must be laid out?
> Why would it make a difference?
>
Beats me, but I had someone in a tournament inform me that uncontrolled
vampires must be laid out in a row.
>
> Like, what kind of situation are you envisioning here where the layout
> and/or order of uncontrolled vampires are identified? Using Banishment
> or something?
>
You already posted that you thought of some, but one that I was thinking
of was putting brainwash on a uncontrolled vampire that someone was
Governing onto and then pulling the blood off (in the hopes that the
other uncontrolled vampires were too big to govern to)
--Andrew
pd...@lightlink.com
Andrew wrote:
> Beats me, but I had someone in a tournament inform me that uncontrolled
> vampires must be laid out in a row.
Very strange.
> You already posted that you thought of some, but one that I was thinking
> of was putting brainwash on a uncontrolled vampire that someone was
> Governing onto and then pulling the blood off (in the hopes that the
> other uncontrolled vampires were too big to govern to)
Heh. Yeah, in retrospect, the shuffling of your uncontrolled vampires
certainly can have an effect on something. That Govern trick is also a
good one.
-Peter
librarian
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > Beats me, but I had someone in a tournament inform me that uncontrolled
> > vampires must be laid out in a row.
>
> Very strange.
>
That's what playing in Los Angeles will do to you. It's the smog I
tell you, the smog...
best -
chris
Robert Goudie
Let me add that this was probably just one player's pet peeve. Andy
didn't ask a judge about this. I assume Andy didn't care enough to do
so and just humored the anal-retentive player.
In the past, I've seen players request that other players don't do odd
things with their pool or torpored vamps that could cause some
confusion to the game state but that's certainly different. Afterall, I
can't think of many ways to get confused by a face-down crypt card--no
matter where it is located.
-Robert
Churchy La Femme
LSJ wrote:
> > 2) Is there any prohibition against rearranging the order of vampires in
> > the uncontrolled region during play? I am not aware of one, but doing so
> > would be detrimental to a player watching specific card in the uncontrolled
> > region with the intention of playing a Brainwash.
>
> No.
So I can Banish a vamp into an uncontrolled region with 2 other cards
in it and then you can shuffle the order and I can try to use Gisella's
special on one of them randomly instead of the one I Banished?
Fred Scott
news:1149711953.6...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I don't understand the question. Gisella's special has nothing to do
with Banishment, per se. You can always see how much blood a vampire
has on it. I believe you can also see out-of-play cards played on it
and such but perhaps LSJ will correct me if that notion's wrong.
The owner of the uncontrolled vampires can randomize all he likes, but
these things will still show and give away identity to whatever extent
they do. That is, if two different vampires each have two blood on them
or each have an out-of-play Blood Doll on them, you couldn't tell which
is which - but you could definitely tell them from vampires that have
no blood/no Blood Dolls and so forth. And you _must_ know how much blood
an uncontrolled vampire has on it in order to know how much Gisella will
spend. No, she does not get one randomly and then spend blood or let
the action fizzle if she doesn't happen to have enough blood to pay the
cost. She points to the one she wants, knowing how much blood it has
and thus how much blood it will cost her (and she could not attempt
and action that she couldn't pay for).
If the vampire you banish happens to have zero blood on it and there are
two other bloodless vampires in your prey's uncontrolled area (and
assuming all three vampires have no other cards/counters/whatever on
them to give their identity away), then it's true that your chances of
getting the one you just banished is just one in three.
Fred
Churchy La Femme
Fred Scott wrote:
> If the vampire you banish happens to have zero blood on it and there are
> two other bloodless vampires in your prey's uncontrolled area (and
> assuming all three vampires have no other cards/counters/whatever on
> them to give their identity away), then it's true that your chances of
> getting the one you just banished is just one in three.
Sorry, did not clarify, but this is what I meant. Seems rather retarded.
pd...@lightlink.com
> Sorry, did not clarify, but this is what I meant. Seems rather retarded.
On one hand, it seems kinda sketchy that you can't do what you want to
the Banished vampire, yeah. But on the other hand, there are no rules
at all as to how you arrange, re-arrange, or shuffle the vampires in
your uncontrolled reigon. Yeah, most people just lay out their 4
vampires in a row and leave them there. But there is nothing preventing
anyone from moving them around every 30 seconds if they want. Or
picking up the 4 of them, shuffling them, and laying them down at
random without looking. Like, once there are counters on them, you need
to leave the counters on them (due to rules governing adding and
removing pool counters from uncontrolled vampires). But if your
vampires are without pool counters, there is nothing at all to prevent
you from picking them up and shuffling them. And I can't really imagine
a viable way to make such a rule. Like, I don't regularly shuffle my
uncontrolled vampires, but when I deal out my initial crypt, I'll
reorder the cards in some way to make remembering which ones are which
at a glance while they are face down eaiser--maybe I put them in
numerical order, or I put duplicates next to each other, or I put
matched clans next to each other or something, which strikes me as a
completely reasonable thing to do. And I can't imagine a rule that
prevents someone from shuffling their uncontrolled vampires after a
Banishment that doesn't also prevent perfectly standard crypt
organization procedures.
So if you Banish a vampire to your prey's uncontrolled reigon, and
there is no way to identify it (i.e. it doesn't have any pool counters
or attatched cards), and there are some other uncontrolled vampires,
they can freely mix them up. As there is nothing to prevent them from
doing so.
-Peter
James Coupe
Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> writes:
>In the past, I've seen players request that other players don't do odd
>things with their pool or torpored vamps that could cause some
>confusion to the game state but that's certainly different. Afterall, I
>can't think of many ways to get confused by a face-down crypt card--no
>matter where it is located.
Potentially, a player might think it was a contested vampire. Though
usually contesting a vampire is unusual and commented on by players, so
it's not like it's that easy.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Churchy La Femme
> So if you Banish a vampire to your prey's uncontrolled reigon, and
> there is no way to identify it (i.e. it doesn't have any pool counters
> or attatched cards), and there are some other uncontrolled vampires,
> they can freely mix them up. As there is nothing to prevent them from
> doing so.
Still rather idiotic. In a strategy game I have to luckily pick the
correct card that I just affected when it was face up to affect it
again. Maybe I watched closely while you mixed them up and got it
right, or I noticed that the card stock from the one I banished was DS
and easy to pick out from the CE cardstock of the others...just stupid.
Harrod uses his ability and that's the one I want to Brainwash, but
wait you get to shuffle first. Crock of shit.
Fred Scott
"Churchy La Femme" <lordpor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1149733450.5...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>> So if you Banish a vampire to your prey's uncontrolled reigon, and
>> there is no way to identify it (i.e. it doesn't have any pool counters
>> or attatched cards), and there are some other uncontrolled vampires,
>> they can freely mix them up. As there is nothing to prevent them from
>> doing so.
>
> Still rather idiotic. In a strategy game I have to luckily pick the
> correct card that I just affected when it was face up to affect it
> again. Maybe I watched closely while you mixed them up and got it
> right,
If your prey allowed you to do that, then he's idiotic. He has every
right to turn his back or do whatever it takes to make sure you aren't
in a position to follow his movements. It isn't a shell game. It's
shuffling cards, pure and simple.
> or I noticed that the card stock from the one I banished was DS
> and easy to pick out from the CE cardstock of the others...just stupid.
You shouldn't be looking at cardstock at all. This is called cheating.
One reason I always use opaque card protectors is so people like you
don't get any ideas to try using cardstock information (or unsusual
light or dark spots and certainly not a "Jyhad" card back notation)
to counter randomization. Fortunately, most Jyhad players know better
and have better manners about such things.
> Harrod uses his ability and that's the one I want to Brainwash, but
> wait you get to shuffle first. Crock of shit.
Who told you that Harrod's ability was to determine which card you
could Brainwash? If you use Harrod's ability, you get to know what
one card is your prey's uncontrolled area that you may not have already
known about. If it has identifying counters on it, you'll continue
to know which card it is and you can use that knowledge to help you
Brainwash. Otherwise you don't. That's all his ability is, no more.
I think Harrod winds up being a pretty good card anyway. Tell me how
good Gwendolyn's special is.
Fred
Andrew
news:1149710241....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Let me add that this was probably just one player's pet peeve. Andy
> didn't ask a judge about this. I assume Andy didn't care enough to do
> so and just humored the anal-retentive player.
Bob is right, it wasn't a big deal so I humored the player.
Actually, there could have been any number of ulterior motives since the
game in question was part of the qualifer. Asserting dominance, projecting
that he knew more about the rules, having some fun with the new guy,
etcetera. That might be reading a bit much into it, but I love it when
people do that kind of stuff.
--Andrew
Churchy La Femme
> > Still rather idiotic. In a strategy game I have to luckily pick the
> > correct card that I just affected when it was face up to affect it
> > again. Maybe I watched closely while you mixed them up and got it
> > right,
>
> If your prey allowed you to do that, then he's idiotic. He has every
> right to turn his back or do whatever it takes to make sure you aren't
> in a position to follow his movements. It isn't a shell game. It's
> shuffling cards, pure and simple.
Okay, your arguments seem to be FOR the bullshit of allowing someone to
obfuscate the gamestate just because there is no rule against doing so.
I agree it is not a shell game so why, in a strategy game, should I
have to get lucky picking a card that I need to affect when there is no
other way of picking this card out? If I can tell it apart, because of
a card played on it or blood counters, it's cool, but if there is not
then I have to roll the dice? Bull-fucking-shit.
> > or I noticed that the card stock from the one I banished was DS
> > and easy to pick out from the CE cardstock of the others...just stupid.
>
> You shouldn't be looking at cardstock at all. This is called cheating.
> One reason I always use opaque card protectors is so people like you
> don't get any ideas to try using cardstock information (or unsusual
> light or dark spots and certainly not a "Jyhad" card back notation)
> to counter randomization. Fortunately, most Jyhad players know better
> and have better manners about such things.
Again, I am not trying to 'cheat', I am stating the 'luck' of a
manufactured guess or you just shellgaming me which is what I believe
needs to be addressed. You should not be able to mix up your
uncontrolled cards like that. It's not a rule now, so I would abuse it
like you want to, but it should be.
> > Harrod uses his ability and that's the one I want to Brainwash, but
> > wait you get to shuffle first. Crock of shit.
>
> Who told you that Harrod's ability was to determine which card you
> could Brainwash? If you use Harrod's ability, you get to know what
> one card is your prey's uncontrolled area that you may not have already
> known about. If it has identifying counters on it, you'll continue
> to know which card it is and you can use that knowledge to help you
> Brainwash. Otherwise you don't. That's all his ability is, no more.
> I think Harrod winds up being a pretty good card anyway. Tell me how
> good Gwendolyn's special is.
I am not stating that Harrod sucks vs Gwendolyn, that's coming out of
your own ass. I just believe that you shouldn't be able to hide a card
because of a loophole. Address the loophole. If you like it the way it
is, fine. I believe that it is rather inane and shouldn't be legal.
Fred Scott
> Fred Scott wrote:
>> > Still rather idiotic. In a strategy game I have to luckily pick the
>> > correct card that I just affected when it was face up to affect it
>> > again. Maybe I watched closely while you mixed them up and got it
>> > right,
>>
>> If your prey allowed you to do that, then he's idiotic. He has every
>> right to turn his back or do whatever it takes to make sure you aren't
>> in a position to follow his movements. It isn't a shell game. It's
>> shuffling cards, pure and simple.
>
> Okay, your arguments seem to be FOR the bullshit of allowing someone to
> obfuscate the gamestate just because there is no rule against doing so.
Which turned-down card is which is not game state. That's why the card
backs all look alike, so they can be mistaken for one another.
The truth of the matter is, I personally think the game would be equally
valid ruled either way: either cards, once played face down may be
"marked" (by their position on the table) such that once seen by Harrod
or once turned face up and then turned back down, you could still know
the history of the card. But the rules are made by the game designer and
he seems to be indicating that cards, once face down, are NOT marked and
can be randomized at any time. *shrug* It works perfectly well as far
as I can see. It may not be your preference but I don't see the reason
to get offended by it. Once Harrod looks, the face-down cards may be
re-randomized and if they're not marked by anything obvious like a blood
counter, you (deliberately, by rules) lose track of which face down
crypt card is which.
> I agree it is not a shell game so why, in a strategy game, should I
> have to get lucky picking a card that I need to affect when there is no
> other way of picking this card out?
Because you do. Because that's how the game works. I don't understand
what your problem is with it. There's lots of cards that involve
picking library cards at random from a players hand, e.g. Feline
Saboteur. If the recipient of a Feline Sabotuer just got done picking
his cards up from showing them due to an Owl Companion, would you expect
the person chosing to be able to tell which card is which? No - because
the card is chosen at random. Hell, even if the recipient has a
Revelations also played on him, the card is still chosen at random.
This is just another rule where a card is chosen at random, even if
the Brain Wash doesn't say so on the card. It doesn't say so straight
out because if differing numbers of blood counters were on some of the
library cards, it wouldn't be chosen completely at random. It's only
in some situations where the card receiving the Brain Wash is chosen
randomly.
> If I can tell it apart, because of
> a card played on it or blood counters, it's cool, but if there is not
> then I have to roll the dice?
That's right.
> Bull-fucking-shit.
Why?
>> > or I noticed that the card stock from the one I banished was DS
>> > and easy to pick out from the CE cardstock of the others...just stupid.
>>
>> You shouldn't be looking at cardstock at all. This is called cheating.
>> One reason I always use opaque card protectors is so people like you
>> don't get any ideas to try using cardstock information (or unsusual
>> light or dark spots and certainly not a "Jyhad" card back notation)
>> to counter randomization. Fortunately, most Jyhad players know better
>> and have better manners about such things.
>
> Again, I am not trying to 'cheat', I am stating the 'luck' of a
> manufactured guess or you just shellgaming me which is what I believe
> needs to be addressed. You should not be able to mix up your
> uncontrolled cards like that.
That's your arbitrary assertion. Please give some coherent explanation
about why this troubles you.
> It's not a rule now, so I would abuse it like you want to,
> but it should be.
Typically, the word "abuse" has been reserved for situations that are
unbalanced in some way causing a degenerate situation. For instance,
a broken card is "abused" by relying on it too heavily in decks which
lessens the difficulty of building an effective deck. What "abuse"
is this rule subject to?
>> > Harrod uses his ability and that's the one I want to Brainwash, but
>> > wait you get to shuffle first. Crock of shit.
>>
>> Who told you that Harrod's ability was to determine which card you
>> could Brainwash? If you use Harrod's ability, you get to know what
>> one card is your prey's uncontrolled area that you may not have already
>> known about. If it has identifying counters on it, you'll continue
>> to know which card it is and you can use that knowledge to help you
>> Brainwash. Otherwise you don't. That's all his ability is, no more.
>> I think Harrod winds up being a pretty good card anyway. Tell me how
>> good Gwendolyn's special is.
>
> I am not stating that Harrod sucks vs Gwendolyn, that's coming out of
> your own ass.
