Rules Team Rulings, 9/6/95, Jyhad/VTES

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to

GENERAL RULINGS

1) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, anyone in combat (including
retainers) may deal ranged damage to an opposing retainer, but only if the
round is at long range. (In Jyhad, only vampires and allies may deal
ranged damaged to a retainer, but they may do so whether the round is at
long or close range.)

REVERSALS

None!

ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES

None!

CARD RULINGS

1) If a vampire attempts to rescue himself or herself from torpor, and
another vampire uses Mask of a Thousand Faces to assume the action,
neither vampire is rescued from torpor and no blood is lost as a result of
the action. If the action is blocked after the second vampire has assumed
it, the blocking minion cannot commit diablerie, and combat does not result.

2) While Mask of a Thousand Faces may be used to assume an action that the
vampire could not have attempted normally, it cannot be used to assume an
action that the vampire is specifically prohibited (or prevented) from
taking. For example, a vampire without Thaumaturgy can assume a Cryptic
Mission, but if Minor Boon has prevented a vampire from bleeding a
Methuselah, another vampire cannot use Mask to assume a bleed action taken
against that player.

3) "I steal Ozmo from my predator with Malkavian Dementia. Before it gets
back to my untap phase, Ozmo becomes contested. Can I choose to yield Ozmo
and burn him before I return him to my predator?"

Yes, assuming he is still contested during your untap phase. Once you have
untapped everything you control, the effects and actions of the rest of
the untap phase can be resolved in any order you choose.

4) A minion may play more than one additional strike card during a round,
even though the first card played is the only one that can actually give
the minion additional strikes. This means that a vampire can use superior
Acrobatics to dodge a blow even if he or she has already used an
additional strike that round; the additional strike portion of the effect
is simply ignored.

5) More than one Pulled Fangs card can be played on a vampire in the same
round.

6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a
second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
any way.

7) A vampire playing Taste of Vitae gains an amount of blood equal to the
amount lost by the opposing vampire during that round of combat regardless
of the reason why the blood has been lost. The total includes stolen
blood, blood burned from damage, blood burned to play combat cards (such
as Blur), and so on.


Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.


Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: REVERSALS

: None!

Wait for it...

: 3) "I steal Ozmo from my predator with Malkavian Dementia. Before it gets


: back to my untap phase, Ozmo becomes contested. Can I choose to yield Ozmo
: and burn him before I return him to my predator?"

: Yes, assuming he is still contested during your untap phase. Once you have
: untapped everything you control, the effects and actions of the rest of
: the untap phase can be resolved in any order you choose.

This looks a heckuva lot like a reversal to me. Last I heard/saw,
Malkavians stolen thru Dementia were returned to the original controller
before anything else happened in the untap phase. This meant that they
were returned untapped, but (IIRC) was put there _specifically_ to
prevent situations such as this one occurring.

To take it further: Knowing that I have Dancin Dana in my uncontrolled
region, I steal Dana from another Meth using a Dementia, and bring out
Dana myself, effectively contesting her with myself. Now, on my untap
phase, I choose to yield _his_ copy of Dana, then as there are no other
vampires contesting, I bring _my_ copy of Dana back into the game.
(Whatever order I choose...)

According to what I read above, this is a perfectly legal play. That
seems a _mite_ broken/perverted to me...

Shane H.W. Travis | Should we raise a generation of literate Americans,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | very little of America as we know it would survive.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | --Richard Mitchell

Alan Kwan

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
In article <42kual$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>
>GENERAL RULINGS

>
>4) A minion may play more than one additional strike card during a round,
>even though the first card played is the only one that can actually give
>the minion additional strikes. This means that a vampire can use superior
>Acrobatics to dodge a blow even if he or she has already used an
>additional strike that round; the additional strike portion of the effect
>is simply ignored.

Tom, are you aware that this affects more than just the Acrobatics card?
This rule is allowing players to burn excess "Nimble Feet" freely and at
no cost!

And, no one thinks the Jyhad Acrobatics card has any problem. The card
is basically an additional strike card, and the superior version can
be read as a `short form' of

"Additional Strike, with a Strike: Dodge useable only during the
initial strike of a round"

This rules change seems completely unnecessary, and unhealthy, to me.

--
"Live Life with Heart."

Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/7/95
to
Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:

<bobbit: ruling on being able to play more than 1 +strikes card...>

: Tom, are you aware that this affects more than just the Acrobatics card?


: This rule is allowing players to burn excess "Nimble Feet" freely and at
: no cost!

[...]

: This rules change seems completely unnecessary, and unhealthy, to me.

This was one of the rulings that came down the pike while you were denied
access for the summer. Alan. All of these Bad Things (tm) were pointed
out to him, yet none made any difference.

The logic behind this change is... (drum roll please): this is what the
rulebook says.

