Legacy of Pander gone forever?
Fin, Paradox Walker of Prague
pieces of mine for more than year and than playing the deck only for a
while) it became totaly useless... or it did not? has anybody seen any
good deck using with the legacy of pander AFTER the card has been
changed?
Chris Berger
What is the errata? I couldn't find any errata or rewritten text on
the White-Wolf site. Has it become non-stackable? That seems to be a
common thread on new errata, and it doesn't make me happy. It's just
a different form of card-limits.
LSJ
Card text (the most recent printing):
Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth.
If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each non-titled Pander has one vote. Any Sabbat vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action.
With X LoP in play, each non-titled pander gets 1 vote.
--
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/
Derek Ray
news:5287ede4.01081...@posting.google.com:
> ravn...@hotmail.com (Fin, Paradox Walker of Prague) wrote in message
> news:<4661a33b.01081...@posting.google.com>...
>> after legacy has been errated (making me angry for i was hunting 8
>> pieces of mine for more than year and than playing the deck only for
>> a while) it became totaly useless... or it did not? has anybody seen
>> any good deck using with the legacy of pander AFTER the card has been
>> changed?
>
> What is the errata? I couldn't find any errata or rewritten text on
> the White-Wolf site. Has it become non-stackable? That seems to be a
from White Wolf's site, current card text (as reprinted in Sabbat War):
Name: Legacy of Pander
Cardtype: Political Action
Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth.
If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each non-titled
Pander has one vote. Any Sabbat vampire may call a referendum to burn this
card as a +1 stealth political action.
Note that it says "one vote" now, not "one additional vote".
> common thread on new errata, and it doesn't make me happy. It's just
> a different form of card-limits.
Making a card non-stackable COMPLETELY and TOTALLY fails to resemble
anything to do with card limits. You can put as many LoP in your deck as
you want, and put as many in play as you want, and each one must be burned
by a separate action. You just can't stack them up to have a weenie
powerhouse vote machine anymore. Corresponding examples: A vampire may
have no more than one Disarm, and you can still put 12 of them in your deck
(probably quite effectively). You can no longer play more than one DotB
per combat, and it's STILL worth putting a bunch in.
You would also consider the original Army of Rats errata bad?
Santiago
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Corresponding examples: A vampire may have no more than one Disarm,
>and you can still put 12 of them in your deck (probably quite
>effectively).
Logically, you'd think a vampire could have two disarms, though no
more (unless the victim has made use of Black Metamorphosis to get extra
arms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."
Jack Crow
Dont be using logic now to argue. Of course, some people object to an
oldschool 'Legacy' Deck, but think Majesty decks are fair. We dont get
to make calls on that, but it would be nice to just ban Majesty too
(or put out a Master or something that just prevents S:CE), dontcha
think? There's a number of ways to "change" the tourney environment,
but v:tes changes so slowly (due to infrequent new card influx), that
it just SEEMS unfair that one type is favored over the other =/
Derek Ray
news:3b8078b8....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com:
> Dont be using logic now to argue. Of course, some people object to an
> oldschool 'Legacy' Deck, but think Majesty decks are fair. We dont get
Way to shoot yourself in the foot there, guy. Experience and evidence have
demonstrated conclusively that Majesty is, in fact, totally non-broken AND
fair at this time. A quick review of the decks in the Continental
Championship final (which should be a good example to draw from, don't you
think? the best players all playing good decks?) shows us:
Jared Strait, playing Brujah Prince vote and combat, .5VP
Robert Goudie, playing weenie Potence rush, 1.5VP
Stephen Fazio, playing Toreador showcase, 0VP
Ben Peal, playing Malkavian Obf/Dom with Change of Target, 1.5VP (win)
Trey Morita, playing Gangrel Superior Protean something-or-other, 0VP
Trey's deck was packing 21+ S:CE cards, both Form of Mist and Earth Meld.
He got zero VPs in the final. Stephen's deck was packing 10 Majesty; he
also got zero VPs in the final. Ben had no S:CE at all. Neither did
Robert. They were the only players to oust anyone in the final. (Jared
also had no S:CE in his deck.)
Now... why don't you tell me again just how "unfair" Majesty is? It, like
every other card in the game, has an opportunity cost. If you put too many
in your deck (10 is pushing it, 21 is WELL over the line), you take a very
large risk of jamming up on them and dying miserably. Both Earth Meld and
Majesty have a strong effect at superior, but they're hardly broken, nor do
they need to be banned.
(it's worth noting that Trey's deck relied on being able to intercept LOTS
of actions in order to consistently get into combat and play his S:CE.
Anyone wishing to claim that intercept decks are broken is welcome to; i
always enjoy a good laugh.)
> to make calls on that, but it would be nice to just ban Majesty too
I wouldn't trust you to make a call to order pizza.
The Fanboy
> of actions in order to consistently get into combat and play his S:CE.
> Anyone wishing to claim that intercept decks are broken is welcome to; i
> always enjoy a good laugh.)
If Forms of Mist were part of that 21, I think he was also counting on
being blocked once in a while, too. There again, I don't know what
was in the rest of the deck, so I can't make that call accurately.
Not only is it prone to jamming, but there are SO many ways around it
now -- Thoughts Betrayed, Immortal Grapple, Psyche, Telepathic
Tracking, Guard Dogs (not that they're ever used), etc, etc. I would
think with a weenie potence deck at the table, Grapples were present
in the finals environment, and that's going to hose a S:CE deck. The
Brujah Princes deck probably had Grapple, Psyche, or both. With two
pot-based combat decks, it creates a VERY S:CE-unfriendly environment.
Powerful, yes. Broken, no.
Sadly, a dedicated intercept deck going against a dedicated stealth
deck will not block everything. Forgotten Labyrinth makes it hard for
intercept decks to keep up. Ravnos can do it most often, by reducing
stealth to zero -- but I don't think anyone would say the Ravnos are
broken. =)
Fanboy
skippy
"The Fanboy" <texas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f99d61c5.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > (it's worth noting that Trey's deck relied on being able to intercept
LOTS
> > of actions in order to consistently get into combat and play his S:CE.
> > Anyone wishing to claim that intercept decks are broken is welcome to; i
> > always enjoy a good laugh.)
>
> If Forms of Mist were part of that 21, I think he was also counting on
> being blocked once in a while, too. There again, I don't know what
> was in the rest of the deck, so I can't make that call accurately.
>
> Not only is it prone to jamming, but there are SO many ways around it
> now -- Thoughts Betrayed, Immortal Grapple, Psyche, Telepathic
> Tracking, Guard Dogs (not that they're ever used), etc, etc. I would
psst, dog pack
Louis
...
