Card text migrations
LSJ
from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES.
So here it is (it also includes "rollback" errata, since some people
have expressed in interest in that as well). If you notice any omissions
in the list, please let me know via email.
-> V:TES
* "2 hand damage" changed to "+1 hand damage" everywhere except Torn Signpost.
* "2 bleed" changed to "+1 bleed"
* Anarch Troublemaker - only usable during untap.
* Ancient Influence - choosing a vampire is optional.
* Archon - attempting to block an Archon burns a blood, not a pool.
* Army of Rats - doesn't stack.
* Aura Reading - upgraded to "open hand" in inferior.
* Blood Doll - grants ability to the controller of the vampire.
* Blood Rage - requires Thaumaturgy.
* Bonding - restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general.
* Bribes - The bribing player gains 1 pool immediately.
* Camarilla Exemplary - the vampire may still be blocked by allies.
* Conditioning - restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general.
* Deal with the Devil - is not replaced before discarding the hand.
* Dr. Jest - special ability is optional.
* Elder Kindred Network - has no effect on a successful referendum.
* Elysium: the Arboretum - Can only be used by the controller of a combatant.
* Embrace - is the same clan as the acting vampire, may do more than hunt.
* Fame - is unique.
* Form of Mist - superior only continues action when played by acting vamp.
* Gangrel De-evolution - renamed Gangrel Atavism.
* Giant's Blood - can be played only once per game.
* Glaser Rounds - increase the damage the minion does, not the gun's damage.
* Hawg - changed to "per round" (and errata'ed to "per combat").
* Immortal Grapple - "only hand strikes" effect lasts for the whole combat.
* J. S. Simmons, Esq. - benefits only vampires, not allies.
* Life Boon - You can take a pool from the target during her untap (not yours).
* Magic of the Smith - cost of the equipment is paid in blood or life.
* Malkavian Time Auction - the Methuselah cannot bid on her own auction.
* Manstopper Rounds - increases damage the minion does, not the gun's damage.
* Masquerade Endangered - prevents the vampire from hunting for the turn.
* Mob Connections - can only give a press to a vampire.
* Mr. Winthrop - doesn't benefit an ally.
* Owl Companion - upgraded to "open hand".
* Parity Shift - cannot give pool to the Methuselah whose pool is being taken.
* Patagia - limited to one per vampire.
* Rack - only "works" if the vampire is controlled by the same Methuselah.
* Sengir Dagger - inflicts "hand damage" (strength) damage - not just 1 point.
* Soul Gem - treats same aged vampire from the crypt as a younger vampire.
* Stake renamed Wooden Stake and changed to deal aggravated damage.
* Talbot's Chainsaw - the press is only usable in the first round.
* Telepathic Vote Counting - superior is usable before or after victim votes.
* Third Tradition: Progeny - is the same clan as the acting vampire.`
* Threats - restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general.
* Vast Wealth - played on a vampire you control; cost is paid in blood or pool.
* Ventrue Justicar - makes the vampire the Ventrue Justicar.
Rollbacks (to be played as in previous printing - errata to V:TES):
* Melee weapons give strike options, not hand damage (strength) increases.
* Academic Hunting Ground - gives a blood during the untap, not master, phase.
* Asylumn Hunting Ground - costs 2 pool.
* Charming Lobby - calls the first vote as part of resolution.
* Curse of Nitocris - is passed only when a *new* Meth. gets the Edge.
* Hector Sosa - has superior Potence
* Gangrel Atavism - doesn't require control of a Gangrel.
* Major Boon - modifiers to the bleed can be played afterward (by anyone).
* Malkavian Dementia - doesn't require control of a Malkavian.
* Malkavian Prank - if you guess correctly, you steal pool from the other
Methuselah; you do not hold out any pool yourself.
* Parity Shift - the allocation is announced before voting begins.
* Pulled Fangs - the actions to burn are undirected actions.
* Pulse of Canaille - inferior allows you to look at all Methuselahs' hands.
* Second Tradition - Can be used when untapped.
* Tragic Love Affair - doesn't require control of a Toreador.
* Smiling Jack - doesn't cause controller to burn 1 pool/blood per counter.
* Soul Gem - costs 0 pool; is "activated" upon diablerie.