You were saying Harrod's power is lessened by this ruling as if anyone
should care about such an argument. The only coherent reason to care
is if you're suggesting Harrod isn't powerful enough for an Inner
Circle member. Gwendolyn has no special text on her so why the hell
are we supposed to care that Harrod only allows you to see what one of
your opponent's upside crypt cards is, not track it through all
eternity?
> I just believe that you shouldn't be able to hide a card
> because of a loophole.
It's not a loophole. A loophole would allow one to sidestep (far too
easily) some other limitation that was built into the game by intent.
But the only one who sees a contrary intent is you.
It's not a loophole, it's just what the rule is.
Fred
Churchy La Femme
> > Okay, your arguments seem to be FOR the bullshit of allowing someone to
> > obfuscate the gamestate just because there is no rule against doing so.
>
> Which turned-down card is which is not game state. That's why the card
> backs all look alike, so they can be mistaken for one another.
This may be true in theory but not always in reality. If you had
previously stolen one of my vamps and then I banished it and one other
of your own, you would have 2 cards faced down in your uncontrolled
region. No others are there for this example and the 2 in question have
no blood. I decide to then Memory's Fading Glimpse your vamp because it
is more crucial to your deck than mine is, but thankfully you use card
covers and I don't so that decision is easy. Or maybe you want me to
flip a coin since it is 'unfair' to you in this situation.
> The truth of the matter is, I personally think the game would be equally
> valid ruled either way: either cards, once played face down may be
> "marked" (by their position on the table) such that once seen by Harrod
> or once turned face up and then turned back down, you could still know
> the history of the card. But the rules are made by the game designer and
> he seems to be indicating that cards, once face down, are NOT marked and
> can be randomized at any time.
There is no rule for this. It is not in the rulebook at all.
> *shrug* It works perfectly well as far
> as I can see. It may not be your preference but I don't see the reason
> to get offended by it. Once Harrod looks, the face-down cards may be
> re-randomized and if they're not marked by anything obvious like a blood
> counter, you (deliberately, by rules) lose track of which face down
> crypt card is which.
Repeat last line.
snip next part, don't believe the analogy is equivalent to this
situation, but no point arguing.
> > If I can tell it apart, because of
> > a card played on it or blood counters, it's cool, but if there is not
> > then I have to roll the dice?
>
> That's right.
>
> > Bull-fucking-shit.
>
> Why?
Because a senseless acceptance of a non-rule in an otherwise precise
strategy game seems rather off. Or I can use your argument and say Why
Not?
> >> > or I noticed that the card stock from the one I banished was DS
> >> > and easy to pick out from the CE cardstock of the others...just stupid.
> >>
> >> You shouldn't be looking at cardstock at all. This is called cheating.
> >> One reason I always use opaque card protectors is so people like you
> >> don't get any ideas to try using cardstock information (or unsusual
> >> light or dark spots and certainly not a "Jyhad" card back notation)
> >> to counter randomization. Fortunately, most Jyhad players know better
> >> and have better manners about such things.
> >
> > Again, I am not trying to 'cheat', I am stating the 'luck' of a
> > manufactured guess or you just shellgaming me which is what I believe
> > needs to be addressed. You should not be able to mix up your
> > uncontrolled cards like that.
>
> That's your arbitrary assertion. Please give some coherent explanation
> about why this troubles you.
Of course that's my arbitrary assertion! And I believe that I have been
more than coherent in my reasons why.
> > It's not a rule now, so I would abuse it like you want to,
> > but it should be.
>
> Typically, the word "abuse" has been reserved for situations that are
> unbalanced in some way causing a degenerate situation. For instance,
> a broken card is "abused" by relying on it too heavily in decks which
> lessens the difficulty of building an effective deck. What "abuse"
> is this rule subject to?
The same that allows 'drug use' to be labelled 'drug abuse', however I
am perfectly willing to rescind my choice of words here. Take off the
'ab'. And again, there is no such rule.
> > I am not stating that Harrod sucks vs Gwendolyn, that's coming out of
> > your own ass.
>
> You were saying Harrod's power is lessened by this ruling as if anyone
> should care about such an argument. The only coherent reason to care
> is if you're suggesting Harrod isn't powerful enough for an Inner
> Circle member. Gwendolyn has no special text on her so why the hell
> are we supposed to care that Harrod only allows you to see what one of
> your opponent's upside crypt cards is, not track it through all
> eternity?
No, I never stated that "Harrod's power is lessened by this ruling", I
used his special as an example that pertained to this situation. Hell,
4 votes +2 bleed and PTO is all the power you fucking need.
> > I just believe that you shouldn't be able to hide a card
> > because of a loophole.
>
> It's not a loophole. A loophole would allow one to sidestep (far too
> easily) some other limitation that was built into the game by intent.
> But the only one who sees a contrary intent is you.
Maybe you should re-read this thread, there are a couple of others who
seem to see a reason to not be able to hide a previously shown card
from someone who has legally viewed it.
> It's not a loophole, it's just what the rule is.
If it is a rule now then I believe that there are sensible reasons to
rule against. Or do we tax the guy with poor eyesight who missed you
putting that Banished card on the otherside of your ashheap.
LSJ
> Fred Scott wrote:
>
> > > Okay, your arguments seem to be FOR the bullshit of allowing someone to
> > > obfuscate the gamestate just because there is no rule against doing so.
> >
> > Which turned-down card is which is not game state. That's why the card
> > backs all look alike, so they can be mistaken for one another.
>
> This may be true in theory but not always in reality. If you had
And, in the cases in which reality fails to match the ideal, the player
interested in upholding in the ideal is free to do whatever he can to
accomplish the ideal.
If even opening brand-new sleeves and re-sleeving the cards is
inadequate to the task of breaking the ties between card backs and card
fronts, then the player can require the use of a die or other
randomizer to enforce the hidden nature of the card fronts.
> previously stolen one of my vamps and then I banished it and one other
> of your own, you would have 2 cards faced down in your uncontrolled
> region. No others are there for this example and the 2 in question have
> no blood. I decide to then Memory's Fading Glimpse your vamp because it
> is more crucial to your deck than mine is, but thankfully you use card
> covers and I don't so that decision is easy.
If I use card covers, then I'd cover your card as well.
Or de-sleeve mine.
>Or maybe you want me to
> flip a coin since it is 'unfair' to you in this situation.
Of course -- any "fair" method is fine -- identical sleeves, no sleeves
(if the cards are not otherwise "marked" by use or by variations
resulting from the printing process), coin toss, die roll, &c.
> > The truth of the matter is, I personally think the game would be equally
> > valid ruled either way: either cards, once played face down may be
> > "marked" (by their position on the table) such that once seen by Harrod
> > or once turned face up and then turned back down, you could still know
> > the history of the card. But the rules are made by the game designer and
> > he seems to be indicating that cards, once face down, are NOT marked and
> > can be randomized at any time.
>
> There is no rule for this. It is not in the rulebook at all.
Remember -- the uncontrolled region is to crypt cards as the hand is to
library cards. See how the two parallel each other in [2.3].
It is also not in the rulebook that a player may or may not alter the
ordering of cards in her hand as she wishes.
This need not be stated in the rulebook because it is assumed in a card
game (rummy, poker, Uno, Bang!, Magic: the Gathering, Twilight
Struggle, &c.).
See these threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6d2f489725be1642
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7640f02bc576130f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1740d3e2a396e31f
> > *shrug* It works perfectly well as far
> > as I can see. It may not be your preference but I don't see the reason
> > to get offended by it. Once Harrod looks, the face-down cards may be
> > re-randomized and if they're not marked by anything obvious like a blood
> > counter, you (deliberately, by rules) lose track of which face down
> > crypt card is which.
>
> Repeat last line.
Restated:
A player is unable to determine the face of a card soley by the back of
the card. This is by design. The uncontrolled region and the hand have
no order
If there's somthing else that would distinguish it, like counters or
number of other cards on it, then OK.
Position in hand is not fixed -- the hand is unordered.
Position in uncontrolled region is not fixed -- the uncontrolled region
is unordered.
> > > If I can tell it apart, because of
> > > a card played on it or blood counters, it's cool, but if there is not
> > > then I have to roll the dice?
> >
> > That's right.
> >
> > > [snipped filler word indicating alliance to a contrary position].
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because a senseless acceptance of a non-rule in an otherwise precise
> strategy game seems rather off. Or I can use your argument and say Why
> Not?
It is not senseless acceptance -- it is the sensible acceptance of the
norm.
Hidden information is hidden.
"Otherwise precise strategy game" is not an accurate description of a
card game in which some of the cards are hidden, if its meaning leads
you to the conclusion you are asserting.
If I arrange my "Bang!" cards at the left by habit in Bang! and another
player picks up on this, then when he draws a card from my hand, I will
rearrange the cards in my hand (as randomly as possible) before he
draws.
Similarly for any game mechanism that involves hidden information among
a group of otherwise identical bits (chits, cards, counters, tiles,
etc.) that have a position only by the demands of the physical
representation of the game, not by the concept of the game. (It is very
difficult to implement a truly unordered set of physical items).
pd...@lightlink.com
Churchy La Femme wrote:
> Still rather idiotic.
I mean, clearly, you think so. But given how the rest of the game
works, I find it difficult to understand why you think this. Like, if I
look at your hand, see the order of your cards, and then procede to
make you discard a card, you can freely shuffle your hand so I can't
just pick the Giant's Blood I just saw. As you get to shuffle your hand
any time you want. You also get to shuffle your uncontrolled vampires
any time you want, assuming that there is nothing (pool, cards) on the
vampires you choose to shuffle.
>In a strategy game I have to luckily pick the
> correct card that I just affected when it was face up to affect it
> again.
Yep. As there is nothing inherrent to Banishment or whatever to limit
what happens to the vampire when it gets to your uncontrolled reigon.
Banishment could have been worded such that this was not an issue
(maybe you placed the newly uncontrolled vampire in your uncontrolled
riegon face up or something). But it wasn't worded in such a way.
A player may freely mix up and or arrange their uncontrolled vampires
whenever they want to.
> Maybe I watched closely while you mixed them up and got it
> right, or I noticed that the card stock from the one I banished was DS
> and easy to pick out from the CE cardstock of the others...just stupid.
As pointed out, that is a flaw with the production of the game (i.e.
different card stocks and backs) that is outside the realm of the
rules. To fix this, it is suggested that people use opaque card
sleeves. Or make sure their crypt is all the same card back. This is no
different than getting to pick a card at random out of someone's hand,
and picking the card that is marked due to having a broken corner that
you know is a Deflection, as you saw them play it last game--it is
outside the realm of the rules.
> Harrod uses his ability and that's the one I want to Brainwash, but
> wait you get to shuffle first. Crock of shit.
No different than looking at someone's hand and then picking one of
their cards at random.
-Peter
Fred Scott
far better than what I could write. But I'm still curious about
what the objection boils down to.
"Churchy La Femme" <lordpor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1149763076.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Fred Scott wrote:
>> The truth of the matter is, I personally think the game would be equally
>> valid ruled either way: either cards, once played face down may be
>> "marked" (by their position on the table) such that once seen by Harrod
>> or once turned face up and then turned back down, you could still know
>> the history of the card. But the rules are made by the game designer and
>> he seems to be indicating that cards, once face down, are NOT marked and
>> can be randomized at any time.
>
> There is no rule for this. It is not in the rulebook at all.
There's a hell of lot of nuances that aren't actually spoken in so many
words in the rulebook. Some of them, IMHO, should be but that's just a
matter of style. On some level, some basic things about any game need
to be unspoken and understood.
>> *shrug* It works perfectly well as far
>> as I can see. It may not be your preference but I don't see the reason
>> to get offended by it. Once Harrod looks, the face-down cards may be
>> re-randomized and if they're not marked by anything obvious like a blood
>> counter, you (deliberately, by rules) lose track of which face down
>> crypt card is which.
>
> Repeat last line.
...
>> > If I can tell it apart, because of
>> > a card played on it or blood counters, it's cool, but if there is not
>> > then I have to roll the dice?
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>> > Bull-fucking-shit.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because a senseless acceptance of a non-rule in an otherwise precise
> strategy game seems rather off. Or I can use your argument and say Why
> Not?
Is this your issue? That none of this is directly addressed in the rules?
If they changed the rulebook to overtly state this, would that satisfy
you? Somehow I don't think so. From your tone, it seems to me the
problem is more that you don't care for how the game plays given this
ruling but I guess I shouldn't assume that.
On the other hand, if the lack of overt text about this matter in the
rulebook is _not_ truly what bothers you then you probably shouldn't
waste words complaining about it. That only causes misunderstanding
and arguments going around in circles.
>> > Again, I am not trying to 'cheat', I am stating the 'luck' of a
>> > manufactured guess or you just shellgaming me which is what I believe
>> > needs to be addressed. You should not be able to mix up your
>> > uncontrolled cards like that.
>>
>> That's your arbitrary assertion. Please give some coherent explanation
>> about why this troubles you.
>
> Of course that's my arbitrary assertion! And I believe that I have been
> more than coherent in my reasons why.
Actually, you haven't. That's the problem. As far as I can see,
you've...
1) ...objected to the fact that the face down/rerandomizing ruling isn't in
the rulebook. LSJ's reply is that it doesn't need to be, other than the
point that crypt cards are the equivalent of a library hand. That is,
you can consider the crypt cards laid face down in your uncontrolled area
to be your "crypt hand" so to speak - subject to being rearranged at will.
2) ...loudly complained about some of the implications of the rule, such as
its affect on Harrod's ability. Still, you've given no particular good
reason why Harrod's ability needs to be what you thought it should be
rather than what it is. When I tried to infer the only possible reason
I can think of (Harrod's ability isn't as strong as it should be), I am
told that it's "coming out of my own ass". Well, maybe that's because
that's the only place I can find any rationale for your position.
None of the other implications of the rule you've complained about strike
me as being "bad" either. So Brainwash is random after a Banishment given
the right configuration of blood counters and permanents, so what?
Brainwash is random at the beginning of the game. Why can't it be random
later?
3) ...suggested that LSJ's ruling leads to some form of "abuse" or
opens a loophole or something chronically "bad" in the game. Still,
we can't get you to articulate what, exactly, is bad.
>> Typically, the word "abuse" has been reserved for situations that are
>> unbalanced in some way causing a degenerate situation. For instance,
>> a broken card is "abused" by relying on it too heavily in decks which
>> lessens the difficulty of building an effective deck. What "abuse"
>> is this rule subject to?
>
> The same that allows 'drug use' to be labelled 'drug abuse',
Good point. In my humble opinion, many people fail to think about why
certain uses of certain drugs are decried as "abuse" while others
aren't and how that distinction ought to be made.
> however I
> am perfectly willing to rescind my choice of words here. Take off the
> 'ab'. And again, there is no such rule.
Noted. But the issue is, _why_ is the use or abuse of this ruling bad.