> > to make calls on that, but it would be nice to just ban Majesty too
>
> I wouldn't trust you to make a call to order pizza.
Mind your words, Derek. Nobody is interested in unfriendly statements like this.
Derek Ray
news:f99d61c5.01082...@posting.google.com:
>> (it's worth noting that Trey's deck relied on being able to intercept
>> LOTS of actions in order to consistently get into combat and play his
>> S:CE. Anyone wishing to claim that intercept decks are broken is
>> welcome to; i always enjoy a good laugh.)
>
> If Forms of Mist were part of that 21, I think he was also counting on
> being blocked once in a while, too. There again, I don't know what
> was in the rest of the deck, so I can't make that call accurately.
He had 9 Form of Mist, and 12 Earth Meld. I'm not sure if he had very much
at all in the way of other Protean stealth; he had a good chunk of combat
in there too (Claws), so was probably daring people to block him a lot.
"Either I'll poke your eye out or it'll happen anyway, go ahead, block."
> Not only is it prone to jamming, but there are SO many ways around it
> now -- Thoughts Betrayed, Immortal Grapple, Psyche, Telepathic
> Tracking, Guard Dogs (not that they're ever used), etc, etc. I would
Dog Pack, you mean? ;) I actually made a Dog Pack deck once. It didn't
run TOO badly, but it was more toolboxy as opposed to Rush. And then it
promptly sat down next to two non-S:CE decks... well, so much for testing
it out. I had a pretty basic setup of Scorpion Sting/claws/Skin of Steel,
and generally just ANI/pro/for on all the vampires in some form. I mixed
up the prevents with Flesh of Marble, just in case of Crows, but... -shrug-
It certainly put guys into torpor effectively, but I'd much rather use it
in, say, a Wynn deck to really bung people up (and keep from having to
constantly play IG).
> think with a weenie potence deck at the table, Grapples were present
> in the finals environment, and that's going to hose a S:CE deck. The
> Brujah Princes deck probably had Grapple, Psyche, or both. With two
> pot-based combat decks, it creates a VERY S:CE-unfriendly environment.
Yep; in fact, both Brujah decks *were* carrying Grapples. But each of the
five decks in the final started out with an equal chance to make it there,
so just the 3 non-S:CE v. the 2 S:CE distribution sort of indicates
something right off the bat about S:CE; it's just not a game-breaker.
> Powerful, yes. Broken, no.
s'my opinion.
> Sadly, a dedicated intercept deck going against a dedicated stealth
> deck will not block everything. Forgotten Labyrinth makes it hard for
Which is a good thing. Offense should always have a slight edge over
defense, in order to ensure that games end.
I wouldn't have said Forgotten Labyrinth, though; I routinely block that
with my dedicated intercept decks. The trick is to stack up a couple
permanents until you can get a solid +2 on a vampire, then use transients
to boost it as need be; and discard the transients if you don't need them
with something like the Fraggie (which fits well in a bait deck).
Elder Impersonation, however, is a REAL bitch; especially when combined
with Faceless Night. "That vampire with the three Revenants won't EVER
block this action, and just for attempting he taps. Anyone else able to
get +2 intercept, or does this vote happen my way?"
> intercept decks to keep up. Ravnos can do it most often, by reducing
> stealth to zero -- but I don't think anyone would say the Ravnos are
> broken. =)
whew, I dunno. They're strong as hell right now. I don't think they're
broken either, but I think there are going to be some ugly surprises when
people finally get used to the new cards. :)
Derek Ray
news:a97670f2.01082...@posting.google.com:
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns91037409...@198.99.146.10>...
>> I wouldn't trust you to make a call to order pizza.
>
> Mind your words, Derek. Nobody is interested in unfriendly statements
> like this.
Put a sock in it, Louis. He went out of his way to try to poke at me; he
shouldn't be surprised when he gets a poke back.
(followups redirected appropriately)
Gene Wirchenko
If pokes are acceptable, what are you complaining about?
If they aren't, why are you doing something you disapprove of?
Cool it, plese.
>(followups redirected appropriately)
[redirected back]
Sincerely,
Gene Wrichenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Derek Ray
news:3b8291d4....@news.shuswap.net:
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Put a sock in it, Louis. He went out of his way to try to poke at me;
>>he shouldn't be surprised when he gets a poke back.
>
> If pokes are acceptable, what are you complaining about?
What complaint? Please identify where, in the above two lines, I actually
complained. Telling someone to "put a sock in it" is not complaining; it's
simply clarifying that I'll be damned if I change my attitude just because
someone didn't like the one-liner at the tail end of a multiple-paragraph
post explaining why Majesty isn't broken.
> Cool it, plese.
And you, TOO, can put a sock in it, Gene. I have no time to waste on self-
proclaimed net.cops, and I have a lot of time.
>>(followups redirected appropriately)
>
> [redirected back]
Clearly, subtle hints like redirecting the followups to a more appropriate
newsgroup are wasted on some of you, even when I go out of my way to make
it non-subtle by ANNOUNCING it. My original post was 25 lines of content,
and one line of cheap shot. Every single post in this subthread has been
nothing but wasted bandwidth, including yours and this one. You, like all
net.cops before AND after you, have accomplished exactly the OPPOSITE of
your own desire. Congratulations.
Jack Crow
>no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote in
>news:3b8078b8....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com:
>Way to shoot yourself in the foot there, guy. Experience and evidence have
>demonstrated conclusively that Majesty is, in fact, totally non-broken AND
>fair at this time. A quick review of the decks in the Continental
>Championship final (which should be a good example to draw from, don't you
>think? the best players all playing good decks?) shows us:
I did not hate on majesty. I mentioned that some people object to one
type of deck as too powerful at different times. Majesty was a fairly
recent example that everyone recognizes. You have taken my comments
out of context and curious enough, personally.
You do not need to make a point by point rebuttal, which obviates your
desire to argue for argument's sake. If you have a concept that you
would like to convey or a 'point' to make, attempt to organize your
thoughts and present them in a cohesive manner. It cannot be
considered a 'flame' if your posts have an overall agenda other than
showing up the other person. We've already been there.
James Coupe
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>You do not need to make a point by point rebuttal, which obviates your
>desire to argue for argument's sake. If you have a concept that you
>would like to convey or a 'point' to make, attempt to organize your
>thoughts and present them in a cohesive manner.
This can, very easily, be done with a point-by-point rebuttal, however.