Quote, 15.1 - Combat Sequence, Additional strikes, last sentence:
"Only one card may give an additional strike to a minion for each round of
combat."

Now, everyone I know interpreted that to mean that you could play only
one additional strike card, but some enterprising munchkin pointed out
the actual wording, and the DT (surprise, surprise) decided to go with
form over function. Thus, as many +strike cards as you like, but only one
can give additional strikes.

This is obviously from the same mentality that gave us the, "No more than
one of the _category_ of Bonding, Conditioning or Threats can be played
per action, but as many of that _specific_ category of card as you can
legally play," ruling that went with the Mask of 1K faces.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/7/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>REVERSALS
>None!

>ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES
>None!

Sorry, not true.


>3) "I steal Ozmo from my predator with Malkavian Dementia. Before it gets
>back to my untap phase, Ozmo becomes contested. Can I choose to yield Ozmo
>and burn him before I return him to my predator?"

>Yes, assuming he is still contested during your untap phase. Once you have
>untapped everything you control, the effects and actions of the rest of
>the untap phase can be resolved in any order you choose.

!REVERSAL!

From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Re: Question - Malk. Dementia Timing
Date: 22 Jan 1995 05:11:02 GMT
Message-ID: <3fspd6$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>

[In Response to "Can I Contest a Stolen Malk with Myself an yield the
stolen Malk on my untap?"]

During untap, you choose whether to pay to keep a contested card, or
yield it. This is the only time when you can choose to yield it. I believe
the corrected rules are clearer on this, but don't seem to have them
with me.

Malkavian Dementia wears off at the beginning of your untap phase.

!CARD ERRATA!

Malk Dementia specifcally says you control the Malk "until your next
untap" not "through your next untap". The Malk (according to card
text) is not yours to yield during your untap phase.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/7/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a
>second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
>any way.

A Master Bum' Rush, eh?

"Only causes combat"? So it no longer taps the second minion?

I can live with that, but it is still needless errata.

Since the card is obviously emulating a block, I say call it a block.
No errata, everyone (except the target :-) is happy.

A Toreador by any other name...

Steven Bauer

unread,
Sep 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/8/95
to
In article n...@tribune.usask.ca, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
> Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
>
> <bobbit: ruling on being able to play more than 1 +strikes card...>
>
> : Tom, are you aware that this affects more than just the Acrobatics card?
> : This rule is allowing players to burn excess "Nimble Feet" freely and at
> : no cost!
>
> [...]
>
> : This rules change seems completely unnecessary, and unhealthy, to me.
>
> This was one of the rulings that came down the pike while you were denied
> access for the summer. Alan. All of these Bad Things (tm) were pointed
> out to him, yet none made any difference.
>
> The logic behind this change is... (drum roll please): this is what the
> rulebook says.
>
> Quote, 15.1 - Combat Sequence, Additional strikes, last sentence:
> "Only one card may give an additional strike to a minion for each round of
> combat."
>
> Now, everyone I know interpreted that to mean that you could play only
> one additional strike card, but some enterprising munchkin pointed out
> the actual wording, and the DT (surprise, surprise) decided to go with
> form over function. Thus, as many +strike cards as you like, but only one
> can give additional strikes.

I believe I would be the munchkin in question (or one of them anyway) and the
reason for my question (dumb as it may have been) was to understand what the ruling
given below.


>From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
>Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

>Subject: New Jyhad FAQ: 6/15/95 version
>Date: 22 Jun 1995 19:12:23 GMT

>First an important overall ruling: A card or ability can be
>played, even if only part of its effects can happen. For example
>Anarch Troublemaker can be played even if your prey only has one
>vampire in play. Please note that this is completely opposite how
>we rule on Magic cards. (12/2)
So in trying to understand the effects of this ruling I looked at sup acrobatics
I wondered if playing this card as just a srike:dodge after already playing
another aditional strike would be covered under the "even if only part of
its effect can happen" ruling.
I am still not clear exactly which cards this general ruling covers, but
I guess someone felt it did not include acrobatics.

>
> This is obviously from the same mentality that gave us the, "No more than
> one of the _category_ of Bonding, Conditioning or Threats can be played
> per action, but as many of that _specific_ category of card as you can
> legally play," ruling that went with the Mask of 1K faces.
>
> Shane H.W. Travis | Should we raise a generation of literate Americans,
> tra...@duke.usask.ca | very little of America as we know it would survive.
> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | --Richard Mitchell
>

Now for another stupid question:

Can you decide which of the unlimited number of extra strikes gives me
extra strikes or is it always the first. Will this become a general ruling and
apply to other areas, ie play unlimited strikes and pick the one you like best
or play a bunch of actions cards till you get the one you really like.
well I'm of to design my ULTRA Nimble nothing deck (where I put nothing
but nimble feet in and empty my library by the second round).