* Torn Signpost - is not a strike option; it adjusts the vampire's hand damage.
* Zip Gun - only damages bearer if used in the combat.
-> Dark Sovereigns
* Archon - targets Camarilla only; requires a Camarilla vampire to remove.
* Camarilla Exemplary - targets Camarilla only.
* Elysium, the Arboretum - requires a Camarilla vampire to burn.
* Justicar Retribution - requires a Camarilla vampire.
* Masquerade Enforcement - requires a Camarilla vampire to play or to burn.
-> Sabbat
* Disguised Weapon - equips an equipment card from your hand.
Rollbacks (to be played as in previous printing - errata to Sabbat)
* Obedience - cancels combat; blocker doesn't tap.
* Undead Persistence - continuously keeps the vampire out of torpor.
-> Sabbat War
* Non-combat cards with "Do Not Replace" aren't replaced until the end of the
action. (Except Wake with Evening's Freshness)
* Aggressive Tactics - doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire.
* Antediluvian Awakening - can only be burned during untap.
* Antonio Delgado - untaps if the referendum (not just the PA) is successful.
* Bauble - retrieves only weapons, not general equipment.
* Beast, Leatherface - has a general prohibition on equipment and retainers.
* Blood Brother Ambush - is an ally only while in play; has 2 strength.
* Blood of Acid - lasts for the current round; doesn't stack.
* Bonecraft - affects subsequent strikes, even in the current round.
* Caitlin - is a 6 capacity vampire
* Cardinal Sin: Failure Mission - the attack is an action; the card is
controlled by the Meth. who played it; it is played by the blocker.
* Cardinal Sin: Insubordination: played by the combatant.
* Catatonic Fear - damage is applied after combat, and only if range was close.
* Cats' Guidance - inferior is usable (only) by a tapped vampire.
* Code of Milan Suspended - The "Methuselah with the Edge" is selected.
* Crimson Sentinel - counters increase the damage done by the weapon.
* Deflection - cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself.
* Detection - victim can burn a blood to untap during his untap phase.
* Disarm - doesn't stack.
* Drawing Out the Beast - doesn't stack; sup. deals damage at press step.
* Effective Management - moves the top vampire from your crypt.
* Elysium, the Arboretum - ends combat between two Camarilla vampires.
* Enchant Kindred - sup. at +1 stealth; only affects your uncontrolled region.
* Fame - controller (not prey) loses 3 pool when vampire goes to toror.
* Ghouled Street Thug - is an ally; has 1 strength.
* Govern the Unaligned - superior only affects your uncontrolled region.
* Guard Dogs - Used against any bleed directed at you; only provides a maneuver
if you successfully block the bleed.
* Hawg - grants one press per combat.
* Hidden Lurker - is an action modifier.
* Immortal Grapple - "only hand strikes" current round only; doesn't stack.
* Legacy of Pander - is not cumulative.
* Life Boon - doesn't give a VP if you are ousted before the VP is gained.
* Living Manse - can end combat only before range.
* March Halcyon - A blood hunt cannot be called on the diablerist.
* Mind Rape - sup. steals the target your next minion phase thru end of turn.
* Misdirection - costs 1 pool; taps 1 minion.
* Obedience - cancels combat before blocker taps.
* Orgy of Blood - doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire.
* Powerbase: Mexico City - you cannot steal from your own.
* Propaganda - sup: the Methuselah being bled must tap an untapped minion.
* Pulled Fangs - inflicts one normal (non-aggravated) damage; doesn't stack.
* Pulse of Canaille - inferior allows you to look at all Methuselahs' hands.
* Rat's Warning - Used against any bleed directed at you.
* Redirection - cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself.
* Reform Body - use as combat or reaction; usable in torpor.
* Scrying Secrets - acting Meth. chooses which card is discarded.
* Slaughtering the Herd - requires only dominate.
* Taste of Vitae - only counts blood lost to damage; isn't cumulative
* Telepathic Misdirection - cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself.
* Terror Frenzy - sup. makes vampire burn blood per card played; doesn't stack.
* Thoughts Betrayed - superior restricts only strike cards.
* Tomb of Ramses III - adds counters to itself, not to the vampire.
* Torn Signpost - sets the vampire's strength to a new amount.