My point was that the semantics are ultimately unimportant. You were
objecting to something when you slapped the "abuse" word down and I don't
think it was that the ruling isn't explicitly stated in the rules. So
what is it?
> Maybe you should re-read this thread, there are a couple of others who
> seem to see a reason to not be able to hide a previously shown card
> from someone who has legally viewed it.
The whole thread, as far as I can see, is exactly trying to get you to
spit out a good reason for your position.
>> It's not a loophole, it's just what the rule is.
>
> If it is a rule now then I believe that there are sensible reasons to
> rule against.
Then what are they?
> Or do we tax the guy with poor eyesight who missed you
> putting that Banished card on the otherside of your ashheap.
This has nothing to do with it. A banished vampire is placed face down
in the uncontrolled area and optionally randomized with the other cards
there. All game state changes should be overtly announced so that the
guy with poor eyesight will be aware of them. Also, I would presume his
eyesight is not so poor that he can't see an additional vampire in the
uncontrolled area - or he has problems that have nothing to do with this
matter.
Fred
atomweaver
> When I tried to infer
> the only possible reason I can think of (Harrod's ability isn't as
> strong as it should be), I am told that it's "coming out of my own
> ass". Well, maybe that's because that's the only place I can find any
> rationale for your position.
>
LOL! I see a net-wide need for a source of rationalizing others' arbitrary
assertions (of varying degrees of baselessness). I think you have a
potential money-maker on your hands... er, legs... Fred.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Churchy La Femme
Fine with earlier stuff. Though there is a difference between Hand and
Uncontrolled.
> Hidden information is hidden.
But certain cards have been tainted in play. A library card can never
be told apart from another library card as it can never have counters
on it, or other distinguishing marks if it is brought back to your hand
somehow. An uncontrolled card can, plus if I have a Divine Sign
targeting a Vampire that has been banished and its owner has more than
one copy now in his uncontrolled, why can't it be told apart? There is
no distinguishing mark on it, some people use counters to show what is
affecting what but this would be unfair to the Methuselah who now wants
to make sure that you don't Memory's his other copy. Uncontrolled cards
that have been put in play should be tainted from a game state point of
view and be told apart from the hidden ones that never came into play.
Forget Harrod angle since that ability is more likened to seeing a
random card in hand, though the wording seemed more like 'target' as
opposed to 'random'.
> If I arrange my "Bang!" cards at the left by habit in Bang! and another
> player picks up on this, then when he draws a card from my hand, I will
> rearrange the cards in my hand (as randomly as possible) before he
> draws.
Might be a good analogy, have no idea what Bang! is.
> Similarly for any game mechanism that involves hidden information among
> a group of otherwise identical bits (chits, cards, counters, tiles,
> etc.) that have a position only by the demands of the physical
> representation of the game, not by the concept of the game. (It is very
> difficult to implement a truly unordered set of physical items).
Yes. And this game has other ways that should be addressed toward the
'hidden' aspect i.e. Canopic Jar, Anima Gathering. Tainted should be
tainted.
Churchy La Femme
> Actually, you haven't. That's the problem. As far as I can see,
> you've...
Okay you may be right here so I will repeat what I posted to LSJ.
Uncontrolled cards
that have been put in play should be tainted from a game state point of
view and be told apart from the hidden ones that never came into play.
> 1) ...objected to the fact that the face down/rerandomizing ruling isn't in
> the rulebook. LSJ's reply is that it doesn't need to be, other than the
> point that crypt cards are the equivalent of a library hand. That is,
> you can consider the crypt cards laid face down in your uncontrolled area
> to be your "crypt hand" so to speak - subject to being rearranged at will.
addressed in LSJ reply
> 2) ...loudly complained about some of the implications of the rule, such as
> its affect on Harrod's ability. Still, you've given no particular good
> reason why Harrod's ability needs to be what you thought it should be
> rather than what it is. When I tried to infer the only possible reason
> I can think of (Harrod's ability isn't as strong as it should be), I am
> told that it's "coming out of my own ass". Well, maybe that's because
> that's the only place I can find any rationale for your position.
Addressed in LSJ reply. However the 'coming out your ass' was
referencing the fact that you thought he was "still a pretty good card"
and How does Gwendolyn compare, when I never stated that his ability
sucked or anything of the sort, you came up with all that. At first I
believed the ability would work with my argument but I don't believe so
now.
> > The same that allows 'drug use' to be labelled 'drug abuse',
>
> Good point. In my humble opinion, many people fail to think about why
> certain uses of certain drugs are decried as "abuse" while others
> aren't and how that distinction ought to be made.
>
> > however I
> > am perfectly willing to rescind my choice of words here. Take off the
> > 'ab'. And again, there is no such rule.
>
> Noted. But the issue is, _why_ is the use or abuse of this ruling bad.
> My point was that the semantics are ultimately unimportant. You were
> objecting to something when you slapped the "abuse" word down and I don't
> think it was that the ruling isn't explicitly stated in the rules. So
> what is it?
Done. The rest is adrressed in the reply to LSJ
Churchy La Femme
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> > Harrod uses his ability and that's the one I want to Brainwash, but
> > wait you get to shuffle first. Crock of shit.
>
> No different than looking at someone's hand and then picking one of
> their cards at random.
Yes. noted and is no longer an issue.
pd...@lightlink.com
> Yes. noted and is no longer an issue.
Reasonable.
-Peter
witness1
LSJ wrote:
> A player is unable to determine the face of a card soley by the back of
> the card. This is by design. The uncontrolled region and the hand have
> no order
There are exceptions to this, though, like library cards which become
vampires. The backs are now different - UNLESS someone is using
identical card sleeves on their crypt and library (or I take control of
a library vampire whose sleeve matches the color of my crypt sleeves by
happenstance).
Should this matter?
<snip>
> Hidden information is hidden.
>
> "Otherwise precise strategy game" is not an accurate description of a
> card game in which some of the cards are hidden, if its meaning leads
> you to the conclusion you are asserting.
>
> If I arrange my "Bang!" cards at the left by habit in Bang! and another
> player picks up on this, then when he draws a card from my hand, I will
> rearrange the cards in my hand (as randomly as possible) before he
> draws.
Sure. Most draws from hand, however are random, whereas most effects
that target the uncontrolled region are not - they player is allowed to
target any crypt card of their choice. There's at least a reasonable
argument to be made that if a player has knowledge about the faces of
those cards it should be as usable in making that targeting decision as
his knowledge about the counters on those cards or that card's library
vs. crypt status.
Witness1
-Inherit the Bacon
Dasein
> library cards. See how the two parallel each other in [2.3].
They are completely different. Cards in the uncontrolled region can
gain and lose permanents. They can also interact in ways with
controlled vampires through effects such as Govern the Unaligned at
superior (and a few other similar cards).
This fact makes it different in very important ways from cards in the
hand. It also makes it extremely important to be able to regularly
identify an uncontrolled card from a given point in time in the game to
another point in time.
For example, say a player has Selena in play, and two vampires
uncontrolled (call them Vamp X and Vamp Y). Selena is regularly using
Govern the Unaligned at superior on one of those two vampires in the
uncontrolled region, say Vamp X. Would you say that at any given point
in time it is important to know which of those two vampires has been
governed down onto? If I am thinking of playing a Brainwash, and am
unsure which of the two vampires I want to Brainwash, I can use my
aquired knowledge about the gamestate (i.e. Vamp X is of younger age
than Selena) to make my decision an informed one. To emphasise: *the
act of playing cards like Govern at superior means the uncontrolled
vampires have gone from being "random interchangeable cards" to
"specific cards with specific attributes, affecting and being affected
by specific abilities by cards in play". That is why they are different
from cards in hand, which are "random interchangeable cards".
To return to my example; if the player Governs at super with Selena to
Vampire X, I can choose to Brainwash Vampire X instead of Vampire Y
because (as it must be 5 cap or below) my prey has a chance of
influencing it out, as opposed to vampire Y, which could (and probably
is) a fattie boomba and unlikely to emerge from limbo. So say its my
turn and I play brainwash on Vampire X; you're saying the player can
quickly snatch up the cards before I put down a banish and frantically
move them about the table forcing me to play shell game?
I'm assuming your answer is "yes". And to stop Jyhad (i.e. a game
of skill and strategy with certain cards) turning into Shell Game (a
contest of observation and memory), I'm guessing the Methuselah can
just pick the two cards up, put them under the table, shuffle them
around and put them back down?
Ok, let's take that as given, as that's essentially the ruling you've
been making in this thread. Two serious problems emerge with this
ruling.
Problem One: The efficacy of cards and abilities targeting uncontrolled
vampires (i.e. Brainwash) is completely and randomly affected by
unconnected game state factors, such as whether or not a banished
vampire has cards / blood on him. You and Fred are basically saying
"If you've put counters on Vampire X, it is marked as such, can be
identified as such, targeted by specific effects, player can't
shuffle them around; as soon as it loses counters, it instantly goes
back to being 'some random uncontrolled vampire who cannot be
distinguished from any other random uncontrolled vampire"'. The
Banished vampire with 4 blood and a .44 on him isn't such a great
example as to why this is a problem; here's another better one:
Selena governs down at super on Vamp X, putting 3 blood counters on it.
On my master phase, I decide I want to Brainwash Vampire X on my master
phase. Okay so if Selena has governed at super to Vampire X, that
vampire is easily identified as such and I can say "I'm
brainwashing THAT one" and slap my Brainwash on it. If you've taken
the pool off, I can't do that. Fine. But what if Selena Governs at
Super for 3 on Vampire X, which stays there, but Vampire Y also has 3
counters on it which were transferred there via influence phase an hour
ago and haven't moved. So Vampire X and Y both have three counters on
them. Can you still frantically shuffle them around to stop me
Brainwashing the one which I know (well we would all LIKE to THINK we
know, see below) is younger than Selena? So you're saying if an
uncontrolled vampire has a card or counter on it, it cannot be
"returned to unidentifiable / randomised state" but if there is
another vampire which has the same number of cards and/or same number
of counters on it, it doesn't? why not? Or is there an exception? Is
there a logical difference between Vampire X that has been Governed
down for 3 onto, and Vampire Y which has had 3 pool influenced onto? I
really really hope so, for the game's sake. And remember, which
vampire has been Governed onto as opposed to influenced onto could make
a BIG difference to other player's strategical choices for a whole
bunch of cards and abilities. Let's say that there is. Why then
isn't there a difference between Vampire X at point in time T and
Vampire X at point in time T+1 turn?
I Govern onto a vampire, it goes from being "random unidentifiable
uncontrolled vampire" to "Vampire X which has been governed onto
and is younger than Selena". As soon as I move 3 pool off, it reverts
back and I can start playing shell games again? What if I spend two
transfers moving a counter to my pool and two transfers moving two pool
onto vampire Y; they both now have two counters; is Vampire X still
"special governed vampire younger than Selena"? These distinctions
are ridiculous. Uncontrolled vampires are affected by cards in play and
though their attributes are not visible, are directly relevant, affect
and are affected by cards and effects in play. They should be able to
be consistently identifiable as such. Especially to prevent cheating,
which is Big Problem Number 2.
Problem Two: Selena is repeatedly Governing down onto Vampire X, not
Vampire Y. That player (with Selena) goes on to win the game. The other
players say "hey before you pack your cards up, can you show us that
vampire? Looks like you have a fattie crypt and I'm surprised who you
have there younger than Selena" (I have had a ruling from a judge
that players can do that; please tell me now if that ruling was
incorrect, I REALLY hope it was). Let's say that player flips over
Ian Forestal; shock horror! Cheater! Aside from the discussions of what
actions the judge in this tournament would do, the player has obviously
been cheating and can be easily revealed as having done so, albeit
after the fact. What if the player's defense is "oh crap, sorry, um
I meant to transfer onto this one" and flips over Vampire Y, who
turns out to be Brooke. Does this make everything ok? Hell no. The
player cheated. There are two uncontrolled vampires, he made illegal
actions and gained pool from them. The two are NOT interchangeable.
This is the crux of the matter; uncontrolled are NOT like your hand
because you play cards on them. You target them, look at them, put pool
on them, flip them over, flip them back, banish them, bring them back,
burn them, influence them, de-influence them, etc. They directly
interact with cards and effects in play, even while being flipped over.
Their content is unknown but their identity (in relation to other
uncontrolled / invisible cards) is relevant. My decision to banish
Vampire X as opposed to Y is based on Selena's governing actions,
which specifically and repeatedly targeted ONE card as opposed to
ANOTHER card.
If they can be shuffled around as soon as no counters or cards are on
them, then the player can get away with cheating above easily. Say I
have Selena out and Ian Forestal in uncontrolled region. I can happily
Govern at super, cheating, gaining large amounts of pool. Right before
the end of the game, I "pay one to see one" and bring out Brooke.
W00t!!! Now I play the mad Shell Game Shuffle, cackling as I spin them
around my part of the table. Two minutes later, game ends. "Show us
that vampire you were Govering down to all game, you cheatin'
varmint!" my opponents yell. What's the point? Which one do I flip
over? Vampire X? Vampire Y? You've ruled that these cards pop into
and out of "interchangeable with each other" status every time I
put cards or counters on or off them. After my Shell Game Shuffle, I
say "um, yeah, it was, like, this one, or something", and flip over
Brooke. Cheating for teh win!!
Please tell me, in clear enforceable terms, how players can prevent
this cheating (which can be of distinctly effective power, as anyone
who's seen Govern played at Super can tell you).
> A player is unable to determine the face of a card soley by the back of
> the card.
Great. But we're not talking about determining the face of a card;
we're talking about determining "Beast Leatherface with no cards or
counters who Arika just banished" from "that other vampire who's been
sitting in uncontrolled since day 1 (who could well be Tock or someone
unthreatening)". Note this is not about DETERMINING the face of the
card, its about IDENTIFYING which card is which, i.e. "is that card the
card you just had in play or is it another card you have not yet put
into play the-face-of-which-we-do-not-know".
> This is by design. The uncontrolled region and the hand have no order
It's not about order. It's about identifying a card which has possibly
come into play and affected cards and been affected by cards, such as
Govern the Unaligned (a very very common and powerful card). And a
whole bunch of others.
Shade
Dasein wrote:
> For example, say a player has Selena in play, and two vampires
> uncontrolled (call them Vamp X and Vamp Y). Selena is regularly using
> Govern the Unaligned at superior on one of those two vampires in the
> uncontrolled region, say Vamp X.
[snip remaining example]
If the uncontrolled region is another 'hand' then I see no reason why
you should be able to infer anything about it.
For example, if I use say Henry Taylors ability in combat you know that
I've picked up a Psyche! you don't know which of the seven in my hand
it is. Ditto other card re-cycling options.
Why should the uncontrolled region be different...?
pd...@lightlink.com
Dasein wrote:
> Problem One: The efficacy of cards and abilities targeting uncontrolled
> vampires (i.e. Brainwash) is completely and randomly affected by
> unconnected game state factors, such as whether or not a banished
> vampire has cards / blood on him.