(Tangentially, I have tended to find that a small, but possibly
significant, minority of people who dislike "point by point" rebuttals
tend to do this at points when the PBP rebuttal has completely
disassembled an argument of theirs in such a manner as to leave them
with very little comeback - partly because they're unwilling to point by
point argue back, which can be very useful for dealing with particular
details, especially useful in a situation like Jyhad where the details
matter a lot, at times. It allows people to consider the details of a
proposal, an argument, a situation, or whatever, in such a manner that
they can see the fundamental principles its based on, as well as the
overall argument.)
Usenet is not solely a debating forum - that is, people making set
speeches (with perhaps the occasional "point of order", "intervention").
The flexibility of the medium allows it to do many things.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F
They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6
I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D
Gene Wirchenko
>ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in
>news:3b8291d4....@news.shuswap.net:
>
>> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Put a sock in it, Louis. He went out of his way to try to poke at me;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>he shouldn't be surprised when he gets a poke back.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> If pokes are acceptable, what are you complaining about?
>
>What complaint? Please identify where, in the above two lines, I actually
See careted text.
>complained. Telling someone to "put a sock in it" is not complaining; it's
>simply clarifying that I'll be damned if I change my attitude just because
>someone didn't like the one-liner at the tail end of a multiple-paragraph
>post explaining why Majesty isn't broken.
>
>> Cool it, plese.
>
>And you, TOO, can put a sock in it, Gene. I have no time to waste on self-
>proclaimed net.cops, and I have a lot of time.
Two people have gently asked you to cool it. You respond with
rudeness. It is no wonder that there are complaints about the loss of
civility in this newsgroup.
Once again, I have set the groups back to
rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad from alt.flame which you set.
>>>(followups redirected appropriately)
>>
>> [redirected back]
>
>Clearly, subtle hints like redirecting the followups to a more appropriate
>newsgroup are wasted on some of you, even when I go out of my way to make
>it non-subtle by ANNOUNCING it. My original post was 25 lines of content,
>and one line of cheap shot. Every single post in this subthread has been
>nothing but wasted bandwidth, including yours and this one. You, like all
>net.cops before AND after you, have accomplished exactly the OPPOSITE of
>your own desire. Congratulations.
I mention a suboptimal situation in the hopes that something be
done about it. I don't expect change though that is to be hoped for.
My desire, as you put it, is to make it obvious to others that
rude behaviour is not accepted by all following this newsgroup. I
will have succeeded in this.
Many of your posts are quite useful, but it would be nice if you
would drop the hissy fits.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Derek Ray
> I did not hate on majesty. I mentioned that some people object to one
> type of deck as too powerful at different times. Majesty was a fairly
> recent example that everyone recognizes. You have taken my comments
> out of context and curious enough, personally.
I'm sorry, I could've sworn that these two sentences:
"Of course, some people object to an oldschool 'Legacy' Deck, but think
Majesty decks are fair. We dont get to make calls on that, but it would be
nice to just ban Majesty too (or put out a Master or something that just
prevents S:CE), dontcha think?"
indicate a definite opinion (held by you) that Majesty is unfair, and
should be banned or completely countered in some fashion. No matter what
context one takes the second sentence in, one cannot fail to observe that
really, that IS what you said, no matter what you'd like to claim you said
now.
If you'd like to retract or change your opinion, you're welcome to.
> You do not need to make a point by point rebuttal, which obviates your
from www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: ob·vi·ate
Function: transitive verb
: to anticipate and prevent (as a situation) or make unnecessary (as an
action)
> desire to argue for argument's sake. If you have a concept that you
> would like to convey or a 'point' to make, attempt to organize your
> thoughts and present them in a cohesive manner. It cannot be
I just did, in the post you replied to. Did you miss it? My point was
stated very clearly in the second sentence:
"Experience and evidence have demonstrated conclusively that Majesty is, in
fact, totally non-broken AND fair at this time."
The rest was evidence in support of that conclusion.
> considered a 'flame' if your posts have an overall agenda other than
> showing up the other person. We've already been there.
It had an agenda... demonstrating that Majesty and S:CE were not broken.
This (along with "Malk S&B is unbeatable") is an argument those of us who
know better are going to have to fight on the newsgroup, and everywhere
else, MULTIPLE times... as we try to encourage old Jyhad players to return
to the game. The elaborate explanation was not just for your benefit, it
was for EVERYONE'S; you simply provided a convenient starting point.
The one-liner at the bottom was intended just for you, though.
Love and Kisses,
-- Derek
Jack Crow
wrote:
>In message <3b83f4c4...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
><no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>You do not need to make a point by point rebuttal, which obviates your
>>desire to argue for argument's sake. If you have a concept that you
>>would like to convey or a 'point' to make, attempt to organize your
>>thoughts and present them in a cohesive manner.
>
>This can, very easily, be done with a point-by-point rebuttal, however.
>
I disagree. There is rarely an initial "argument", simply a difference
in perception that someone wants to treat as fact. My perception is
not the right perception but it is mine. There is little to be done or
can even possibly be done to change it. I maintain a PBP is
specifically argumentative in regards to opinion, which is anything in
the newsgroup, as per the eternal incongruity of language (Ludwig
Wittgenstein). I mentioned earlier that different functionality of
cards (and their resulting decks) may SEEM unfair, but no one save
LSJ, gets to make definitive calls. There is the first amendment and
all, so it's not like I'm going to bring this up more than this once.
Jack Crow
wrote:
>(Tangentially, I have tended to find that a small, but possibly
>significant, minority of people who dislike "point by point" rebuttals
>tend to do this at points when the PBP rebuttal has completely
>disassembled an argument of theirs in such a manner as to leave them
>with very little comeback - partly because they're unwilling to point by
>point argue back, which can be very useful for dealing with particular
>details, especially useful in a situation like Jyhad where the details
>matter a lot, at times. It allows people to consider the details of a
>proposal, an argument, a situation, or whatever, in such a manner that
>they can see the fundamental principles its based on, as well as the
>overall argument.)
>
>Usenet is not solely a debating forum - that is, people making set
>speeches (with perhaps the occasional "point of order", "intervention").
>The flexibility of the medium allows it to do many things.
>
Ignore my previous post. I sometimes make up a post that I think is
relevant, and then send it before I try to take a look at it
objectively. That last one was a waste of bandwidth.
Derek Ray
> See careted text.
It's not a complaint; it's an explanation as to WHY he's being told to "put
a sock in it". There is a difference. I'm sure you're aware of it, but
you're babbling on anyway.
> Two people have gently asked you to cool it. You respond with
> rudeness. It is no wonder that there are complaints about the loss of
> civility in this newsgroup.
Lesson: Being a net.cop accomplishes nothing, other than to increase the
level of incivility in the group. This is all net.cops have EVER done, in
the entire history of USENET.