* Trap - provides one press to continue each round if a card has been played
in the current round or the previous two rounds.
* Undead Persistence - continuously keeps the vampire out of torpor.
* Vaulderie - the blocking vampire cannot try to block again.
* War Party - requires a Priscus, Archbishop, or Cardinal.
* Wake with Evening's Freshness - is not replaced until your next untap phase.
* White Phosphorous Grenade - harms bearer when used at close range.
* Wooden Stake - doesn't do aggravated damage; simulates old paralyze rules.
* Zip Gun - cannot use ammo; is a weapon only while in play.
Rollbacks (to be played as in previous printing - errata to Sabbat War)
* Creation Rites: The acting vampire can move a blood to the vampire.
* Power Structure: Requires a ready Lasombra.
* Speed of Thought: has no inherent stealth.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Gomi no Sensei
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found
>from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES.
>So here it is (it also includes "rollback" errata, since some people
>have expressed in interest in that as well). If you notice any omissions
>in the list, please let me know via email.
This isn't an omission so much as a question:
>-> V:TES
>* Soul Gem - treats same aged vampire from the crypt as a younger vampire.
Card text from www.white-wolf.com/vtes:
"Unique equipment. If bearer is burned, draw <the top> card from your crypt.
If the new vampire is younger, vampire comes into play <with blood from the
blood bank equal to his capacity> and inherits the Soul Gem; otherwise, place
the vampire in your uncontrolled <region> and burn this card. If bearer is
diablerized, {the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Gem}."
The V:TES text was not rolled back, or at least the rollback/alteration
isn't on the list, yet the White Wolf cardtext seems to be in conflict.
What is the correct way to treat same-aged vampires drawn via Soul Gem?
gomi
--
kono sora wo daite kagayaku,
shounen yo shinwa ni nare.
Andrew S. Davidson
>I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found
>from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES. So here it is (it also includes
>"rollback" errata
Thanks - that was quite enlightening. I had no idea that there were
so many "rollbacks" and now understand why players think that Smiling
Jack is powerful.
Unfortunately it makes it clear that the game is fubar. I stopped
taking Magic seriously when the Duellist had a regular column entitled
"This month's reversals" and see that VTES got the same TLC from WotC.
The good news is that it stiffens my resolve to fight the good fight
on the Shadowfist playtest list - the Z-Man has the crazy idea that
that game would benefit from an even longer list of errata.
I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club. It's
like eating the apple from the tree of knowledge - we will be cast out
of paradise and know death.
Andrew
legb...@my-deja.com
188378BA21510805.5F1B7D7C...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:24:27 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found
> >from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES. So here it is (it also includes
> >"rollback" errata
>
> Thanks - that was quite enlightening. I had no idea that there were
> so many "rollbacks" and now understand why players think that Smiling
> Jack is powerful.
>
> Unfortunately it makes it clear that the game is fubar.
<finally snaps> It's not fubar. As always, you are just plain factually
wrong. And this isn't a list of new changes. It is a summary of ALL
changes. Most are text-supported now [just the SW rollbacks aren't, i
think].
I stopped
> taking Magic seriously when the Duellist had a regular column entitled
> "This month's reversals" and see that VTES got the same TLC from WotC.
> The good news is that it stiffens my resolve to fight the good fight
> on the Shadowfist playtest list - the Z-Man has the crazy idea that
> that game would benefit from an even longer list of errata.
i expect the SF community will judge this matter for themselves and i
doubt they will pay much attention to your opinions. You apparently don't
see that the rank inconsistency and silliness of your posts, coupled with
your claim that some of them are just wind-ups anyway, makes it
impossible for anyone to take YOU seriously on any subject whatsoever.
>
> I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club.
Maybe give a copy of Scott's helpful little VTES vade mecum to all the
VTES players in your club?
It's
> like eating the apple from the tree of knowledge - we will be cast out
> of paradise and know death.
"Fight the Good Fight .... eating the apple from the tree of knowledge"
... Ah-ha! i KNEW i'd come across this style of "argument" before.
>
> Andrew
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >* Soul Gem - treats same aged vampire from the crypt as a younger
> >vampire.