At the start of the game, when Brainwash is most effective anyway, it
is completely random. Later in the game, you may have some information
regarding the contents of your opponent's crypt, but that doesn't
change the fact that players may freely reorder their crypt at their
whim. And as you only can see that backs of the cards (which, for
purposes of the game, are supposed to be indistinguishable, which is
why they are have the same back, in theory), you can't keep track of
which card is face down, unless there is something to distinguish that
card (i.e. counters or attatched cards). The "random unconnected game
state factor" that comes from a Banished vampire having counters and/or
cards on it is a factor of Banishment, and as such, an exception to the
rules. As card effects regularly create exceptions to the rules. Yet
Banishment does not create an exception to the "players may freely
re-order their face down vampires at their whim" rule.
> You and Fred are basically saying
> "If you've put counters on Vampire X, it is marked as such, can be
> identified as such, targeted by specific effects, player can't
> shuffle them around; as soon as it loses counters, it instantly goes
> back to being 'some random uncontrolled vampire who cannot be
> distinguished from any other random uncontrolled vampire"'.
Essentially correct. Except that uncontrolled vampires with counters on
them still can be shuffled around--if I have 4 uncontrolled vampires,
and they all have 2 blood on them, I can freely rearrange them and
leave you confused as to which is which, as I can freely rearrange face
down uncontrolled vampires. Having counters on an uncontrolled vampire
only allows you to identify them by virtue of how many counters they
have on them.
> Selena governs down at super on Vamp X, putting 3 blood counters on it.
> On my master phase, I decide I want to Brainwash Vampire X on my master
> phase. Okay so if Selena has governed at super to Vampire X, that
> vampire is easily identified as such and I can say "I'm
> brainwashing THAT one" and slap my Brainwash on it. If you've taken
> the pool off, I can't do that. Fine. But what if Selena Governs at
> Super for 3 on Vampire X, which stays there, but Vampire Y also has 3
> counters on it which were transferred there via influence phase an hour
> ago and haven't moved. So Vampire X and Y both have three counters on
> them. Can you still frantically shuffle them around to stop me
> Brainwashing the one which I know (well we would all LIKE to THINK we
> know, see below) is younger than Selena?
Yes.
> So you're saying if an
> uncontrolled vampire has a card or counter on it, it cannot be
> "returned to unidentifiable / randomised state" but if there is
> another vampire which has the same number of cards and/or same number
> of counters on it, it doesn't? why not? Or is there an exception?
The vampires with pool on them can be freely randomized, as long as
they retain their pool counters (i.e. an uncontrolled vampire with 3
pool on it is completely undistinguishable from another uncontrolled
vampire with 3 pool on it). Uncontrolled vampires with cards on them
(Banished equipment, Toomb of Ramses) *are* distinguishable from other
uncontrolled vampires due to an exception to the rules caused by the
effects that put the cards on them.
(snipped discussion about Govern and younger vampires being
unidentifyable)
If at any point, you want to know if your opponent is Governing onto a
legal vampire, ask the judge to check. Problem solved.
> Please tell me, in clear enforceable terms, how players can prevent
> this cheating (which can be of distinctly effective power, as anyone
> who's seen Govern played at Super can tell you).
By saying "Judge, please check to see if that Govern play was legal".
Which takes 30 seconds.
> It's not about order. It's about identifying a card which has possibly
> come into play and affected cards and been affected by cards, such as
> Govern the Unaligned (a very very common and powerful card). And a
> whole bunch of others.
Sure. But there is nothing to prevent you from reordering your
uncontrolled vampires at your whim. And face down uncontrolled
vampires, in their base state (i.e. without cards or counters) are
indistinguishable from eachother. Adding counters to them makes them
distinguishable, by virtue of the number of counters only (which ceases
to be a distinguishing characteristic as more uncontrolled vampires
gain the same number of counters). Having cards on uncontrolled
vampires makes them distinguishable by virtue of an exception to the
rules (that being putting cards on uncontrolled vampires). The Govern
issue is solved by having the Judge check, regardless of the existance
of Banishment or not.
-Peter
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Churchy La Femme wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>> Hidden information is hidden.
> ...
>> Similarly for any game mechanism that involves hidden information among
>> a group of otherwise identical bits (chits, cards, counters, tiles,
>> etc.) that have a position only by the demands of the physical
>> representation of the game, not by the concept of the game. (It is very
>> difficult to implement a truly unordered set of physical items).
>
> Yes. And this game has other ways that should be addressed toward the
> 'hidden' aspect i.e. Canopic Jar, Anima Gathering. Tainted should be
> tainted.
So far all your arguments have consisted of "It should be this way
because I say so", not based on any rational thought or interpretation
of the rules.
You are also advocating that because in some cases you are able to use
out-of-game information (the physical fact that your stolen, Banished
crypt card is not sleeved while your prey's crypt card is) to gain an
in-game advantage in one instance, that you should ALWAYS have access to
that out-of-game information, even when two 0-blood cards in the
uncontrolled region are otherwise identical.
Unfortunately for you, out-of-game information is exactly that;
out-of-game, and there it should stay. You have no right to that
information; if a player is careless enough to provide it, that is his
own fault. But if a player is cautious enough to remove the out-of-game
advantage (by shuffling his crypt cards after you Banish one of them,
for example), then it just sucks to be you, and you need to deal with it
and move on instead of hoping to get some more munchkin action goin'.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEiWoCtQZlu3o7QpERAtlHAKCuTgiOTbFga2KCR7G9saJzv//5igCdELfi
RRXvXC22k/5PiFxne+YtkAQ=
=lGWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jozxyqk
> Remember -- the uncontrolled region is to crypt cards as the hand is to
> library cards. See how the two parallel each other in [2.3].
> It is also not in the rulebook that a player may or may not alter the
> ordering of cards in her hand as she wishes.
LSJ, here is a situation to consider:
Methuselah A controls Lorrie Dunsirn and Agru Kabera.
Methuselah B controls Beast and Cailean, and has an uncontrolled copy of Beast.
The controlled copy of Beast has 3 blood on it. The uncontrolled copy
of Beast has 3 blood on it. Both copies of Beast are from the same
printing of the same expansion, and are 100% identical cards.
Lorrie Dunsirn plays Divine Sign, targeting Beast.
Cailean calls Banishment, targeting his own copy of Beast. That copy of
Beast goes to the uncontrolled region.
Cailean's controller "shuffles" his uncontrolled region, since order
does not matter.
There are now 2 identical, uncontrolled copies of Beast, each with 3
blood on them.
Cailean takes 4 transfers to bring out Beast.
Since Divine Sign targets a specific copy of a vampire, how can it be
determined if this is the "same" or "different" copy of Beast?
pd...@lightlink.com
Jozxyqk wrote:
> Since Divine Sign targets a specific copy of a vampire, how can it be
> determined if this is the "same" or "different" copy of Beast?
Not being LSJ, I'm guessing, but I'd think that Divine Sign targeting a
Banished vampire is akin to having a card on a Banished vampire--the
Banished Beast is essentially "marked" by virtue of the Divine Sign. So
Caillean could, at his option, influence out either the Divine Signed
Beast or the not Divine Signed Beast, and it wouldn't be random (as
everyone knows which uncontrolled Beast is targeted by the Divine Sign,
just like everyone would know which unconrolled Beast had a Master
Skill card on him).
-Peter
atomweaver
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Snipped agreed-with segments
>
>> Selena governs down at super on Vamp X, putting 3 blood counters on it.
>> On my master phase, I decide I want to Brainwash Vampire X on my master
>> phase. Okay so if Selena has governed at super to Vampire X, that
>> vampire is easily identified as such and I can say "I'm
>> brainwashing THAT one" and slap my Brainwash on it. If you've taken
>> the pool off, I can't do that. Fine. But what if Selena Governs at
>> Super for 3 on Vampire X, which stays there, but Vampire Y also has 3
>> counters on it which were transferred there via influence phase an hour
>> ago and haven't moved. So Vampire X and Y both have three counters on
>> them. Can you still frantically shuffle them around to stop me
>> Brainwashing the one which I know (well we would all LIKE to THINK we
>> know, see below) is younger than Selena?
>
> Yes.
>
I would disagree slightly. If judging, I'd say the play of Brainwash could
not be "interrupted" by a shuffling of the target uncontrolled region, once
the master card has been revealed... There is no opportunity for
randomization then, as the Brainwash must be revealed _and_ its target
identified before anything else can happen in the game. Other than that,
spot-on Pete...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
news:SsGdnSrzjvCc8hTZ...@comcast.com:
As Peter said, some cards played result in exceptions to the general
rule of anonymity. A Divine Sign played would target a unique copy of
Beast, and that targeting would have to be preserved/identified both
before and after any reordering of the uncontrolled region (Lorrie's
controller can ask which crypt card is the target of Lorrie's Divine
Sign). The Divine Sign acts in the same manner as a unique number of
blood counters, in this respect... it is sufficient additional
information to know which Beast is which.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
pd...@lightlink.com
atomweaver wrote:
> I would disagree slightly. If judging, I'd say the play of Brainwash could
> not be "interrupted" by a shuffling of the target uncontrolled region, once
> the master card has been revealed... There is no opportunity for
> randomization then, as the Brainwash must be revealed _and_ its target
> identified before anything else can happen in the game. Other than that,
> spot-on Pete...
Fair enough on the Brainwash. I'd think, though, that the difference is
mostly academic, as at any point that someone gains information as to
what your face down vampires are, you can immediately move them around
as necessary--if, say, you are my predator and you Banish my bloodless
vampire with no attached cards, I certainly have all the time in the
world to shuffle my uncontrolled vampires around before you can play
Brainwash on my vampires in your next master phase. Maybe there would
be a time issue if, say, Harrod who (I think) lets you look at an
uncontrolled vampire during your untap phase and then you want to play
a Brainwash during your master phase, but I'd still have the
opportunity to rearrange my uncontrolled vampires during your untap
phase after Harrod peeked. But I think you are totally correct in that
if someone plays Brainwash during their master phase on me, I couldn't
then "in response" mix up my uncontrolled riegon, as VTES doesn't work
like that.
-Peter
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
> Fine with earlier stuff. Though there is a difference between Hand and
> Uncontrolled.
Right. The uncontrolled region is the "hand" of crypt cards.
The hand is the "hand" of library cards. End of difference.
As it turns out, there are many effects, including standard rules,
which want to place counters or cards on cards in your "hand" of crypt
cards, so that "hand" is placed on the table to make it convenient to
track which counters are on which card.
As explained in one of the three linked threads in my previous reply.
Currently, there are no effects that want to place counters or card on
cards in your "hand" of library cards, so there's no need to implement
a mechanism for tracking such. If there ever are such effects, then
some mechanism to track them will be implemented.
> > Hidden information is hidden.
>
> But certain cards have been tainted in play. A library card can never
> be told apart from another library card as it can never have counters
> on it, or other distinguishing marks if it is brought back to your hand
> somehow.
... with current effects, correct.
This taint angle is also covered in one of the three threads linked in
my previous response. See my responses there for a response to the
taint angle.
> An uncontrolled card can, plus if I have a Divine Sign
> targeting a Vampire that has been banished and its owner has more than
> one copy now in his uncontrolled, why can't it be told apart?
Because its face is hidden, its position is not tracked as part of game
state, and the backs look the same, and it has the same number of blood
counters on it as the other copy in his uncontrolled region.
> There is
> no distinguishing mark on it, some people use counters to show what is
> affecting what but this would be unfair to the Methuselah who now wants
> to make sure that you don't Memory's his other copy. Uncontrolled cards
> that have been put in play should be tainted from a game state point of
> view and be told apart from the hidden ones that never came into play.
That's one opinion.
It doesn't match the official state of things, however.
> Forget Harrod angle since that ability is more likened to seeing a
> random card in hand, though the wording seemed more like 'target' as
> opposed to 'random'.
>
> > If I arrange my "Bang!" cards at the left by habit in Bang! and another
> > player picks up on this, then when he draws a card from my hand, I will
> > rearrange the cards in my hand (as randomly as possible) before he
> > draws.
>
> Might be a good analogy, have no idea what Bang! is.
It is clear, ever without knowing what Bang! is.
> > Similarly for any game mechanism that involves hidden information among
> > a group of otherwise identical bits (chits, cards, counters, tiles,
> > etc.) that have a position only by the demands of the physical
> > representation of the game, not by the concept of the game. (It is very
> > difficult to implement a truly unordered set of physical items).
>
> Yes. And this game has other ways that should be addressed toward the
> 'hidden' aspect i.e. Canopic Jar, Anima Gathering. Tainted should be
> tainted.
See the previously-cited threads for tracking targets through the
uncontrolled region.
LSJ
> Sure. Most draws from hand, however are random, whereas most effects
> that target the uncontrolled region are not - they player is allowed to
> target any crypt card of their choice.
Yes, since cards in the "hand" of crypt cards are often not identical
from the backs, unlike cards in the "hand" of library cards. -- The
crypt cards frequently have different amounts of blood counters and/or
library cards stacked on them. So sticking "random" in there would be a
modication of the intended effect, rather than a reminder that the
choice is made without looking at the faces (as it is for the library
card cases, under the current set of effects).
> There's at least a reasonable
> argument to be made that if a player has knowledge about the faces of
> those cards it should be as usable in making that targeting decision as
> his knowledge about the counters on those cards or that card's library
> vs. crypt status.
Perhaps, but the "if" condition fails (since the player has no
knowledge of the face of a card just form looking at the back -- at
least in the ideal), so the assertion is moot.
LSJ
Quite right.
Since the order/position of cards in the uncontrolled region is not
part of game state, changing that is not "interrupting" anything from a
game perspective -- it is merely upholding the ideal, and should be
allowed (and excouraged).
That is, rather than rearranging constantly, just enforce the ideal
when it is needed, like once you see that a Brainwash is being played.
atomweaver
news:1149862193.8...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Churchy La Femme wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>> An uncontrolled card can, plus if I have a Divine Sign
>> targeting a Vampire that has been banished and its owner has more
>> than one copy now in his uncontrolled, why can't it be told apart?
>
> Because its face is hidden, its position is not tracked as part of
> game state, and the backs look the same, and it has the same number of
> blood counters on it as the other copy in his uncontrolled region.
>
I'm a bit confused here, Scott. Are you saying that the Divine Sign (and
its controller) can no longer preserve knowledge of which vampire Divine
Sign is targeting? That seems inconsistent with the rest of the treatment
of the topic... All other cards, counters, and effects applied over the
course of game play "stay with" the Banished vampire, why shouldn't the
Divine Sign targetting knowledge be preserved?
I suppose that the Divine Sign is considered to be not targetting
anything whilst the target is uncontrolled.. It would seem that unique
identity would need to be preserved somehow, if players are expected to
accurately resume targetting once (if) the vampire returns to the ready
region.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
LSJ
> LSJ, here is a situation to consider:
> determined if this is the "same" or "different" copy of Beast?