> Once again, I have set the groups back to
> rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad from alt.flame which you set.
Gene, I set the followups there as an indicator that this topic of
discussion is POINTLESS, and belongs THERE, not here. You know perfectly
well that I'm not going to change. Nothing you can say will make me
change. All it will do is increase the noise ratio in here. You are being
part of the problem, not part of the solution. Following me around pissing
and moaning because I said a naughty boo-boo to Jack or to someone else is
completely counterproductive.
>>25 lines of content, and one line of cheap shot. Every single post in
>>this subthread has been nothing but wasted bandwidth, including yours
>>and this one. You, like all net.cops before AND after you, have
>>accomplished exactly the OPPOSITE of your own desire.
>>Congratulations.
I repeat this statement.
> I mention a suboptimal situation in the hopes that something be
> done about it. I don't expect change though that is to be hoped for.
So you are deliberately wasting everyone's time, including yours and mine?
Good job! Do you want a medal? Do you see now why I openly scorn
net.cops? That's all they ever do... waste time, while accomplishing
nothing.
> My desire, as you put it, is to make it obvious to others that
> rude behaviour is not accepted by all following this newsgroup. I
> will have succeeded in this.
Something which is completely obvious to everyone else ANYWAY... at least
everyone with a clue. Nobody is under any delusions that being rude is a
good thing, Gene. They don't need you to hold their hand and point it out
to them.
James Coupe
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>This can, very easily, be done with a point-by-point rebuttal, however.
>
>I disagree. There is rarely an initial "argument", simply a difference
>in perception that someone wants to treat as fact.
That depends on the person. When "arguing" with a number of people on
Usenet, it is quite clear that many (in a strictly numerical, rather
than proportion, sense) treat discussions as a way of exploring ideas.
The use of a written medium for this has a long tradition behind it -
consider many critical discussions that take place in various
disciplines, going back and forth, taking one person's ideas, improving
on them, removing the (as you perceive it) chaff and so on. Not
*everything* has to be adversarial - though this also has a long
tradition.
>My perception is
>not the right perception but it is mine.
Indeed. A very useful tempering aspect to have with that perception is
that through careful and detailed discussions, you can come to more,
perhaps better, conclusions. The perception is yours; it doesn't have
to remain so.
>There is little to be done or
>can even possibly be done to change it.
Why?
Consider a person who has an attitude regarding, say, computers. All
computers are evil, work of the devil and far too complicated - perhaps
a Luddite or Amish tendency. They carry on for years and years and
years, doing everything by pen and paper, keeping all their accounts
that way. As a result of a set of circumstances, they have to go on a
computer course and find out that actually a spread-sheet has some
advantages for them because they could alter the figures for this month
and try out a few dozen scenarios for next month's figures in half an
hour. They'd be able to decide that *actually* computers weren't so bad
after all.
Having views, principles and motivations based on your experience is
great; keeping an open mind to the world around you is similarly great.
If you find that something actually is pretty good after all, keeping
your previous opinion come what may smacks of cutting off your nose to
spite your face.
Taking a Jyhad context, several years ago you could have asked anyone if
they thought Banishment was a usable card. I'd wager that just as V:TES
was coming out, or maybe onto Dark Sovereigns too, most people would be
of the opinion that Banishment was a nice flavour card but had no
significant practical uses - its opportunity cost was way too high for
too little effect. Even as Sabbat came out, this would have been the
prevailing mood.
Legbiter, however, took Banishment and managed to make a highly
effective, powerful, innovative deck. Now, this hasn't suddenly made
Banishment the be-all and end-all of cards, but it has shown that
Banishment can be used and used well. Sticking to previous opinions, in
the face of empirical evidence, would be churlish.
>There is the first amendment and
>all
It is also useful to remember that not all of the Internet is American.
James Coupe
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>Ignore my previous post. I sometimes make up a post that I think is
>relevant, and then send it before I try to take a look at it
>objectively. That last one was a waste of bandwidth.
I don't know, off the top of my head, if Free Agent has "cancel"
facilities, though as a well regarded news-reader, it may do.
Derek Ray
news:9uyfW7Mt...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
> In message <3b840287...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
> <no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>Ignore my previous post. I sometimes make up a post that I think is
>>relevant, and then send it before I try to take a look at it
>>objectively. That last one was a waste of bandwidth.
>
> I don't know, off the top of my head, if Free Agent has "cancel"
> facilities, though as a well regarded news-reader, it may do.
Annoyingly, Agent doesn't. I suspect Free Agent probably doesn't either.
I'm currently using Xnews, as it supports reading-from-one and posting-to-
another, which gets me around my little Earthstink ISP problem. It -does-
have a "cancel" feature, although I haven't tried it out on Reyda's posts
yet. ;)
Interested souls may locate it at http://xnews.3dnews.net.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Annoyingly, Agent doesn't. I suspect Free Agent probably doesn't either.
Agent does have a cancel function. However I believe that many news
servers don't support cancels (because they are often forged) and so
the function is not reliable. The best plan is to leave stuff in your
outbox for a while and review it before sending. Kinda like counting
to ten before speaking your mind...
My ob is to ask about Legacy of Pander. Is this based upon something
in the background? I don't understand how a caitiff gets a vote at
all, let alone several of them. How can this be? Is it just another
piece of dog poo like caitiffs becoming princes or did Pander have
some special magic?
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>My ob is to ask about Legacy of Pander. Is this based upon something
>in the background?
Yes.
> I don't understand how a caitiff gets a vote at
>all,
That's because Joseph Pander did a helluva lot of work to show that
Sabbat Caitiff were people too, just as capable of being big, bold and
useful.
Hence, Sabbat Caitiff get referred to as Pander in his "honour".
>let alone several of them. How can this be?
It's an invocation of the respect for him, kinda.
>Is it just another
>piece of dog poo like caitiffs becoming princes
Nothing wrong with that in the back-story. It just doesn't usually
happen. A primogen council that wanted to manipulate an inexperienced
prince might just do something like that.
>or did Pander have
>some special magic?
Sort of, yes.
Xian
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3+QdyfMk...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
[snip]
> Legbiter, however, took Banishment and managed to make a highly
> effective, powerful, innovative deck. Now, this hasn't suddenly made
> Banishment the be-all and end-all of cards, but it has shown that
You meant "Betrayer", not "Banishment" right?
Xian
James Coupe
<xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> writes
>> Legbiter, however, took Banishment and managed to make a highly
>> effective, powerful, innovative deck. Now, this hasn't suddenly made
>> Banishment the be-all and end-all of cards, but it has shown that
>
>You meant "Betrayer", not "Banishment" right?