>
> Card text from www.white-wolf.com/vtes:
>
> "Unique equipment. If bearer is burned, draw <the top> card from your
> crypt. If the new vampire is younger, vampire comes into play <with
> blood from the blood bank equal to his capacity> and inherits the Soul
> Gem; otherwise, place the vampire in your uncontrolled <region> and
> burn this card. If bearer is diablerized, {the diablerizing vampire
> cannot take the Gem}."
>
> Gem?
As older. The migration list is incorrect on this point.
The V:TES text uses the "younger ... otherwise" text as above.
Thanks for the catch.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Andrew S. Davidson
><finally snaps> It's not fubar. As always, you are just plain factually
>wrong. And this isn't a list of new changes. It is a summary of ALL
>changes. Most are text-supported now [just the SW rollbacks aren't, i
>think].
You've lost me here. The thing that caught my eye was Smiling Jack.
I've several copies of the VTES version of this card but it never
seemed as good as people were suggesting. Now I understand that its
notional text has been rolled back to the Jyhad version which I don't
have and don't want. There isn't, so far as I can tell, a SW version
of this card. So, this is the opposite of MRP. If it were just one
isolated misprint then this would be forgiveable but it isn't -
there's a long list of these rollbacks.
What's still not clear to me is whether these flip-flops were
misprints or deliberate fixes. Why was Smiling Jack changed and then
changed back?
>> I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club.
>
>Maybe give a copy of Scott's helpful little VTES vade mecum to all the
>VTES players in your club?
I talked with Tom on the phone and our consensus was that we'd
continue to play cards as printed for the most part. I skimmed LSJs
lists but I am not going to be memorising them, printing them out and
circulating them to others. For one thing, it would put them off the
game, as it does me. This stuff only seems reasonable to you because
you've absorbed it over the years.
>"Fight the Good Fight .... eating the apple from the tree of knowledge"
>... Ah-ha! i KNEW i'd come across this style of "argument" before.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Andrew
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:42:10 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>><finally snaps> It's not fubar. As always, you are just plain factually
>>wrong. And this isn't a list of new changes. It is a summary of ALL
>>changes. Most are text-supported now [just the SW rollbacks aren't, i
>>think].
>
>You've lost me here. The thing that caught my eye was Smiling Jack.
>I've several copies of the VTES version of this card but it never
>seemed as good as people were suggesting. Now I understand that its
Not surprising, either, since in the V:TES version you would not only
pay your OWN pool to start doing damage, but you pay the increasing
damage as well; why would you ever want to play with a card that did
more damage to you than to your prey?
As it stands now, with Smiling Jack you take X pool damage for the
card, and everyone else on the table takes X! pool damage. (that's
not a typo; X! is notation for "X, factorial") Is it broken? Not
hardly, as everyone at the table will come and knock Jack out of
commission before X gets much past 3 or 4.
>notional text has been rolled back to the Jyhad version which I don't
>have and don't want. There isn't, so far as I can tell, a SW version
>of this card. So, this is the opposite of MRP. If it were just one
>isolated misprint then this would be forgiveable but it isn't -
>there's a long list of these rollbacks.
>
>What's still not clear to me is whether these flip-flops were
>misprints or deliberate fixes. Why was Smiling Jack changed and then
>changed back?
Because some idiots named WotC either misprinted the card or casually
changed it in V:TES, of course. There is a long list of screwups that
came out with the panic-release of V:TES; not the least of which was
changing the card backs, demonstrating how little WotC was actually
using their HEADS when they released the V:TES printing. The original
Jyhad cards are significantly more balanced, as the 25-player Jyhad
booster draft tourney at DragonCon showed.
Why was it changed back? Because the original Jyhad version was still
far more accessible than the V:TES version, and because it probably
WAS a misprint as opposed to an intentional change.
>>> I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club.
>>
>>Maybe give a copy of Scott's helpful little VTES vade mecum to all the
>>VTES players in your club?
>
>I talked with Tom on the phone and our consensus was that we'd
>continue to play cards as printed for the most part. I skimmed LSJs
>lists but I am not going to be memorising them, printing them out and
>circulating them to others. For one thing, it would put them off the
>game, as it does me. This stuff only seems reasonable to you because
>you've absorbed it over the years.