See the consideration of this case as given in the second of the three
threads linked form my original response:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7640f02bc576130f
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
> news:1149862193.8...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Churchy La Femme wrote:
> >> LSJ wrote:
>
> >> An uncontrolled card can, plus if I have a Divine Sign
> >> targeting a Vampire that has been banished and its owner has more
> >> than one copy now in his uncontrolled, why can't it be told apart?
> >
> > Because its face is hidden, its position is not tracked as part of
> > game state, and the backs look the same, and it has the same number of
> > blood counters on it as the other copy in his uncontrolled region.
>
> I'm a bit confused here, Scott. Are you saying that the Divine Sign (and
> its controller) can no longer preserve knowledge of which vampire Divine
> Sign is targeting? That seems inconsistent with the rest of the treatment
> of the topic... All other cards, counters, and effects applied over the
> course of game play "stay with" the Banished vampire, why shouldn't the
> Divine Sign targetting knowledge be preserved?
It does.
But other players don't know which is which.
See the thread starting with
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7640f02bc576130f
atomweaver
news:1149866609.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Yeah, I read that before posting... I'd request consideration of a Rules
Team review, please. It seems more consistent that a player should retain
knowledge of targets for cards in the play area, than to trust (or
obligate) that the target's owner will preserve that knowledge for him.
I'd admit, I've only thought on it for an hour, but I cannot see a
circumstance where this proposed change would result in any major change to
other card functions... but of course playtesting (or someone posting an
obvious oversight on my part) may show otherwise.
My VTES time is limited, but I'll try to create opportunities to explore
how this side-case might function under the propsed change... (Look out
John Bell, looks like I'm bringing a Banishment deck when I visit ;-)
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
LSJ
> Yeah, I read that before posting... I'd request consideration of a Rules
> Team review, please. It seems more consistent that a player should retain
> knowledge of targets for cards in the play area, than to trust (or
> obligate) that the target's owner will preserve that knowledge for him.
You still can't tell which is which from the backs, so you're
inherently beholden to the "controller" to do the remembering.
> I'd admit, I've only thought on it for an hour, but I cannot see a
> circumstance where this proposed change would result in any major change to
> other card functions... but of course playtesting (or someone posting an
> obvious oversight on my part) may show otherwise.
"have no major impact" is not a sufficient reason to enact a change.
A change has to serve some purpose.
atomweaver
news:1149879242.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> atomweaver wrote:
>> Yeah, I read that before posting... I'd request consideration of a
>> Rules Team review, please. It seems more consistent that a player
>> should retain knowledge of targets for cards in the play area, than
>> to trust (or obligate) that the target's owner will preserve that
>> knowledge for him.
>
> You still can't tell which is which from the backs, so you're
> inherently beholden to the "controller" to do the remembering.
>
Sure, but if asked, I'd like the target of my card to provide an
accurate answer...
>> I'd admit, I've only thought on it for an hour, but I cannot see a
>> circumstance where this proposed change would result in any major
>> change to other card functions... but of course playtesting (or
>> someone posting an obvious oversight on my part) may show otherwise.
>
> "have no major impact" is not a sufficient reason to enact a change.
> A change has to serve some purpose.
>
>
...and of course that was not my cited motivation for the change, but an
observation of its consequences. Cited reason is above; Rules/play
consistencya player tracks their own played cards, and is not obligated,
except in this instance, to rely upon their target to keep track of
effects. And I'll now add also that having target tracking remain the
obligation of the person who played the cards leads to a situation which
is less prone to possible abuse/neglect by the targetted player. Having
a player keep track of their own cards, in this niche case, requires
that the identity of the target vampire be preserved on it trip to (and
possibly back out of) the uncontrolled region.
I mentioned "no major impact" on how other cards play, mainly to solicit
opinions or examples to the contrary.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
> news:1149879242.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > atomweaver wrote:
> >> Yeah, I read that before posting... I'd request consideration of a
> >> Rules Team review, please. It seems more consistent that a player
> >> should retain knowledge of targets for cards in the play area, than
> >> to trust (or obligate) that the target's owner will preserve that
> >> knowledge for him.
> >
> > You still can't tell which is which from the backs, so you're
> > inherently beholden to the "controller" to do the remembering.
> >
> Sure, but if asked, I'd like the target of my card to provide an
> accurate answer...
... uselessly, since the answer has nothing to do with any game state
you can discern.
That is, the answer could not factor in to some decision about where to
place Brainwash, for example. Which is which has no relevance until the
vampire enters play again.
> >> I'd admit, I've only thought on it for an hour, but I cannot see a
> >> circumstance where this proposed change would result in any major
> >> change to other card functions... but of course playtesting (or
> >> someone posting an obvious oversight on my part) may show otherwise.
> >
> > "have no major impact" is not a sufficient reason to enact a change.
> > A change has to serve some purpose.
> >
> >
> ...and of course that was not my cited motivation for the change, but an
> observation of its consequences. Cited reason is above; Rules/play
> consistencya player tracks their own played cards, and is not obligated,
> except in this instance, to rely upon their target to keep track of
> effects.
The rules/play consistency is that all players track all observable
game state.
They still do.
> And I'll now add also that having target tracking remain the
> obligation of the person who played the cards leads to a situation which
> is less prone to possible abuse/neglect by the targetted player. Having
> a player keep track of their own cards, in this niche case, requires
> that the identity of the target vampire be preserved on it trip to (and
> possibly back out of) the uncontrolled region.
This "his own cards" seem to be a stumbling point.
You track your own cards.
Your card is not in the uncontrolled region.
Your card targets a vampire no longer in play. You are free to "track"
that information.
When and if the vampire again comes in play (the same card, not a
different copy), then you can track that as usual.
You cannot track vampires that are not in play, of course, unless
they're in your own uncontrolled region, as usual (or they have some
distinguishing characterstics observable without seeing the face of the
card -- like number of counters or somesuch).
All nice and consistent.
atomweaver
@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> atomweaver wrote:
>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>> news:1149879242.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > atomweaver wrote:
>> >> Yeah, I read that before posting... I'd request consideration of a
>> >> Rules Team review, please. It seems more consistent that a player
>> >> should retain knowledge of targets for cards in the play area, than
>> >> to trust (or obligate) that the target's owner will preserve that
>> >> knowledge for him.
>> >
>> > You still can't tell which is which from the backs, so you're
>> > inherently beholden to the "controller" to do the remembering.
>> >
>> Sure, but if asked, I'd like the target of my card to provide an
>> accurate answer...
>
> ... uselessly, since the answer has nothing to do with any game state
> you can discern.
>
I'm aware of how the rules currently work, Scott. I understand that a
difference cannot currently be discerned. I thought it was clear that I
was talking about how it would/might work under a proposed change.
> That is, the answer could not factor in to some decision about where to
> place Brainwash, for example. Which is which has no relevance until the
> vampire enters play again.
>
Again, I'm all clear about how it currently works, thanks... Your posted
link #2 was sufficient for that. I've got it. Alles klar. Claro. Je
comprends.
>> >> I'd admit, I've only thought on it for an hour, but I cannot see a
>> >> circumstance where this proposed change would result in any major
>> >> change to other card functions... but of course playtesting (or
>> >> someone posting an obvious oversight on my part) may show otherwise.
>> >
>> > "have no major impact" is not a sufficient reason to enact a change.
>> > A change has to serve some purpose.
>> >
>> >
>> ...and of course that was not my cited motivation for the change, but an
>> observation of its consequences. Cited reason is above; Rules/play
>> consistencya player tracks their own played cards, and is not obligated,
>> except in this instance, to rely upon their target to keep track of
>> effects.
>
> The rules/play consistency is that all players track all observable
> game state.
>
> They still do.
>
>> And I'll now add also that having target tracking remain the
>> obligation of the person who played the cards leads to a situation which
>> is less prone to possible abuse/neglect by the targetted player. Having
>> a player keep track of their own cards, in this niche case, requires
>> that the identity of the target vampire be preserved on it trip to (and
>> possibly back out of) the uncontrolled region.
>
> This "his own cards" seem to be a stumbling point.
>
> You track your own cards.
...and their effects, right? If I have some Gehenna "global" event in
play, I'm the one who needs to track and announce when its effects are
relevant to the current game state.
>
> Your card is not in the uncontrolled region.
My card has an effect relevant to/keyed on a copy of a card in the
uncontrolled region. It stands to reason I should know, or be able to
learn by asking, which card my Divine Sign (for example) keys on...
>
> Your card targets a vampire no longer in play. You are free to "track"
> that information.
>
Gee, thanks :-)
> When and if the vampire again comes in play (the same card, not a
> different copy), then you can track that as usual.
>
How am I to know if its the same card or a different copy, if I cannot
track which one my Divine Sign (for exmple) is keyed on, on its trip
through an unordered uncontrolled region? I suppose one answer is "ask a
judge".
I guess I prefer to keep track of as much of the game state myself, as is
possible, and thats from where this RTR request originates. Predators and
preys seem to have inherently faulty memories about these things :-) To
the extent possible, I think the game's rules should be structured to
put/keep that burden on the person who plays the card, and not on their
opponents...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
James Coupe
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
<snip - cards that were by some effect, such as Divine Sign, ending up
in the uncontrolled region>
>That is, the answer could not factor in to some decision about where to
>place Brainwash, for example. Which is which has no relevance until the
>vampire enters play again.
Well, there are a couple of (very) corner cases.
For example, I might have multiple copies of a given vampire in my
crypt. Let's say any random 5 cap Camarilla vampire, just for the sake
of argument. (The point being that you can't influence it out again in
one turn.)
Someone else in the game has played an Anarch Revolt, so I've used that
5 cap vampire to Go Anarch, using the default action.
Now, you're playing with Setites and because that vampire of mine is
annoying you, you Free States Rant it, and then banish it. I'm back in
the uncontrolled region with zero blood. My only other vampire in the
uncontrolled region happens to be another copy of the same vampire.
My turn, I influence 4 onto the Anarch version of the vampire.
Some time around the table, the Anarch Revolt deck is suddenly ousted,
by a prey pulling off three Conservative Agitations for 4 on him, or
something. It was pretty unexpected, just a clumping effect of a deck.
So then. It comes round to my turn again. You know, influencing out
the Anarch version is going to be a right pain now. So how about I
change my mind? There's been no observable game state to check with, so
no-one knows which is which.
A player objects and calls a judge over.
"Oh," say I. "I've pulled a couple of pro-vote cards, so I thought I
could get rid of the Anarch Revolts, but I wanted to be Camarilla for
this Praxis Seizure I've got here."
Or you burn one vampire with Memory's Fading Glimpse, and I decide it
was the "other" one.
I'm sure similarly contrived scenarios could be constructed for any
effect on a minion that "marks" them in some way that isn't actually
visible (no cards or counters on them, for example). For example, maybe
being Infernal from Barbaro is actually helpful to me right now -
because it means I could cut through the untap-restriction of the
Realities being played by a Ravnos player. But they get ousted, do I
bring out the infernal one or not? Maybe Divine Sign is actually not
being too bad for me, since it's your only blocker now and I want to
cycle the stealth when you try. The game state suddenly changes and it
matters to me again, so I change my mind.
How should a player keep track of such minions to avoid allegations of
changing their mind whilst also hiding not-in-play information from
others? Keeping a note on paper (folded up) might be one option, but
the possibility of needing it might not be noticed by players until the
situation crops up - at which point, the player has at least some
knowledge of bad stuff happening.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> > You track your own cards.
>
> ...and their effects, right? If I have some Gehenna "global" event in
> play, I'm the one who needs to track and announce when its effects are
> relevant to the current game state.
You need to announce it when it is played.
In play, every player needs to track it and annoucne when its effects
are to be applied.
> My card has an effect relevant to/keyed on a copy of a card in the
> uncontrolled region. It stands to reason I should know, or be able to
> learn by asking, which card my Divine Sign (for example) keys on...
No. It is only relevant when that vampire is in play, so it stands to
reason that that's not a compelling reason to add a new tracking
mechanism.
> > When and if the vampire again comes in play (the same card, not a
> > different copy), then you can track that as usual.
>
> How am I to know if its the same card or a different copy, if I cannot
> track which one my Divine Sign (for exmple) is keyed on, on its trip
> through an unordered uncontrolled region? I suppose one answer is "ask a
> judge".
That (or "ask the player", which is equivalent) is the answer, as
previously given, yes.
> I guess I prefer to keep track of as much of the game state myself, as is
> possible, and thats from where this RTR request originates.
And since it isn't possible to track hidden information by definition,
we're on the same page there. The RTR request is to change some
information from "hidden" to "known" (that is change what is part of
"game state"). With some gray area as to exactly haw far back that line
is to be moved, but that question can be delayed, since the line is in
no danger of being moved at all. :-)
> Predators and
> preys seem to have inherently faulty memories about these things :-) To
> the extent possible, I think the game's rules should be structured to
> put/keep that burden on the person who plays the card, and not on their
> opponents...
And it is. To the extent possible.
The cases affected are no burden, in any event, even in the rare
occassions in which they manifest at all.
LSJ
> Well, there are a couple of (very) corner cases.
> the Anarch version is going to be a right pain now. So how about I
> change my mind? There's been no observable game state to check with, so
> no-one knows which is which.
>
> A player objects and calls a judge over.
>
> "Oh," say I. "I've pulled a couple of pro-vote cards, so I thought I
> could get rid of the Anarch Revolts, but I wanted to be Camarilla for
> this Praxis Seizure I've got here."
>
> Or you burn one vampire with Memory's Fading Glimpse, and I decide it
> was the "other" one.
Well, Anarchs have anarch counters, so this isn't exactly the example
you're looking for, but sure -- in general, you're free to ask a judge
to come over at the moment any time the player who knows which is which
makes a decision that would distinguish them.
> How should a player keep track of such minions to avoid allegations of
> changing their mind whilst also hiding not-in-play information from
> others? Keeping a note on paper (folded up) might be one option, but
> the possibility of needing it might not be noticed by players until the
> situation crops up - at which point, the player has at least some
> knowledge of bad stuff happening.
The threads cited have suggested bits of post-its, yes.
Whatever works,
In general, honesty works.
Here's to that status lasting a while longer.
Cheers.
Rogar
> Perhaps, but the "if" condition fails (since the player has no
> knowledge of the face of a card just form looking at the back -- at
> least in the ideal), so the assertion is moot.
In a game of Memory (or whatever you call the game where you have to find
pairs in a grid of face-down cards), you also have no initial knowledge of
the face of a card, but any knowledge you gain you can use as you like. To
me, a crypt is intuitively more like a game of Memory that a game of Bang!i,
as like Memory, the cards are laid out on the table. I've never seen anyone
go about shuffling their crypt. It just seems common sense that you can
target a vampire that was just Banished or Governed even when it is not
marked with any counters.