Bah.
LSJ
> In message <F7F71B6E1523F57E.3088E65F...@lp.airnew
> s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
> >My ob is to ask about Legacy of Pander. Is this based upon something
> >in the background?
> >all,
>
> That's because Joseph Pander did a helluva lot of work to show that
> Sabbat Caitiff were people too, just as capable of being big, bold and
> useful.
>
> Hence, Sabbat Caitiff get referred to as Pander in his "honour".
>
> >let alone several of them. How can this be?
>
> It's an invocation of the respect for him, kinda.
Note that Pander cannot get multiple votes from Legacy of Pander.
They would have to do it the old fashioned way, with individual
Crusade votes, similar to their clanless Camarilla cousins.
--
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/
The Fanboy
> >piece of dog poo like caitiffs becoming princes
>
> Nothing wrong with that in the back-story. It just doesn't usually
> happen. A primogen council that wanted to manipulate an inexperienced
> prince might just do something like that.
Caitiff Princes are a sign of Gehenna. Justicars and Archons squash
them when they happen because of it (despite the Camarilla's party
line of "The Antedeluvians don't exist")
Fanboy
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>So you are deliberately wasting everyone's time, including yours and mine?
>Good job! Do you want a medal? Do you see now why I openly scorn
>net.cops? That's all they ever do... waste time, while accomplishing
>nothing.
A lovely bit of irony is that your scorning those you call
net.cops is net.copping itself.
[snip]
A pity you find civility so difficult.
I wonder how many have been chased away from VTES by this silly
rudeness. I had thought of getting back into the game, but if this is
the level of behaviour that is supposedly acceptable, why bother?
There are plenty of other games to play that do not have this rude
culture attached to them. Don't wonder why VTES is a marginal game
compared with others.
Derek Ray
> A lovely bit of irony is that your scorning those you call
> net.cops is net.copping itself.
...Missing the concept completely. Boot to the head.
> A pity you find civility so difficult.
I don't, actually. But I don't have much respect for people who feel that
they need to somehow be my moral guide upon the path of USENET.
> I wonder how many have been chased away from VTES by this silly
> rudeness. I had thought of getting back into the game, but if this is
> the level of behaviour that is supposedly acceptable, why bother?
> There are plenty of other games to play that do not have this rude
> culture attached to them. Don't wonder why VTES is a marginal game
> compared with others.
*snort* This is a relatively transparent troll, Gene. Feel free to just
accept that you failed in your "mission", and move on. I repeat, NOBODY
out there is under any delusions that USENET represents anything but its
OWN culture; and if they are, they need to throw their computer into the
nearest river and get out in the Big Blue Room for awhile.
-- Derek
For inexperienced netizens: This is a very common troll, where the troller
spins a tale to play to the imaginary crowd and appear as a helpless
victim, when actually he was the instigator. The whole idea is to somehow
drum up popular support against the Evil Meanie (that's me, here) for
somehow hurting the troller's feelings with my vile, nasty statements ("put
a sock in it") to such a great extent that his concept of V:TES is forever
tainted by its association with me, and he just COULDN'T bring himself to
play it, ever... and so one player will be forever lost to the Murky Mists
(tm), perhaps even playing that terrible M-word game instead. He then
speculates randomly about others I may have also scarred with my terrible
depradations, in hopes of stirring things up even further.
It bears a notable resemblance to classic IBM/Microsoft FUD; it's certainly
been around for that long, if not longer. I believe I first saw this troll
back when I still had a 300bps modem, in the old, old BBS days.
The reality is, almost nobody selects USENET as a first resource to get
back into V:TES. The vast majority of our new players come to us (or come
back) from in-person hookups at local gaming shops and word-of-mouth, while
some go look on White Wolf's website or the V:TES mailing list. As far as
marginal goes... We were effectively abandoned and ashcanned by WotC for
several years. Of course we're marginal. But we're taking off like a
rocket. We'll be fine, even if we lose one player. ;)
Andrew S. Davidson
>I wonder how many have been chased away from VTES by this silly
>rudeness. I had thought of getting back into the game, but if this is
>the level of behaviour that is supposedly acceptable, why bother?
>There are plenty of other games to play that do not have this rude
>culture attached to them. Don't wonder why VTES is a marginal game
>compared with others.
From what I've seen, the US tournament scene is quite civil. I
wouldn't say the same about the UK though - too much strong language
for my taste.
I wouldn't worry about Derek - he's just hamming it up and this forum
wouldn't be as lively without him. Killfile him if he bothers you -
you won't change his behaviour by scolding him.
Andrew
Derek Ray
news:2386C762E264F6B6.EB43DEE4...@lp.airnews.net:
> From what I've seen, the US tournament scene is quite civil. I
> wouldn't say the same about the UK though - too much strong language
> for my taste.
How remarkable. I'd have said the opposite, but I suppose I haven't been
exposed to a Portsmouth monthly at close range yet, either.
> I wouldn't worry about Derek - he's just hamming it up and this forum
> wouldn't be as lively without him. Killfile him if he bothers you -
> you won't change his behaviour by scolding him.
Oh, shush. I was getting to the good part, too.
hamdamcwa
> >rudeness. I had thought of getting back into the game, but if this is
> >the level of behaviour that is supposedly acceptable, why bother?
> >There are plenty of other games to play that do not have this rude
> >culture attached to them. Don't wonder why VTES is a marginal game
> >compared with others.
>
> From what I've seen, the US tournament scene is quite civil. I
> wouldn't say the same about the UK though - too much strong language
> for my taste.
Hmmm... well, obviously horses for courses.
However, in the UK, we have seen a steady, regular increase in numbers
in the last year. 9/10 people who come to one event come back to
another. Very, very few *ever* leave halfway through an event, unless
they have good reason (life issues, etc).
I think Gencon UK (next week, seee http://www.genconuk.com for
details, *plug plug*) will be the test, though.
DH
James Coupe
<dave...@hotmail.com> writes
>However, in the UK, we have seen a steady, regular increase in numbers
>in the last year. 9/10 people who come to one event come back to
>another. Very, very few *ever* leave halfway through an event, unless
>they have good reason (life issues, etc).
FWIW, I've *never* seen anyone leave half-way through for game-related
issues.
LSJ
>
> In message <9e10847c.01082...@posting.google.com>, hamdamcwa
> <dave...@hotmail.com> writes
> >However, in the UK, we have seen a steady, regular increase in numbers
> >in the last year. 9/10 people who come to one event come back to
> >another. Very, very few *ever* leave halfway through an event, unless
> >they have good reason (life issues, etc).