Actually, I had to absorb quite a bit of it all at once when I arrived
in this game. It wasn't anywhere near as difficult as you imagine;
the trick is learning to spot what looks like a card that is obviously
screwed up (Smiling Jack) and then having a printout handy to use as
reference. The vast majority of cards are, still, unaffected and
won't matter.
However, at least you have begun to see the light and are agreeing
"for the most part". Some cards have no business existing in a
non-errata'd form.
>>"Fight the Good Fight .... eating the apple from the tree of knowledge"
>>... Ah-ha! i KNEW i'd come across this style of "argument" before.
>
>Judge not lest ye be judged.
Why are you judging V:TES then? Time to come down from the ivory
tower, Noodle Noggin, and muck about with the rest of us.
-- Derek
Goon-of-the-Month club member
Frederick Scott
> As it stands now, with Smiling Jack you take X pool damage for the
> card, and everyone else on the table takes X! pool damage. (that's
> not a typo; X! is notation for "X, factorial") Is it broken? Not
> hardly, as everyone at the table will come and knock Jack out of
> commission before X gets much past 3 or 4.
Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad!
'X' Factorial is 1 times 2 times 3 times....times X
Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time
1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's
been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that
kind of number.
FYI, the difference between the real Smiling Jack and Smiling Jack
written in some way so that the cost to non-controllers would be
factorial looks like:
1 blood real SJ=1 factorial SJ=1
2 blood real SJ=3 factorial SJ=2
3 blood real SJ=6 factorial SJ=6
4 blood real SJ=10 factorial SJ=24
5 blood real SJ=15 factorial SJ=120
6 blood real SJ=21 factorial SJ=720
then it kind of starts to get obscene.
Fred
Derek Ray
wrote:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>> As it stands now, with Smiling Jack you take X pool damage for the
>> card, and everyone else on the table takes X! pool damage. (that's
>> not a typo; X! is notation for "X, factorial") Is it broken? Not
>> hardly, as everyone at the table will come and knock Jack out of
>> commission before X gets much past 3 or 4.
>
>Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad!
Oops, my bad. Knew the sequence, but mis-identified the term. I
think there IS a mathematical term, but I'll let James Hamblin jump in
and correct it; I know there isn't one that can be as easily
reproduced as !. :)
>Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time
>1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's
>been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that
>kind of number.
Well, I can write it on a piece of paper, but there isn't a CHARACTER
for it that I know of.
>1 blood real SJ=1 factorial SJ=1
>2 blood real SJ=3 factorial SJ=2
>3 blood real SJ=6 factorial SJ=6
>4 blood real SJ=10 factorial SJ=24
>5 blood real SJ=15 factorial SJ=120
>6 blood real SJ=21 factorial SJ=720
>
>then it kind of starts to get obscene.
At 21 total pool and/or blood spent, it's already pretty obscene.
This is why most people come and eat Jack for lunch... although the
thing saving him a lot of times is the "selfish" factor, where you
want to let your prey take the damage and have to decide whether to
waste an action burning Jack himself. =)
I'm really overdue to make a Jack deck, I think.
Gomi no Sensei
Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote:
[derek says smiling yak factorial]
>Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad!
>
>'X' Factorial is 1 times 2 times 3 times....times X
>Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time
>1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's
>been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that
>kind of number.
It's just like factorial, only with addition instead of
multiplication. Like a sum series, sum from 0 to n by
integers. I know there's a term for the operation, dammit.
One of our Interchangeable Jameses, the one in the UK
(Coupe or Hamblin? I can never remember), knows his math.
Or 'maths,' as they call it in his benighted land, where
clearly singular entites such as rock bands are plural
(as in "Oasis are a bunch of wanker pansies not worth the
Semtex the Provos would waste blowing them up") and clearly
singular entities like "Math" are plural.
Bah.
Ian Lee
>continue to play cards as printed for the most part. I skimmed LSJs
>lists but I am not going to be memorising them, printing them out and
>circulating them to others. For one thing, it would put them off the
>game, as it does me. This stuff only seems reasonable to you because
>you've absorbed it over the years.
The greatest debate I've had with other local players was not card limits or
broken cards. The greatest debate has always been house rules and errata.
I've played under several different rules systems - Jyhad only, play as written
with house rules and the understood rule of no political decks, official rules,
goofy Gen Con rules one year a ways back.