So, in conclusion, I know the rules state otherwise. But since everyone
seems to be playing it differently, and it is more intuitive, why not change
the rules? It's not like any card text would change, so it's very low
impact.
Rogar
pd...@lightlink.com
> In a game of Memory (or whatever you call the game where you have to find
> pairs in a grid of face-down cards), you also have no initial knowledge of
> the face of a card, but any knowledge you gain you can use as you like.
But in memory (or whatever), the rules include the compnent that the
tiles/cards/whatever specifically *don't* get shuffled around once in
play. Your crypt does not have this prohibition.
> I've never seen anyone go about shuffling their crypt.
But you have seen them reorder their crypt, haven't you? Someone deals
out their 4 uncontrolled vampires, and looks at them, and moves them
around to some not readily apparent (to everyone else) order. I see
that happen in every game I am in. If the crypt were like a game of
memory, once you dealt out your crypt cards, you would have to leave
them in the order they hit the table. But you don't. As you can freely
re-order your crypt at your leisure.
> It just seems common sense that you can
> target a vampire that was just Banished or Governed even when it is not
> marked with any counters.
I don't think that is common sense so much as wishful thinking. Your
uncontrolled vampires are (unless otherwise marked per game effect,
like, having blood counters or cards stuck on them) indistinguishable
from each other. There is nothing that prevents a player from
reordering their crypt whenever they want to. If a vampire is Banished,
they have all the time in the world to re-order their crypt before it
gets around to the point when someone can Brainwash them. One could
circumvent this by making sure to Banish vampires with cards attached
to them, or only FSR them down to 1 blood instead of 0 before Banishing
them.
And in reality, isn't the Banish/Brainwash issue mostly academic? In
practicality, if you are someone's predator, and you Banish their
vampire, and it has no identifying cards/counters on it, if they intend
on influencing it back out, they'll probably put counters on it during
their turn anyway, so when it gets back around to your turn, you can
target the vampire with counters to Brainwash. If they went through
their turn and *didn't* put counters on it, does it really matter so
much if you Brainwash it? So really, this only is likely to come up in
a situation where your grandprey Banishes your prey's vampire with no
blood and no cards attached and then you have a Brainwash in hand when
it gets around to your turn. I think that is likely a pretty reasonable
example of "corner case".
> So, in conclusion, I know the rules state otherwise. But since everyone
> seems to be playing it differently, and it is more intuitive, why not change
> the rules? It's not like any card text would change, so it's very low
> impact.
'Cause it has a lot of impact. How do you word such a rule so that you
know know what vampires are what in the uncontrolled reigon but don't
prevent people from reordering their vampires at the start of the game?
And really, why does it gain? It makes a single card (Brainwash. Ok two
with Memory's Fading Glimpse) slightly more effective. But requires
either compromising a player's ability to reorder his crypt (which
everyone does all the time) or errating Banish (to make the newly
uncontrolled vampire go uncontrolled face up or something), which is
uncessary. Especially considering how the instances where such a thing
will make a difference, really, are very very few and far between.
-Peter
Fred Scott
news:slrne8lfvo.14u9...@turtle.stack.nl...
> So, in conclusion, I know the rules state otherwise. But since everyone
> seems to be playing it differently, and it is more intuitive, why not change
> the rules?
I don't think you should assume, "everyone seems to be playing it differently."
It appears to me that a certain people weren't aware of this nuance of the
rules concerned face down crypt cards in the uncontrolled region and this
thread has served as a lightning rod for all the discussion of it. Playing
crypt cards as being marked once something is known about them likely has
problems, too. But since it isn't the rule, you don't have a whole newsgroup
interested in taking pot shots at the concept.
Fred
Rogar
> Rogar wrote:
> > In a game of Memory (or whatever you call the game where you have to find
> > pairs in a grid of face-down cards), you also have no initial knowledge of
> > the face of a card, but any knowledge you gain you can use as you like.
>
> But in memory (or whatever), the rules include the compnent that the
> tiles/cards/whatever specifically *don't* get shuffled around once in
> play. Your crypt does not have this prohibition.
Well, I never said crypts are (or should be) exactly like Memory, I just
meant to say that, intuitively, crypts liken more to Memory than to Bang!,
if only because this so-called "crypt hand" is not in fact in your hand but
on the table.
> > I've never seen anyone go about shuffling their crypt.
>
> But you have seen them reorder their crypt, haven't you? Someone deals
> out their 4 uncontrolled vampires, and looks at them, and moves them
> around to some not readily apparent (to everyone else) order. I see
> that happen in every game I am in. If the crypt were like a game of
> memory, once you dealt out your crypt cards, you would have to leave
> them in the order they hit the table. But you don't. As you can freely
> re-order your crypt at your leisure.
True. I do this myself sometimes (though really I shouldn't). But at the
start of the game, all crypt cards are free of any taint, and identical from
the point of view of the other methuselah's. No information is lost. In
fact, the act of rearranging them itself might add information, if you know
how a player likes to arrange their crypt.
[...]
> And in reality, isn't the Banish/Brainwash issue mostly academic?
It is, sure. But I'm all about the academic, never really cared for the
minor details like how little difference it makes in practice. That's not
what this is about, this is about the paradigm we use for the crypt, the way
we view it in our heads, an abstract representation. If people's abstract
view of an important element of play does not match the game designer's
abstract view, then that is a big problem, in my opinion.
[...]
> > So, in conclusion, I know the rules state otherwise. But since everyone
> > seems to be playing it differently, and it is more intuitive, why not change
> > the rules? It's not like any card text would change, so it's very low
> > impact.
>
> 'Cause it has a lot of impact. How do you word such a rule so that you
> know know what vampires are what in the uncontrolled reigon but don't
> prevent people from reordering their vampires at the start of the game?
We've played like this for over a decade, and it has not been a problem so
far. Reordering at the start of the game is no problem, as I mentioned. And
if someone desperately wants to reorder during the game, you can just ask
them which one was the Banished vampire if you're interested. I don't see it
having much of an impact.
> And really, why does it gain? It makes a single card (Brainwash. Ok two
> with Memory's Fading Glimpse) slightly more effective. But requires
> either compromising a player's ability to reorder his crypt (which
> everyone does all the time) or errating Banish (to make the newly
> uncontrolled vampire go uncontrolled face up or something), which is
> uncessary. Especially considering how the instances where such a thing
> will make a difference, really, are very very few and far between.
As I mentioned in the original post, the game gain intuitiveness, so it will
be easier to learn, and wrong plays are less likely. Maybe it's just our
play group that feels this way, but I'd be really surprised. As far as I can
tell, there's a big increase in "sensicalness" of the gmae, at almost no
cost. Which is why I chimed in when I did.
Rogar
pd...@lightlink.com
> Well, I never said crypts are (or should be) exactly like Memory, I just
> meant to say that, intuitively, crypts liken more to Memory than to Bang!,
> if only because this so-called "crypt hand" is not in fact in your hand but
> on the table.
Sure (although I'm lost on the "Bang!" reference, unless you are
refering back to something LSJ wrote about having "Bang!" cards in his
hand, where "Bang!" was meant to refer to "any card", i.e. rather than
saying "Giant's Blood", which I used in a simailar example, he used the
word "Bang!" as a fake card title). That being said, I don't think
crypts are intutively anything like Memory. As in Memory, the whole
purpose of the game is to guess where things are. You never have to
guess what is in your own crypt, and your opponents only rarely have to
guess what is in your crypt.
> True. I do this myself sometimes (though really I shouldn't).
???
Why shouldn't you? You deal out 4 vampires. You look at them, and put
them in some sort of order that helps you figure out what you are doing
during the influence phases early in the game. Maybe you out the first
vampire you want to get out on the left. Or you put them in numerical
order. Or something. Why wouldn't you do this, and why shouldn't you do
this?
> But at the
> start of the game, all crypt cards are free of any taint, and identical from
> the point of view of the other methuselah's. No information is lost. In
> fact, the act of rearranging them itself might add information, if you know
> how a player likes to arrange their crypt.
It might. But that is an option you have.
> It is, sure. But I'm all about the academic, never really cared for the
> minor details like how little difference it makes in practice. That's not
> what this is about, this is about the paradigm we use for the crypt, the way
> we view it in our heads, an abstract representation. If people's abstract
> view of an important element of play does not match the game designer's
> abstract view, then that is a big problem, in my opinion.
True. But I suspect that it is more of a problem for the people who's
view is divergent than the designers. The rules are pretty clear and
don't really need extra mucking up. Again, how is such a rule going to
be worded? Really--come up with an example of a rule that:
A) Preserves the identity of previously identified (Banished, Governed
to) yet unmarked vampires in the uncontrolled reigon.
and
B) Allows players to reorder their crypt at their leisure.
> We've played like this for over a decade, and it has not been a problem so
> far. Reordering at the start of the game is no problem, as I mentioned. And
> if someone desperately wants to reorder during the game, you can just ask
> them which one was the Banished vampire if you're interested. I don't see it
> having much of an impact.
But unless the Banished vampire is marked in some in game way (pool
counters, cards), you don't get this information. The card does not
provide that power. You are giving more abilities to a card that it
does not warrant. I mean, like, if you like playing this way, that is
fine. But it strikes me as dubious to increase the power of an already
powerful card for no real good reason.
-Peter
Rogar
> Rogar wrote:
> > Well, I never said crypts are (or should be) exactly like Memory, I just
> > meant to say that, intuitively, crypts liken more to Memory than to Bang!,
> > if only because this so-called "crypt hand" is not in fact in your hand but
> > on the table.
>
> Sure (although I'm lost on the "Bang!" reference, unless you are
> refering back to something LSJ wrote about having "Bang!" cards in his
> hand, where "Bang!" was meant to refer to "any card", i.e. rather than
> saying "Giant's Blood", which I used in a simailar example, he used the
> word "Bang!" as a fake card title).
LSJ mentioned it to illustrate a point somewhere in this thread. I think it
is an actual game, even. ;)
> That being said, I don't think
> crypts are intutively anything like Memory. As in Memory, the whole
> purpose of the game is to guess where things are. You never have to
> guess what is in your own crypt, and your opponents only rarely have to
> guess what is in your crypt.
The point of Memory is not the guessing, but in remembering information for
later use. Which is exactly what will occur when all information on what
happened to a card in the crypt is retained.
> > True. I do this myself sometimes (though really I shouldn't).
>
> Why shouldn't you?
It doesn't matter the way it is supposed to be played, as apparently you can
just make a quick shuffle before someone tosses down a Brainwash. But the
way we (used to) play, if you always place the vampire you're going to
influence first on the left side, people could take advantage of that. Guess
I no longer have to worry about it, then. :)
> > It is, sure. But I'm all about the academic, never really cared for the
> > minor details like how little difference it makes in practice. That's not
> > what this is about, this is about the paradigm we use for the crypt, the way
> > we view it in our heads, an abstract representation. If people's abstract
> > view of an important element of play does not match the game designer's
> > abstract view, then that is a big problem, in my opinion.
>
> True. But I suspect that it is more of a problem for the people who's
> view is divergent than the designers. The rules are pretty clear and
> don't really need extra mucking up.
If my playgroup is the only group that read the rules this way, then sure,
it's our problem. But judging from the thread, I think there's plenty of
others.
> Again, how is such a rule going to
> be worded? Really--come up with an example of a rule that:
>
> A) Preserves the identity of previously identified (Banished, Governed
> to) yet unmarked vampires in the uncontrolled reigon.
>
> and
>
> B) Allows players to reorder their crypt at their leisure.
I can't find the current rule anywhere in the rule book, so apparently an
exact wording isn't needed. The way we play it at our group has certainly
never needed an exact wording. You just need to reverse the earlier ruling
so that information does stick to crupt cards. People can handle it
themselves, just like they can handle Divine Sign without there being a
physical connection to the target.
> But unless the Banished vampire is marked in some in game way (pool
> counters, cards), you don't get this information. The card does not
> provide that power. You are giving more abilities to a card that it
> does not warrant. I mean, like, if you like playing this way, that is
> fine. But it strikes me as dubious to increase the power of an already
> powerful card for no real good reason.
You yourself said that the change has mostly corner case effects in actual
game play. The increase in power is so minor, I sincerly doubt it would be a
problem.
Rogar
pd...@lightlink.com
> LSJ mentioned it to illustrate a point somewhere in this thread. I think it
> is an actual game, even. ;)
Heh. Yeah, I think he was using it as simply "Name of Card X" rather
than use an actual card title, to avoid having the context of the card
become possibly confused in the issue. I suspect, though, that in
trying to avoid being confusing, he ended up being more confusing :-)
> The point of Memory is not the guessing, but in remembering information for
> later use. Which is exactly what will occur when all information on what
> happened to a card in the crypt is retained.
True. But again, in Memory, you are, by virtue of the rules, required
to leave the cards in the order they are dealt. VTES has no such rule.
So while it would certainly be handy to be able to remeber what cards
are Banished and be able to use that, the rules work against this
(unless there is only one vampire in the uncontrolled reigon, or the
Banished vampire is otherwise marked with counters or cards).
> It doesn't matter the way it is supposed to be played, as apparently you can
> just make a quick shuffle before someone tosses down a Brainwash. But the
> way we (used to) play, if you always place the vampire you're going to
> influence first on the left side, people could take advantage of that. Guess
> I no longer have to worry about it, then. :)
People could. But that isn't actually a rule (i.e. first vampire you
influence on the left). Like, I always re-order my uncontrolled
vampires when I deal them out, in some way or the other. Maybe the one
I want first is on the left. Maybe on the right. Maybe I put them in
capacity order. Maybe I put duplicates next to each other. Something,
depending on the deck and what vampires show up. And as the game
progresses, I continue to re-order my crypt; if I influence out vampire
3 of 4 in the line, I don't "leave a hole" in my uncontrolled reigon--I
push them closer together and or reorder them (not specifically to
obscure any information, but simply 'cause I like order in my crypt).
If there were a situation where someone had info on one of the vampires
in my uncontrolled reigon ('cause, say, you had a Nosferatu Hosting.
Heh heh. Nosferatu Hosting. That's funny :-), and I reorderd my crypt
'cause I influenced someone out, or got a new vampire with an Effective
Mangement, then you would not know which vampire was which anymore. Why
should the effect of Banishment be any different?
> If my playgroup is the only group that read the rules this way, then sure,
> it's our problem. But judging from the thread, I think there's plenty of
> others.
Like, I'm not quite sure what is being read in any particular way.
There are no rules governing how you order or re-order your
uncontrolled vampires. There is no text on Banishment (or Harrod or
whatever) that gives you any special permanent knowledge about
uncontrolled vampires (except in that sometimes Banished vampires are
"marked" by attached cards or counters). So while it seems perfectly
possible that someone would believe that they had special knowledge
about a bloodless, cardless Banished vampire, there is nothing in the
rules anywhere to support that. Just like there is nothing in the rules
to support the idea that you have to put the first vampire you want to
influence out on the left of your uncontrolled reigon.