>
> FWIW, I've *never* seen anyone leave half-way through for game-related
> issues.
I've seen it happen at conventions - players who score 0 VP in the first
two rounds drop before the third round so that they can go play in another
event. I've even seen it happen after the first round, but usually that
only happens in a limited (judge-provides-cards) tournament at a
convention - some players will stay just long enough to get their cards
and then drop. In both cases, the bigger the convention, the more
appeal to dropping (boosted by the fact that bigger conventions lead to
more players in the tournament, which means that slow starts are more likely
to mean no final).
But I've never seen anyone drop from a "stand-alone" tournament (a tournament
held in a non-convention setting).
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> *snort* This is a relatively transparent troll, Gene. Feel free to just
> accept that you failed in your "mission", and move on. I repeat, NOBODY
> out there is under any delusions that USENET represents anything but its
> OWN culture; and if they are, they need to throw their computer into the
> nearest river and get out in the Big Blue Room for awhile.
>
> -- Derek
You've missed something very important. USENET, for this game,
as far as I can tell, represents the only way to get and keep an
accurate sense of the game's tournament rules (this is where the
rules rep works).
In that sense, this game's culture, at least its tournament culture,
must be informed to some extent by the culture of this forum.
If the culture of this forum is insulting and hostile...
> The reality is, almost nobody selects USENET as a first resource to get
> back into V:TES. The vast majority of our new players come to us (or come
> back) from in-person hookups at local gaming shops and word-of-mouth,
while
> some go look on White Wolf's website or the V:TES mailing list.
Nope, the reality is that USENET has to be addressed if players want to
know the rules before playing at a tournament level, to avoid unpleasant
surprises when those who know the rulings explain why their play won't work,
and can't be taken back due to the "laid is played" rule.
What is unfortunate is that the only choice for a player who wants to
play this game competitively is when his unpleasant experiences begin:
either at his first tournament table, where new rules blind side him with
no recourse; or here, where he is eviscerated for taking an opposing point
of view when conversing with certain posters.
- Jason Bell
Derek Ray
news:Lvoh7.170624$J37.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com:
> You've missed something very important. USENET, for this game,
> as far as I can tell, represents the only way to get and keep an
> accurate sense of the game's tournament rules (this is where the
> rules rep works).
It's not. White Wolf's website and forum are another way. The V:TES
mailing list is another way. And a LOT of newbie-type questions make their
way to the forum... which is to be expected, because White Wolf's site is
what people consider a first resource, as opposed to USENET.
Many people aren't even aware USENET exists.
> Nope, the reality is that USENET has to be addressed if players want
> to know the rules before playing at a tournament level, to avoid
> unpleasant surprises when those who know the rulings explain why their
> play won't work, and can't be taken back due to the "laid is played"
> rule.
See above; the White Wolf website is the first place someone who knows
NOTHING will go. And the forums there are where he will ask his question.
As dreadful as I consider web-forums to be for SUBSTANTIVE conversation,
they are quite well-suited for one-shot question-and-answer.
> What is unfortunate is that the only choice for a player who wants to
> play this game competitively is when his unpleasant experiences begin:
> either at his first tournament table, where new rules blind side him
> with no recourse; or here, where he is eviscerated for taking an
> opposing point of view when conversing with certain posters.
For the newbie who attends his first tournament, I (and many others) have
had much sympathy in the past. I have permitted take-backs. I have
offered suggestions, even when he was my prey. And I have EVEN laid off
and refused to swarm-bleed someone out at stealth, of which I was perfectly
capable at the time... all because I understood he was a newer player, and
wasn't very familiar with his situation. We have all been there ourselves,
see.
As far as your last sentence... well, you know, it's easy to fall into the
trap of assuming that just because I rip certain people a new asshole every
so often, that I MUST be cruel and harsh to the newbies as well.
Unfortunately, this is (as always) a statement totally based on assumption,
and ... lacking in substance. You should have a CLOSE look at who gets the
potshots and who doesn't. Right now, Brad Ward is getting it, and just
from his mad dick-waving, I'm forced to assume that he's got a rating in
the top 50 or something. That's hardly a newbie. =)
Jack Crow
>As far as your last sentence... well, you know, it's easy to fall into the
>trap of assuming that just because I rip certain people a new asshole every
>so often, that I MUST be cruel and harsh to the newbies as well.
>Unfortunately, this is (as always) a statement totally based on assumption,
>and ... lacking in substance. You should have a CLOSE look at who gets the
>potshots and who doesn't. Right now, Brad Ward is getting it, and just
>from his mad dick-waving, I'm forced to assume that he's got a rating in
>the top 50 or something. That's hardly a newbie. =)
It is widely recognized that you are the sole poster who unnecessarily
agitates people on a constant schedule.
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> For the newbie who attends his first tournament, I (and many others) have
> had much sympathy in the past. I have permitted take-backs. I have
> offered suggestions, even when he was my prey. And I have EVEN laid off
> and refused to swarm-bleed someone out at stealth, of which I was
perfectly
> capable at the time... all because I understood he was a newer player, and
> wasn't very familiar with his situation. We have all been there
ourselves,
> see.
Then you have been in violation of the current tournament rules.
> As far as your last sentence... well, you know, it's easy to fall into the
> trap of assuming that just because I rip certain people a new a**hole
every
> so often, that I MUST be cruel and harsh to the newbies as well.
As you like. My first contribution to this forum was met with a flame,
and I persist in my conviction, as promised, never again to respond to
that flamer's posts.
Would that you or Coupe were that flamer, the "Internet" would be
spared a fair bit of work.
- Jason Bell
XZealot
Of course, there are alot of lurkers out there who like myself will
agree with some of Derek's posts without the need to post that they do
so. I certainly don't agree with Derek on everything, but I think we
pretty much agree that your yelling at the rain arguement style is
both non-sensically childish and illogical.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, JR.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Derek Ray
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> For the newbie who attends his first tournament, I (and many others)
>> have had much sympathy in the past. I have permitted take-backs. I
>> have offered suggestions, even when he was my prey. And I have EVEN
>> laid off and refused to swarm-bleed someone out at stealth, of which
>> I was perfectly capable at the time... all because I understood he
>> was a newer player, and wasn't very familiar with his situation. We
>> have all been there ourselves, see.
>
> Then you have been in violation of the current tournament rules.
So penalize me already, big boy. Take away any VPs I gained in that
tournament, and bust my rating down to 2700. I couldn't care less.
Of course, I COULD argue that I was simply leaving him alive to do further
damage to my grandprey. Considering that I spent the next few turns
suggesting that he attack his prey, it would be difficult for you to
support your accusation.