It is sooo tempting to play house rules. For one thing, you don't have to have
all the errata, clarifications, rulings printed out so that you can reference
them while playing. However, the only way that works is to play with the same
people forever. It may be common in this game. But, our current group
doesn't, so it's official with no house tweaks.
Anyway, I'd like to see more cards with correct wordings get reprinted.
Eventually, hopefully, everything will be printed correctly on the cards.
Then, finally, everyone can play "as written".
As for LSJ's list, I only skimmed through it. Immortal Grapple - the only
comment I saw was that it allowed only hand strikes for the entire combat. Did
I miss something?
Ian Lee
>This is why most people come and eat Jack for lunch... although the
>thing saving him a lot of times is the "selfish" factor, where you
>want to let your prey take the damage and have to decide whether to
>waste an action burning Jack himself. =)
>
>I'm really overdue to make a Jack deck, I think.
90% of the time I've seen it blown up before it reached 2, usually with the
whole table arranging to be rid of it. I remember one time blowing it up cross
table at +5 stealth because that's just the proper thing to do. I don't
consider a Smiling Jack deck viable until I start seeing players let it go.
Frederick Scott
>
> In article <3A423B6A...@netcom.com>,
> Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> [derek says smiling yak factorial]
>
> >Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad!
> >
> >'X' Factorial is 1 times 2 times 3 times....times X
>
> >Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time
> >1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's
> >been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that
> >kind of number.
>
> It's just like factorial, only with addition instead of
> multiplication. Like a sum series, sum from 0 to n by
> integers. I know there's a term for the operation, dammit.
Well, I'll put this way. Though I'll admit my memory sucks
big fat hairy donkey dicks to earn its slimy living, I do have a
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and throughout my education
I always recall thinking, "This kind of a number *should* have
a name and no one's ever mentioned it." I always thought of
it as, 'The Bowling Number' because of the positions of the
pins in a bowling alley: 1 in the first row, 2 in the second
row, 3 in the third, and so on. Well, 'so on' goes for one more
row in a real bowling alley but I always liked to imagine that
you could have an arbitrary number of rows of pins in bowling
just like you could have an arbitrary number of pairs of
opponents in a game of chess.
I'm digressing, aren't I?
Well, this is where I came in. Bye!...
Fred
LSJ
> As for LSJ's list, I only skimmed through it. Immortal Grapple - the
> only comment I saw was that it allowed only hand strikes for the entire
> combat. Did I miss something?
Yes - the change found in Sabbat War.
James Coupe
<go...@best.com> writes
>It's just like factorial, only with addition instead of
>multiplication. Like a sum series, sum from 0 to n by
>integers. I know there's a term for the operation, dammit.
>
>One of our Interchangeable Jameses, the one in the UK
>(Coupe or Hamblin? I can never remember), knows his math.
The other one. I'm the English student (with two maths A levels, for
some reason).
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back down
again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could
live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"
Andrew S. Davidson
>Not surprising, either, since in the V:TES version you would not only
>pay your OWN pool to start doing damage, but you pay the increasing
>damage as well; why would you ever want to play with a card that did
>more damage to you than to your prey?
You would use it with a pool gain strategy - what folk here call
"bloat", right?
>I think there IS a mathematical term ... I know there isn't one
>that can be as easily reproduced as ! ... there isn't a CHARACTER
>for it that I know of.
It's called a triangular number and the character is the greek letter
delta.
>However, at least you have begun to see the light and are agreeing
>"for the most part". Some cards have no business existing in a
>non-errata'd form.
I've not come across such a case yet though. We were playing with
Fame and Wake as printed tonight - didn't cause much trouble. The
card that most perplexed us was Talbot's Chainsaw. I'd misread this
before but it seems that it always does 3 damage to one of your own
minions. There's no errata on this that I can see and so it's hard to
justify using it. Maybe if you combo it with cards like The Rack and
Palatial Estate but it's an awfully large investment in one trick.
>Why are you judging V:TES then?
That's the topic of this newsgroup.
Andrew
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:09:52 -0500, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>Not surprising, either, since in the V:TES version you would not only
>>pay your OWN pool to start doing damage, but you pay the increasing
>>damage as well; why would you ever want to play with a card that did
>>more damage to you than to your prey?