> I can't find the current rule anywhere in the rule book, so apparently an
> exact wording isn't needed.
That is 'cause the current rule ("you can freely reorder your
uncontrolled vampires") isn't so much a rule as a lack of rule
governing how you must treat your uncontrolled vampires. There are
rules about how many you start with, rules about getting more vampires
into your uncontrolled reigon, rules about getting vampires out of your
uncontrolled reigon, and rules about how your uncontrolled vampires are
supposed to be face down. And rules about how your uncontrolled reigon
is on the table for everyone to see. Other than that, you have free
reign. You can make your uncontrolled reigon in a 2x2 grid. Place them
in a determined order. Shuffle them. Whatever. As there are no rules
governing otherwise.
> The way we play it at our group has certainly
> never needed an exact wording. You just need to reverse the earlier ruling
> so that information does stick to crupt cards. People can handle it
> themselves, just like they can handle Divine Sign without there being a
> physical connection to the target.
But there hasn't been a ruling on anything that needs to be reveresed.
Someone asked a question, and it was answered, but nothing was ruled,
as nothing has changed. Like, this is always how the rules have worked.
Like, what you seem to be looking for is a specific rule that says
something like "If a player knows the identity of a face down,
uncontrolled vampire due to a Banishment or Harrod or Nosferatu Hosting
or something, that player always knows which face down uncontrolled
vampire that is, regardless of the existance of other, unknown, face
down vampires in that crypt". Which is unweildy, and really,
unecessary, due to the incredibly small number of instances where it
matters.
> You yourself said that the change has mostly corner case effects in actual
> game play. The increase in power is so minor, I sincerly doubt it would be a
> problem.
Problem isn't an issue. The situations where this actually matters are
going to come up so infrequently that I simply can't see why it is
worth it to change the rules just to make it work the way a few people
want it to. Like, really, what would making such a rule affect?
-Brainwash. Which when played the vast majority of the time, is
completely random (as it is really only truly useful early in the game,
when you are unlikely to have seen any uncontrolled vampires).
-Memory's Fading Glimpse. Same as above.
-Banishment. Becomes more useful in conjunction with Brainwash. But
only when the Banished vampire has zero blood and no attached cards.
And only if the target doesn't put more counters on the card to try and
influence it back out in the time between when it gets Banished and
when you can Brainwash him.
-Peace of Khetemon. Same as above.
-Harrod. Only when combined with Brainwash/Memory.
-Nosferatu Hosting. Same as above.
That is pretty much it. Incredibly corner case cards. And really, the
only significant actions here are Banish/Harrod/Nosferatu Hosting
followed by Brainwash/Memory which is difficult to set up and unlikely
to actually happen all that often in any case. Like, the most likely
thing that is going to happen here is Harrod followed by Memory (as the
timing actually works in your favor here). We really want to create a
unweildy, non-intuitive rule just so Harrod can Memory's Fading Glimpse
more effectively?
-Peter
Meej
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Really--come up with an example of a rule that:
>
> A) Preserves the identity of previously identified (Banished, Governed
> to) yet unmarked vampires in the uncontrolled reigon.
>
> and
>
> B) Allows players to reorder their crypt at their leisure.
"At the beginning of the game, draw 4 crypt cards, and place them in
your uncontrolled region in any order.
Whenever a card moves into your uncontrolled region from your crypt,
ash heap, or in play, you may place it anywhere in your uncontrolled
region.
Other than these situations, do not change the order of the cards in
your uncontrolled region."
I'm not saying it's worth doing, but it's trivial to come up with it.
- D.J.
atomweaver
news:1149898112.0...@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> atomweaver wrote:
>> Predators and
>> preys seem to have inherently faulty memories about these things :-)
>> To the extent possible, I think the game's rules should be structured
>> to put/keep that burden on the person who plays the card, and not on
>> their opponents...
>
> And it is. To the extent possible.
We disagree on "to the extent possible"...
> The cases affected are no burden, in any event, even in the rare
> occassions in which they manifest at all.
>
Meh. OK. So I have to trust that my opponent will provide accurate
information, at the time it becomes relevant. Not ideal, but its too
corner case for me to worry overmuch. I'll just ask a judge to verify
correct play, if'n it ever matters.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
LSJ
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Rogar wrote:
> > Well, I never said crypts are (or should be) exactly like Memory, I just
> > meant to say that, intuitively, crypts liken more to Memory than to Bang!,
> > if only because this so-called "crypt hand" is not in fact in your hand but
> > on the table.
>
> Sure (although I'm lost on the "Bang!" reference, unless you are
> refering back to something LSJ wrote about having "Bang!" cards in his
> hand, where "Bang!" was meant to refer to "any card", i.e. rather than
> saying "Giant's Blood", which I used in a simailar example, he used the
> word "Bang!" as a fake card title).
There is a card game called Bang!
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3955
Some of the cards are named "Bang!". They are Bang! cards.
There are other cards whose effects allow a player to draw a card form
another player's hand.
The example was trivial to follow even without this knowledge, of
course, by simply taking "Bang! cards" to mean some distinct class of
card available in the game.
> That being said, I don't think
> crypts are intutively anything like Memory. As in Memory, the whole
> purpose of the game is to guess where things are. You never have to
> guess what is in your own crypt, and your opponents only rarely have to
> guess what is in your crypt.
Correct. Crypts liken more to hands (of library cards, of Bang! cards,
or of any other card game's cards) than to memory since memory tracks
position/relative position of the cards and "hand" does not. It isn't
hard to see that the cards in this hand are on the table for only one
purpose: to facilitate the tracking of counters (and cards) placed on
them, as stated in one of the previously-linked threads.
pd...@lightlink.com
Meej wrote:
> "At the beginning of the game, draw 4 crypt cards, and place them in
> your uncontrolled region in any order.
>
> Whenever a card moves into your uncontrolled region from your crypt,
> ash heap, or in play, you may place it anywhere in your uncontrolled
> region.
>
> Other than these situations, do not change the order of the cards in
> your uncontrolled region."
>
>
> I'm not saying it's worth doing, but it's trivial to come up with it.
Heh. See, though, this restricts my ability to rearrange my crypt. I
mean, this is certainly a rule that keeps you from moving stuff around,
but does so at the cost of players being able to rearrange their crypt
for perfectly legitimate, non intel-based reasons. I can't, after
playing Effective Mangament and draw a 3 cap vampire, make room in my
uncontrolled reigon between the pre-existing 2 cap and 4 cap I have
sitting there, 'cause I like having my uncontrolled reigon in numerical
order. Or when I influence out vampire "3" in the sequece of 4, leaving
a hole, can I squish my vampires togther? Can I Effective out a new
vampire and put him in the hole? And what happens when I have some huge
crypt Blood Brothers deck where I Effective out a new vampire every
turn and influence out some and leave some behind, but I still have,
like, 10 on the table? Do I have to leave them all spread out as I
influence out new ones, taking up a rediculous amount of table space?
When I get new ones, and I place them in the middle of the arrangement,
isn't this pretty much just like shuffling my uncontrolled reigon
anyway?
It is very easy to come up with a rule that seems like it does what
some folks seem to want it to. But I don't think it actually is (while
retaining the player's ability to order their crypt as the feel fit).
-Peter
Meej
> Meej wrote:
> > "At the beginning of the game, draw 4 crypt cards, and place them in
> > your uncontrolled region in any order.
> >
> > Whenever a card moves into your uncontrolled region from your crypt,
> > ash heap, or in play, you may place it anywhere in your uncontrolled
> > region.
> >
> > Other than these situations, do not change the order of the cards in
> > your uncontrolled region."
> >
> >
> > I'm not saying it's worth doing, but it's trivial to come up with it.
>
> Heh. See, though, this restricts my ability to rearrange my crypt.
That it does, which was purportedly the whole point of even "needing" a
rule in the first place - to prevent the supposedly-problematic random
rearrangement 'cause you're about to Brainwash. Not that it's actually
a problem, really. But hey, you dropped a challenge of sorts. :-)
> I mean, this is certainly a rule that keeps you from moving stuff around,
> but does so at the cost of players being able to rearrange their crypt
> for perfectly legitimate, non intel-based reasons.
Other than fitting in a newly-drawn (etc) vamp or trying to take up
less space by closing gaps, I don't think I've ever seen anyone
reorganize their crypt after the beginning of the game. And even in
those situations, the other vamps tend to stay in the same order
relative to one another.
> I can't, after
> playing Effective Mangament and draw a 3 cap vampire, make room in my
> uncontrolled reigon between the pre-existing 2 cap and 4 cap I have
> sitting there, 'cause I like having my uncontrolled reigon in numerical
> order.
Sure you can; in the above, only the order has to not change, not the
physical spot on the table. And when bringing a new one in, put it
"anywhere in your uncontrolled region". Which maybe would be clearer
as "at any point in the order of your uncontrolled crypt cards" but
ick, that's clumsy.
(snip a bunch)
> When I get new ones, and I place them in the middle of the arrangement,
> isn't this pretty much just like shuffling my uncontrolled reigon
> anyway?
Not if you're not changing the order of the other ones. If your
predator cares about which one is which, and you've been governing back
from the 2nd-from-the-right vampire, and you bring out a new one and
he's too daft to notice where you put it, that isn't your fault. If he
cares, he'd watch.
Now, again - I don't think it's a necessary thing, and you're right
that it prevents "oh, I've got a completely different pattern I want to
put them in now" mid-game, but other than that - assuming your
first-organization logic still holds, and you just want to fit new ones
into an existing sequence or clean up gaps, it should work, no?
- D.J.
(for some reason I end up in these trivial conversations about
situations I'm not really advocating... weird.)
pd...@lightlink.com
Meej wrote:
> That it does, which was purportedly the whole point of even "needing" a
> rule in the first place - to prevent the supposedly-problematic random
> rearrangement 'cause you're about to Brainwash. Not that it's actually
> a problem, really. But hey, you dropped a challenge of sorts. :-)
Heh. But the challenge included *not* restricting a player's ability to
freely re-order their crypt for reasons other than obscuring
information coming from Harrod or Banishment or something.
> Other than fitting in a newly-drawn (etc) vamp or trying to take up
> less space by closing gaps, I don't think I've ever seen anyone
> reorganize their crypt after the beginning of the game. And even in
> those situations, the other vamps tend to stay in the same order
> relative to one another.
Eh. I do it a lot. Not 'cause I'm trying to obscure information, but
usually to avoid performing a Bakija Gambit.
> Sure you can; in the above, only the order has to not change, not the
> physical spot on the table. And when bringing a new one in, put it
> "anywhere in your uncontrolled region". Which maybe would be clearer
> as "at any point in the order of your uncontrolled crypt cards" but
> ick, that's clumsy.
Say I have cards in order 1, 2, 3, 4. You have Nosferatu Hosting in
play (heh heh. Nosferatu Hosting.) You look at vampire 3. I influence
out vampire 2. My arrangement is now 1, X, 3, 4. I squish my vampires
back together so my arrangement is 1, 3, 4. I influence out another
vampire, so my arrangement is 1, 3, 4, 5. An hour passes. You then want
to Brainwash the vampire that you had previously Nosferatu Hostinged.
You don't remember exactly which vampire was which, as the arrangement
in my uncontrolled reigon is different than when you Nosferatu
Hostinged. Am I obliged to tell you which vampire is thw one you
originally looked at?
> (for some reason I end up in these trivial conversations about
> situations I'm not really advocating... weird.)
Heh. 'Cause it is funny :-)
-Peter
Churchy La Femme
> That is pretty much it. Incredibly corner case cards. And really, the
> only significant actions here are Banish/Harrod/Nosferatu Hosting
> followed by Brainwash/Memory which is difficult to set up and unlikely
> to actually happen all that often in any case. Like, the most likely
> thing that is going to happen here is Harrod followed by Memory (as the
> timing actually works in your favor here). We really want to create a
> unweildy, non-intuitive rule just so Harrod can Memory's Fading Glimpse
> more effectively?
You have only named a few cards that are 'affected' by this idea , and
have forgotten the aforementioned Gisela Harding. With an identical
amount of blood counters on uncontrolled vampires there are sill other
cards that can affect or combo effect an opponents uncontrolled: Lazar
Dobrescu, Trick of the Danya, Undue Influence, Gemini, Cairo Int'l
Airport, Masquerade Enforcement, Reality, Mistrust, Might of the
Camarilla, San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain. These mixed with Memory's
Fading Glimpse, Banishment, Brainwash, Harrod, Nosferatu Hosting, Peace
of Khetamon and Gisela become less cornercase as more cards are
printed. A simple solution: If questioned about a card of which
previous in game information had been gathered the Methuselah answers
correctly. Examples: Which vampire is my Divine Sign targeted? Which
vamp did Gabrin Reality? You can mix up your uncontrolled all you want
as long as you answer correctly.
pd...@lightlink.com
> You have only named a few cards that are 'affected' by this idea , and
> have forgotten the aforementioned Gisela Harding.
Gisela can certainly benefit from knowing what vampires are your prey's
uncontrolled reigon. Where is she getting this information? Banishment?
How often, really, is a vampire in a situation to be Banished with
exactly zero blood and no attached cards? Harrod?
That and it seems likely that Gisela's special ability was designed
fully cognizent of this concept, and that changing this makes her
ability more powerful than intended. Much like Brainwash. And Memory.
> These mixed with Memory's
> Fading Glimpse, Banishment, Brainwash, Harrod, Nosferatu Hosting,
Heh heh. You said "Nosferatu Hosting".
> Peace
> of Khetamon and Gisela become less cornercase as more cards are
> printed. A simple solution: If questioned about a card of which
> previous in game information had been gathered the Methuselah answers
> correctly.
That is possibly a simple answer. But then makes all the cards you
mention more powerful than they were originally indended to be.
-Peter
Churchy La Femme
p...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Gisela can certainly benefit from knowing what vampires are your prey's
> uncontrolled reigon. Where is she getting this information? Banishment?
> How often, really, is a vampire in a situation to be Banished with
> exactly zero blood and no attached cards? Harrod?
Not really the point on 'how often' but if a deck attempts some tricks
this way then an equal amount of blood counters, or lack thereof, on
more than one make a difficult concept even worse. And is only a part,
albeit a major one, for the implemented change of rules.
> That and it seems likely that Gisela's special ability was designed
> fully cognizent of this concept, and that changing this makes her
> ability more powerful than intended. Much like Brainwash. And Memory.
More powerful? Sure. But even so, a very difficult strategy to pull
off.
> > These mixed with Memory's
> > Fading Glimpse, Banishment, Brainwash, Harrod, Nosferatu Hosting,
>
> Heh heh. You said "Nosferatu Hosting".
Yeah, this is the one that is like Harrod's ability, right? Now that
the rest of this thread has gone through various arguments I don't see
why these shouldn't be included in the proposed change.