> As you like. My first contribution to this forum was met with a
> flame, and I persist in my conviction, as promised, never again to
> respond to that flamer's posts.
This seems silly, but (shrug) it's your USENET.
> Would that you or Coupe were that flamer, the "Internet" would be
> spared a fair bit of work.
The fact that it was neither James Coupe nor I would seem to support my
point, now wouldn't it? (although I can't figure out what USENET would be
"spared" if we HAD been.)
Jason Bell
"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote
(Jack Crow) wrote
> >
> > It is widely recognized that you are the sole poster who unnecessarily
> > agitates people on a constant schedule.
>
> Of course, there are alot of lurkers out there who like myself will
> agree with some of Derek's posts without the need to post that they do
> so. I certainly don't agree with Derek on everything, but I think we
> pretty much agree that your yelling at the rain arguement style is
> both non-sensically childish and illogical.
Two points.
First, if you had written this very post, but were critical of
Derek, chances are he would have ridiculed it (as he has to
other posts) as "the other posters support me in e-mail" thing.
Second, I make no claim about there being lurkers with
my point of view, but I have almost a perfectly opposite
opinion of these two posters that you have.
- Jason Bell
Noal McDonald
> Second, I make no claim about there being lurkers with
> my point of view, but I have almost a perfectly opposite
> opinion of these two posters that you have.
Whoopty fucking do. Would you like a cookie?
Noal
Jason Bell
"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>
> Jason Bell wrote:
> > Second, I make no claim about there being lurkers with
> > my point of view, but I have almost a perfectly opposite
> > opinion of these two posters that you have.
>
>
> Noal
Of course you're right, conversation is a terrible thing.
I resolve to do less of it, at least with you.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>
> >> For the newbie who attends his first tournament, I (and many others)
> >> have had much sympathy in the past. I have permitted take-backs. I
> >> have offered suggestions, even when he was my prey. And I have EVEN
> >> laid off and refused to swarm-bleed someone out at stealth, of which
> >> I was perfectly capable at the time... all because I understood he
> >> was a newer player, and wasn't very familiar with his situation. We
> >> have all been there ourselves, see.
> >
> > Then you have been in violation of the current tournament rules.
>
> So penalize me already, big boy. Take away any VPs I gained in that
> tournament, and bust my rating down to 2700. I couldn't care less.
Hey, if you don't mind violating tournament rules, do as you
please until you are caught. You only damage the integrity of
the game you enjoy, and your own.
> Of course, I COULD argue that I was simply leaving him alive to do further
> damage to my grandprey. Considering that I spent the next few turns
> suggesting that he attack his prey, it would be difficult for you to
> support your accusation.
Whatever you need to do to defend your violation, again
until you are caught.
> > As you like. My first contribution to this forum was met with a
> > flame, and I persist in my conviction, as promised, never again to
> > respond to that flamer's posts.
>
> This seems silly, but (shrug) it's your USENET.
It possibly is silly, but I'm an obstinate person sometimes.
> > Would that you or Coupe were that flamer, the "Internet" would be
> > spared a fair bit of work.
>
> The fact that it was neither James Coupe nor I would seem to support my
> point, now wouldn't it? (although I can't figure out what USENET would be
> "spared" if we HAD been.)
That's a stretch. I've tracked Jack9's posting history, and there's
been no cause for the abuse you and the other Wonder Twin have given
him, given your standard. For the latter, those following this group
only for news about rulings would have an easier time had I never
responded to you.
- Jason Bell
Derek Ray
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> So penalize me already, big boy. Take away any VPs I gained in that
>> tournament, and bust my rating down to 2700. I couldn't care less.
>
> Hey, if you don't mind violating tournament rules, do as you
> please until you are caught. You only damage the integrity of
> the game you enjoy, and your own.
"if you have trouble with clumping, shuffle your cards face-up and separate
all the duplicates!"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>> Of course, I COULD argue that I was simply leaving him alive to do
>> further damage to my grandprey. Considering that I spent the next
>> few turns suggesting that he attack his prey, it would be difficult
>> for you to support your accusation.
>
> Whatever you need to do to defend your violation, again
> until you are caught.
I'm caught. Beat me. Penalize me. OH NO! WHAT'LL I DO?
Sheer silliness.
> It possibly is silly, but I'm an obstinate person sometimes.
*NO*. REALLY?
>> The fact that it was neither James Coupe nor I would seem to support
>> my point, now wouldn't it? (although I can't figure out what USENET
>> would be "spared" if we HAD been.)
>
> That's a stretch. I've tracked Jack9's posting history, and there's
> been no cause for the abuse you and the other Wonder Twin have given
> him, given your standard. For the latter, those following this group
We've already gone over the fact that you don't seem to comprehend how much
of a different HOW you say something makes... and it was HOW he said
everything he did that mattered, as plenty of other people besides James
Coupe and I have noted.
> only for news about rulings would have an easier time had I never
> responded to you.
Oh. Well, that would be YOUR problem, now wouldn't it?
Xian
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:QWJh7.168564$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > For the newbie who attends his first tournament, I (and many others)
have
> > had much sympathy in the past. I have permitted take-backs. I have
> Then you have been in violation of the current tournament rules.
It would be useful to note that Derek said "in the past". This would not
place him in violation of the current tournament rules, because they would
not have been the rules at the time.
That being said, I guess I was in violation at the newbie tournament at
GenCon. Oh well. I suppose it probably was a bad thing that I helped 5 new
players learn the game during the course of 2 rounds. And I shot my chance
at the finals. Wow, you know what? I'll bet a number of other veteran
players did the same. Shame on all of us. How dare we try to increase
interest in the game?
Xian
I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold.
A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart.
--_Shellshock_, New Order
www.waste.org/~xian
Roger Carhult
news:gvai7.2198$4Z3.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:QWJh7.168564$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > For the newbie who attends his first tournament, I (and many others)
> have
> > > had much sympathy in the past. I have permitted take-backs. I have
> [snip]
> > Then you have been in violation of the current tournament rules.
>
> It would be useful to note that Derek said "in the past". This would not
> place him in violation of the current tournament rules, because they would
> not have been the rules at the time.
>
> That being said, I guess I was in violation at the newbie tournament at
> GenCon. Oh well. I suppose it probably was a bad thing that I helped 5
new
> players learn the game during the course of 2 rounds. And I shot my
chance
> at the finals. Wow, you know what? I'll bet a number of other veteran
> players did the same. Shame on all of us. How dare we try to increase
> interest in the game?