>
>You would use it with a pool gain strategy - what folk here call
>"bloat", right?
Problem: if your deck is focussed enough to successfully bloat while
absorbing X+1 pool/blood damage per turn from YOURSELF, not to mention
what your predator is doing to you... then your deck is unable to stop
the actions the rest of the table will take to off Smiling Jack.
The idea is to defend Jack, defend against your predator, and rely on
the fact that you're only spending one pool per turn to do piles of
damage to everything around you. You should also be prepared to bleed
rapidly on your own turn once your prey falls within ousting distance;
tricky but possible.
>>I think there IS a mathematical term ... I know there isn't one
>>that can be as easily reproduced as ! ... there isn't a CHARACTER
>>for it that I know of.
>
>It's called a triangular number and the character is the greek letter
>delta.
Ah. While I could make my keyboard show a delta, it would never
translate across USENET properly. Oh well.
>>However, at least you have begun to see the light and are agreeing
>>"for the most part". Some cards have no business existing in a
>>non-errata'd form.
>
>I've not come across such a case yet though. We were playing with
>Fame and Wake as printed tonight - didn't cause much trouble. The
That's because nobody was trying to break Fame. Here, again, you
misunderstand the purpose of errata. The errata is not meant for
Noodle Noggin's group where everyone is nice to each other. The
errata is meant for universal standards and tournaments, where people
can and WILL try to win in any way possible, and one of the terribly
abusive ways to do it was to slap Fame on your own vampire and bounce
them in and out of torpor. Very easy to do with anyone possessing
Fortitude, since there's that nice bleed card called Force of Will
that will put you there WHILE bleeding, AFTER you have taken ANOTHER
action already.
Of course it didn't cause much trouble. Nobody was TRYING.
>card that most perplexed us was Talbot's Chainsaw. I'd misread this
>before but it seems that it always does 3 damage to one of your own
>minions. There's no errata on this that I can see and so it's hard to
>justify using it. Maybe if you combo it with cards like The Rack and
>Palatial Estate but it's an awfully large investment in one trick.
You could always give it to the Gangrel, who can drop a Restoration
every turn and gain 3 blood onto one of their minions. (as I
understood it, Talbot was originally a Gangrel who went completely
over to the Beast...)
You can give it to a Giovanni deck with Ambrosius, who is immune to
normal damage.
You can give it to the Tremere, who make 3 Embraces, and then use the
Chantry to yank one out of torpor every turn after it takes the 3
damage.
You can do a LOT of things with Talbot's Chainsaw, but you really DO
need to build the deck around it. Just flinging Talbot's into any old
deck won't fly; which is just as well, considering it's a rush action,
a press, a prevent, and 3 damage per strike - VERY powerful weapon.
You could even use it with a Palatial Estate, Hunting Ground, and a
3-cap who did nothing but hunt every turn. Not so difficult.
>>Why are you judging V:TES then?
>
>That's the topic of this newsgroup.
Ducking the question? Although it has been self-fulfilling, actually;
quite a lot of people are judging you in response.
Reyda
"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news:
20001221141711...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Two days ago two players get ousted by a Rotschreck/2nd trad/intercept deck
who managed to fuel a smiling jack with 5 pool on it. It eventually get
ousted itself because of an Antediluvian awakening played with the right
timing.
If you can defend it, Smiling jack is a deadly weapon.
Kevin M.
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:188378BA21510805.5F1B7D7C...@lp.airnews.net...
Here's an apple. Go die. The rest of us will stay in paradise.
>
> Andrew
--
Kevin J. Mergen, Prince of Madison, WI
(remove NOSPAM for direct reply)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Kevin M.
What a cop out.
I'm sure Derek, James Hamblin, legbiter, James Coupe, Xian, Gomi,
Lasombra, Peter, jck, et.al., and I are willing to abide by "Judge, and
stand ready to be judged."
Why aren't you?
James Coupe
<kjme...@NOSPAMhome.com> writes
>I'm sure Derek, James Hamblin, legbiter, James Coupe, Xian, Gomi,
>Lasombra, Peter, jck, et.al., and I are willing to abide by "Judge, and
>stand ready to be judged."
>
>Why aren't you?
Trolls rarely are.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"What's wrong with wanting more?
If you can fly -- then soar!
With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"