> > Peace
> > of Khetamon and Gisela become less cornercase as more cards are
> > printed. A simple solution: If questioned about a card of which
> > previous in game information had been gathered the Methuselah answers
> > correctly.
>
> That is possibly a simple answer. But then makes all the cards you
> mention more powerful than they were originally indended to be.
Perhaps, but since alot of people seem to have been playing with this
as an underlying intent, not realizing that the rule differed, then it
doesn't seem to have 'bent' or 'broken' anything. Plus this would just
help stop some intentional or unintentional cheating. Heck, all the
Govern back cards could possibly be included in this as well.
Ankur Gupta
>> occassions in which they manifest at all.
>
> Meh. OK. So I have to trust that my opponent will provide accurate
> information, at the time it becomes relevant. Not ideal, but its too
> corner case for me to worry overmuch. I'll just ask a judge to verify
> correct play, if'n it ever matters.
How do you satisfy yourself that a Govern down action is being taken to a
valid target? It is certainly possible to force a person to reveal the
minion in question. Is this something that you'd call a burden?
Would you call a judge?
Ankur
pd...@lightlink.com
> More powerful? Sure. But even so, a very difficult strategy to pull
> off.
Sure. But still, Gisela, Memory, Brainwash, whatever, are all designed
with the actual rules in mind (i.e. played can freely reorder their
crypt). Changing that upgrades the power of these cards, which isn't
necessarily warranted.
> Yeah, this is the one that is like Harrod's ability, right? Now that
> the rest of this thread has gone through various arguments I don't see
> why these shouldn't be included in the proposed change.
Heh. Mostly I keep metioning Nosferatu Hosting as it is, like, the
worst card ever (even giving Tourtured Confessions a run for its
money). Such that I think using it as a reason to change some rule as
higly sketchy, as it will never, ever see play in any situation :-)
> Perhaps, but since alot of people seem to have been playing with this
> as an underlying intent, not realizing that the rule differed, then it
> doesn't seem to have 'bent' or 'broken' anything. Plus this would just
> help stop some intentional or unintentional cheating. Heck, all the
> Govern back cards could possibly be included in this as well.
Like, I see where you are coming from and all, but it seems to me, at
least, that changing the rules to facilitate all of this seems simply
like too much work for no significant gain. I realize that apparently
some folks have been playing this wrong for some amount of time, and
are surprised at how the rules actually are meant to work. But the gain
(making Banish and Brainwash and Gisela Harden more effective) simply
seems unwarranted and not worth the effort to change the rules. Like,
it isn't as if Banishment can be accused of being not effective enough,
and it isn't like such a change will suddenly make Memory's Fading
Glimpse or Nosferatu Hosting worth playing.
-Peter
atomweaver
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu:
In casual play, I of course don't worry about it.
In a tournament, if I had seen indications of sloppy
play/mistakes/oversights on that players' part, sure I would.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
P.S. If it was Dave Cherryholmes, I'd call the judge over for every last
Govern from the work "go", because everybody knows he's a No Good Stinky
Double Dirty Rotten Cheater. :P
Ankur Gupta
>
> In a tournament, if I had seen indications of sloppy
> play/mistakes/oversights on that players' part, sure I would.
How is this approach different from that of the divine sign silliness?
Bottom line: if you trust a player, then you can point it out and be
reasonably certain they'll tell you the right of it. If you can't trust
them, there are a whole host of game mechanics in place that you would
need to revisit.
> P.S. If it was Dave Cherryholmes, I'd call the judge over for every last
> Govern from the work "go", because everybody knows he's a No Good Stinky
> Double Dirty Rotten Cheater. :P
On this point, I completely agree. Dirty Rotten Cheater. I learn from the
best, I tell ya. :)
Ankur
Rogar
> > If my playgroup is the only group that read the rules this way, then sure,
> > it's our problem. But judging from the thread, I think there's plenty of
> > others.
>
> Like, I'm not quite sure what is being read in any particular way.
> There are no rules governing how you order or re-order your
> uncontrolled vampires. There is no text on Banishment (or Harrod or
> whatever) that gives you any special permanent knowledge about
> uncontrolled vampires (except in that sometimes Banished vampires are
> "marked" by attached cards or counters). So while it seems perfectly
> possible that someone would believe that they had special knowledge
> about a bloodless, cardless Banished vampire, there is nothing in the
> rules anywhere to support that. Just like there is nothing in the rules
> to support the idea that you have to put the first vampire you want to
> influence out on the left of your uncontrolled reigon.
There's all kinds of stuff that's not in the rules, a definition of the
language used to describe the rules, for instance. LSJ himself often tells
people to use concepts from the realm of common knowledge to figure out how
stuff works. You can't make rules without building on some prior knowledge.
So just because it's not in the rules, there's no reason why I can't use my
common knowledge to assume that information sticks to crypt cards. Because,
in fact, it does.
When someone Governs a crypt card, or Banishes one back to the uncontrolled
region without any blood or other markers, this -is- information. I can't
really explain it any better, because it is just so bloody obvious. By
allowing people to shuffle their crypt at any time, this information is
purposefully -deleted- to conform to some abstract idea that the crypt
should act like a hand. That this act of information hiding isn't even in
the rules makes it even worse. Is it then so weird that people will derive
another model of the crypt in their minds?
Then, if it is judged there isn't enough cause to warrant a change in the
rules, I hope it can at least be added to the rules. Actually, the rules
might not even need expanding. If the rule book put a more explicit abstract
model of the crypt in our minds, that might help a lot.
Rogar
pd...@lightlink.com
> When someone Governs a crypt card, or Banishes one back to the uncontrolled
> region without any blood or other markers, this -is- information. I can't
> really explain it any better, because it is just so bloody obvious.
No, no--I agree with you. It is certainly information. Knowing what
vampire was Banished or that someone has been Governing to a vampire
indicating it's relative age, yes, that is game related information
connected to those uncontrolled vampires. But there is nothing to
specifically save that knowledge for a player, and when that knowledge
interacts with the general rules for dealing with your uncontrolled
reigon (i.e. you can freely reorder your crypt whenever you want to),
that it is information kind of ceases to be relevant, in terms of other
cards that target uncontrolled vampires. If I have 1 unidentified
uncontrolled vampire that an 8 cap has Governed down to, and then you
banish Beast with no blood and no cards, I then have 2 uncontrolled
vampires--one is still unidentified except you know it is younger than
8 and one is Beast, although nothing indicates that you do know or
should know which is which.
> By
> allowing people to shuffle their crypt at any time, this information is
> purposefully -deleted- to conform to some abstract idea that the crypt
> should act like a hand.
The information isn't deleted. You still know that one of my
uncontrolled vampires is Beast. And that the other vampire is younger
than an 8 cap. You just don't know which is which, as nothing indicates
that you get to keep that knowledge.
> That this act of information hiding isn't even in the rules makes it even worse. Is it then so
> weird that people will derive another model of the crypt in their minds?
I don't think it is weird that someone could derive another model in
their minds, no. But this isn't specifically in the rules as it doesn't
need to be--you can freely re-order your crypt whenever you want to.
And nothing on Banishment or Harrod or Nosfeeratu Hosting (Heh heh.
Nosferatu Hosting.) or whatever indicates that players get to keep
special knowledge about uncontrolled vampires.
> Then, if it is judged there isn't enough cause to warrant a change in the
> rules, I hope it can at least be added to the rules. Actually, the rules
> might not even need expanding. If the rule book put a more explicit abstract
> model of the crypt in our minds, that might help a lot.
That might very well be the case. Like, it never really occured to me
that your crypt might work the way you advocate for. But really, I have
also never seen a situation where it was important (i.e. someone trying
to Brainwash a Banished vampire with no cards and no blood or Harrod
peeking at a vampire and then trying to Memory's Fading Glimpse it).
And I play a lot of VTES.
-Peter
Robert Scythe
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> > Then, if it is judged there isn't enough cause to warrant a change in the
> > rules, I hope it can at least be added to the rules. Actually, the rules
> > might not even need expanding. If the rule book put a more explicit abstract
> > model of the crypt in our minds, that might help a lot.
>
> That might very well be the case. Like, it never really occured to me
> that your crypt might work the way you advocate for. But really, I have
> also never seen a situation where it was important (i.e. someone trying
> to Brainwash a Banished vampire with no cards and no blood or Harrod
> peeking at a vampire and then trying to Memory's Fading Glimpse it).
> And I play a lot of VTES.
Funny you should mention this now. Just last week Matt W brought to the
table a deck which utilized Gisela-Memory's-Banishment-Kaymakli
Nightmares-Might of the Cam-Leandro-Gemini (it used to have Brainwash
but he didn't play any that day, don't know if they're still in there).
I do not know if he has ever capitilized on information he shouldn't
have known (since I don't know if anyone in L.A. is familiar with the
actual Rules in this case [seems more intuitive for the info to be
known] ) but it's not like this is a high 'power' deck. I rather
believe that the in game knowledge should stick with the uncontrolled
cards. But, hey, I guess it'll make these cards too 'powerful' !?!
pd...@lightlink.com
> Funny you should mention this now. Just last week Matt W brought to the
> table a deck which utilized Gisela-Memory's-Banishment-Kaymakli
> Nightmares-Might of the Cam-Leandro-Gemini (it used to have Brainwash
> but he didn't play any that day, don't know if they're still in there).
Heh. I never said it didn't seem possible to occur. Just that it is
farily unlikely :-)
> I do not know if he has ever capitilized on information he shouldn't
> have known (since I don't know if anyone in L.A. is familiar with the
> actual Rules in this case [seems more intuitive for the info to be
> known] ) but it's not like this is a high 'power' deck. I rather
> believe that the in game knowledge should stick with the uncontrolled
> cards. But, hey, I guess it'll make these cards too 'powerful' !?!
Nah. But really, if you have a whole deck built around
Gisela/Memory/Banishment/Might of the Camarilla/whatever, does it
really *matter* if you know what vampires are in your prey's
uncontrolled reigon? Like, with that much "make uncontrolled vampires
disappear" technology, you are just going to kill all their
uncontrolled vampires. And when you banish someone, they'll probably be
the only uncontrolled vampire out there. Does it matter or not if you
know which one of the two uncontrolled vampires is someone specific?
-Peter
A.J.Behrends
> Rogar wrote:
> > When someone Governs a crypt card, or Banishes one back to the uncontrolled
> > region without any blood or other markers, this -is- information. I can't
> > really explain it any better, because it is just so bloody obvious.
>
> No, no--I agree with you. It is certainly information. Knowing what
> vampire was Banished or that someone has been Governing to a vampire
> indicating it's relative age, yes, that is game related information
> connected to those uncontrolled vampires. But there is nothing to
> specifically save that knowledge for a player, and when that knowledge
> interacts with the general rules for dealing with your uncontrolled
> reigon (i.e. you can freely reorder your crypt whenever you want to),
> that it is information kind of ceases to be relevant, in terms of other
> cards that target uncontrolled vampires.
In case of Govern the Unaligned it stays relevant IMO until it is
verified nobody is cheating.
Szenario:
- play sup GtU while 1 card in uncontrolled region.
- remove all pool.
- buy a new Vamp.
- shuffle uncontrolled cards
- influence both out
et voila:
1 vamp is higher cap than the acting minion, the other one lower.
How can you be sure that GtU was played on the correct minion?
That he was available during GtU?
That there was no "cheating"?
IMO this is information that should ALWAYS remain with the card,
so as to prevent any options to cheat.
Or do I have to call a judge eacht time someone GtU's at SUP without
influencing him out?
-Alf
pd...@lightlink.com
A.J.Behrends wrote:
> In case of Govern the Unaligned it stays relevant IMO until it is
> verified nobody is cheating.
As mentioned elsewhere, if you are concerned about someone cheating
with Govern, ask a judge to check.
> How can you be sure that GtU was played on the correct minion?
> That he was available during GtU?
> That there was no "cheating"?
If you are concerned about it, ask a judge to check.
> IMO this is information that should ALWAYS remain with the card,
> so as to prevent any options to cheat.
Without asking a judge to check at some point, it is possible that
someone will cheat anyway (i.e. if someone Governs down the whole game,
never gets that vampire into play, and then when the game is over,
shuffles the vampire back into their crypt). If you are concerned about
someone cheating with Govern, ask a judge to check.
> Or do I have to call a judge eacht time someone GtU's at SUP without
> influencing him out?
You would have to do that anyway if you were concerned about it.
-Peter
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> If I have 1 unidentified
> uncontrolled vampire that an 8 cap has Governed down to, and then you
> banish Beast with no blood and no cards, I then have 2 uncontrolled
> vampires--one is still unidentified except you know it is younger than
> 8 and one is Beast, although nothing indicates that you do know or
> should know which is which.
>
My only issue is that some effects (targetship of a Title Card, for
example) allow you to track vampires in the uncontrolled region, while
other effects (targetship of a Divine Sign, for another) do not, and
the line is arbitrarily drawn based on whether the effect is generated
by a card on the uncontrolled card or by another card in play pointing
to it. All effects that are actively trying to target that card should
be tracked.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
LSJ
> pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> > If I have 1 unidentified
> > uncontrolled vampire that an 8 cap has Governed down to, and then you
> > banish Beast with no blood and no cards, I then have 2 uncontrolled
> > vampires--one is still unidentified except you know it is younger than
> > 8 and one is Beast, although nothing indicates that you do know or
> > should know which is which.
>
> My only issue is that some effects (targetship of a Title Card, for
> example) allow you to track vampires in the uncontrolled region,
The title card is face down and out of play. The target cannot be
distringuished from another uncontrolled vampire with a different
library card (also out of play) on him.
Much like a vampire with one blood counter in the uncontrolled region
cannot be distinguished from another vampire with one blood counter,
but both can be distinguished from a vampire with no counters.
> while
> other effects (targetship of a Divine Sign, for another) do not, and
> the line is arbitrarily drawn based on whether the effect is generated
> by a card on the uncontrolled card or by another card in play pointing
> to it. All effects that are actively trying to target that card should
> be tracked.
Not arbitrary at all.
If the card (or counter) is "on" the vampire, then it is on him (and
can be counted even when out of play). If it is not, then it is not.
Only arbitrary in the sense that some given card's text (or some given
rule's text) is arbitrarily written to achieve effect X rather than
effect Y.
But such arbitrary decisions have to be made (or the game is only
playable as an RPG).
pd...@lightlink.com
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> My only issue is that some effects (targetship of a Title Card, for
> example) allow you to track vampires in the uncontrolled region, while
> other effects (targetship of a Divine Sign, for another) do not, and
> the line is arbitrarily drawn based on whether the effect is generated
> by a card on the uncontrolled card or by another card in play pointing
> to it. All effects that are actively trying to target that card should
> be tracked.
Yeah, I gotta say that I agree that the Divine Sign issue confuses me,
but for the most part, I'm ok with the way the unconrolled reigon
works.
-Peter