>
>Xian
Hmm I wonder if it's actually even a breach against the rules to help other
players at the table. Even if it's your prey, because you're just informing
them of how the game works (if you're doing just that) by telling them how
to play (better). That doesn't mean you do less to oust them (unless in
Derek's case) you just make them resist you better but you're still trying
your best to gain VP's when you *play*. And even if you're not ousting them
when you think you could have, that's hard to prove. I mean you can't know
what your prey has in his hand (normally) so maybe he could have prevented
it and you didn't want to risk a fight etc etc. Or you wanted to weaken your
grandprey. I doubt any of you actually lost the games you helped them (or?)
and thus the argument is moot. You didn't give up victory for their sake.
Roger
Jason Bell
> >> So penalize me already, big boy. Take away any VPs I gained in that
> >> tournament, and bust my rating down to 2700. I couldn't care less.
> >
> > Hey, if you don't mind violating tournament rules, do as you
> > please until you are caught. You only damage the integrity of
> > the game you enjoy, and your own.
>
> "if you have trouble with clumping, shuffle your cards face-up and
separate
> all the duplicates!"
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
Please refrain from placing text in quotations marks unless it
is the actual text of the person you are quoting.
To do otherwise is dishonest.
> We've already gone over the fact that you don't seem to comprehend how
much
> of a different HOW you say something makes... and it was HOW he said
> everything he did that mattered, as plenty of other people besides James
> Coupe and I have noted.
Presumably the lurkers support you in email?
> > only for news about rulings would have an easier time had I never
> > responded to you.
>
> Oh. Well, that would be YOUR problem, now wouldn't it?
Pay attention, my point is that it is actually the problem of those who
follow the group solely for news about rulings, and have to read exchanges
like ours.
- Jason Bell
Derek Ray
>> We've already gone over the fact that you don't seem to comprehend
>> how much of a different HOW you say something makes... and it was HOW
>> he said everything he did that mattered, as plenty of other people
>> besides James Coupe and I have noted.
>
> Presumably the lurkers support you in email?
Actually, several people have noted it in public. You may feel free to go
back and search: www.google.com. Have fun.
> Pay attention, my point is that it is actually the problem of those
> who follow the group solely for news about rulings, and have to read
> exchanges like ours.
Still sounds like your problem to me; you care, and I don't. It's USENET,
see. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Halcyan 2
>>> how much of a different HOW you say something makes... and it was HOW
>>> he said everything he did that mattered, as plenty of other people
>>> besides James Coupe and I have noted.
>>
>> Presumably the lurkers support you in email?
>
>Actually, several people have noted it in public. You may feel free to go
>back and search: www.google.com. Have fun.
While I don't really want to take any sides or anything, since this topic has
been endlessly persisting and I'm frankly getting sick of it, =) , here's
my two cents:
Here's another vote in support of Mr. Rey and Mr. Coupe. I do have to admit
they've been a tad bit snippety lately, but considering some of the comments
and attitudes on this board lately, I suppose it's understandable.
Halcyan 2
Chris Berger
>
> > common thread on new errata, and it doesn't make me happy. It's just
> > a different form of card-limits.
>
> Making a card non-stackable COMPLETELY and TOTALLY fails to resemble
> anything to do with card limits. You can put as many LoP in your deck as
> you want, and put as many in play as you want, and each one must be burned
> by a separate action. You just can't stack them up to have a weenie
> powerhouse vote machine anymore. Corresponding examples: A vampire may
> have no more than one Disarm, and you can still put 12 of them in your deck
> (probably quite effectively). You can no longer play more than one DotB
> per combat, and it's STILL worth putting a bunch in.
>
It *is* similar to card limits in that it a) is an artificial
construct which limits cards which are deemed too powerful to be
played multiple times, and b) limits the effective number of uses you
can get out of the cards, similar to the way card limits do. Legacy
of Pander was a cool card in that you could base a deck around it. I
don't see that happening anymore.
And let me bring up unique cards before you do. I see that unique
cards are in the game and that the unique clause is pretty much the
same thing as this kind of errata. It mainly differs in that those
cards were always designed not to stack, and has other implications on
the game (contesting, mainly), while also being a part of the
backstory. It *does* also vaguely resemble card limits, except that I
seem to remember some talk early on that having unique cards
essentially removed the *need* for card limits.
> You would also consider the original Army of Rats errata bad?
Yes, in that it's artificially limiting. No, in that AoR is horribly
overpowered as originally printed. Unfortunately, this errata was
probably the only thing that could have been done to the card. I
don't believe that DoTB and Legacy of Pander were really overpowered.
And yes, I have seen them in action, in well-tuned decks, and while
they were good cards/combos, I was left feeling somewhat underwhelmed.
Ah well, c'est la vie. I will no longer play 6 DoTB's and an Aid
From Bats in one combat... as fun as that used to be. 8)
LSJ
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns91028ECA...@198.99.146.10>...
> >
> > > common thread on new errata, and it doesn't make me happy. It's just
> > > a different form of card-limits.
> >
> > Making a card non-stackable COMPLETELY and TOTALLY fails to resemble
> > anything to do with card limits. You can put as many LoP in your deck as
> > you want, and put as many in play as you want, and each one must be burned
> > by a separate action. You just can't stack them up to have a weenie
> > powerhouse vote machine anymore. Corresponding examples: A vampire may
> > have no more than one Disarm, and you can still put 12 of them in your deck
> > (probably quite effectively). You can no longer play more than one DotB
> > per combat, and it's STILL worth putting a bunch in.
> >
> It *is* similar to card limits in that it a) is an artificial
> construct which limits cards which are deemed too powerful to be
> played multiple times, and b) limits the effective number of uses you
> can get out of the cards, similar to the way card limits do. Legacy
> of Pander was a cool card in that you could base a deck around it. I
> don't see that happening anymore.
The card was designed to be non-cumulative, and it is (the same situation
that Army of Rats is in). The fact that it was issued with a misprint in
the interim doesn't change this.
....salem christ....
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > >
> > It *is* similar to card limits in that it a) is an artificial
> > construct which limits cards which are deemed too powerful to be
> > played multiple times, and b) limits the effective number of uses you
> > can get out of the cards, similar to the way card limits do. Legacy
> > of Pander was a cool card in that you could base a deck around it. I
> > don't see that happening anymore.
>
> The card was designed to be non-cumulative, and it is (the same situation
> that Army of Rats is in). The fact that it was issued with a misprint in
> the interim doesn't change this.
and, well, you can still have as many in your deck/in play as you want.
Sure, army of rats will only do one pool no matter how many you have. But
will anyone bother burning an army of rats if there are fifteen in play?
so, like, it's not a limit at all.
salem.