Steven Bauer
mail flames to sba...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/8/95
to

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>4) A minion may play more than one additional strike card during a round,
>>even though the first card played is the only one that can actually give
>>the minion additional strikes...

>Tom, are you aware that this affects more than just the Acrobatics card?
>This rule is allowing players to burn excess "Nimble Feet" freely and at
>no cost!

Oh well. The rulebook states, either directly or indirectly, that multiple
additional strike cards can be played during a round (don't have it on hand,
so can't check on the manner of statement). While this is annoying, this
is below our errata threshhold.

>And, no one thinks the Jyhad Acrobatics card has any problem. The card
>is basically an additional strike card, and the superior version can
>be read as a `short form' of
>
>"Additional Strike, with a Strike: Dodge useable only during the
>initial strike of a round"

While one might read it that way, that would be incorrect.

>This rules change seems completely unnecessary, and unhealthy, to me.

It is not a rules change. It is what the rulebook says.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/8/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>1) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, anyone in combat (including
>>retainers) may deal ranged damage to an opposing retainer, but only if the
>>round is at long range. (In Jyhad, only vampires and allies may deal
>>ranged damaged to a retainer, but they may do so whether the round is at
>>long or close range.)
>I thought Jyhad and V:tES were the same game (mix'n'match cards and all that).
>What has changed?

VTES is, in essence, a new edition of Jyhad, and therefore has the normal
tweaks to rules and cards that all new editions have. We never said that
VTES would be *identical* to Jyhad, just that's basically the same game,
but with a tweak here and there. The rules on shooting retainers are
one of those tweaks.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/8/95
to
In article <42qkss$q...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>1) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, anyone in combat (including
>>>retainers) may deal ranged damage to an opposing retainer, but only if the
>>>round is at long range. (In Jyhad, only vampires and allies may deal
>>>ranged damaged to a retainer, but they may do so whether the round is at
>>>long or close range.)
>>I thought Jyhad and V:tES were the same game (mix'n'match cards and all that).
>>What has changed?
>
>VTES is, in essence, a new edition of Jyhad, and therefore has the normal
>tweaks to rules and cards that all new editions have. We never said that
>VTES would be *identical* to Jyhad, just that's basically the same game,
>but with a tweak here and there. The rules on shooting retainers are
>one of those tweaks.

So if I play with a mixed deck (which you allow), which rule am I to use?

--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/8/95
to
"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes:

>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>>1) In Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, anyone in combat (including
>>retainers) may deal ranged damage to an opposing retainer, but only if the
>>round is at long range. (In Jyhad, only vampires and allies may deal
>>ranged damaged to a retainer, but they may do so whether the round is at
>>long or close range.)

>Peace Tom,
>Huh?! So if I have a .44 at close range, I can't shoot the opposing minion's
>retainer?

Sure. I think the idea is that you don't get a clear shot.

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/9/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: VTES is, in essence, a new edition of Jyhad, and therefore has the normal


: tweaks to rules and cards that all new editions have. We never said that
: VTES would be *identical* to Jyhad, just that's basically the same game,
: but with a tweak here and there. The rules on shooting retainers are
: one of those tweaks.

For peace of mind then:

Once VTES is officially and wodely released, will you (as the voice of the
Rules Team) be issuing consistent, across-the-board answers? That is to
say, If someone has a question about Jyhad, will you answer it using the
old Jyhad rules/rulings/interpretations, or will all answers be based on
the new printing/edition/whatever of the game and be retroactive?

Example: someone asks a question about card X in November (and hopefully,
the game's release date will not have been pushed back that far... :-) )
Will the answer be:

(answer), and play all previously printed cards this way.

or

If Jyhad, (answer 1): if VTES, (answer 2).

So far, there are at least two examples of the latter (Strike: CE and
Retainers vs. Retainers) and none of the former. I realize that VTES is
not yet officially released, however, and so that may be skewing things.

Has this been thought about? And if so, are you allowed to tell us?

CurtAdams

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to
Tom writes:

>Regardless of how Taste "ought" to work, it says that it counts up
>all damage lost by the opposing vampire, with no qualifiers as to *how*
>that blood was lost.

Blood lost, not damage lost.

(Broken record alert!)

The rules do NOT define "lost blood". It is certainly not necessary to
consider blood spent for cards "lost"; I don't say I "lost" the 20 bucks I
spent yesterday on books. Defining "lost" the way you have is (a) bad for
balance - Taste is an incredibly good card under the strictest of
interpretations and (b) very silly.

Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

J. Hunter Johnson

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to
In article <42tvv7$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a
>>>second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
>>>any way.
>>A Master Bum' Rush, eh?
>
>Yes, essentially.

>
>>"Only causes combat"? So it no longer taps the second minion?
>
>The minion is not tapped as a result entering combat, correct.

But card text says that "The minion becomes tapped". Are you saying
"The minion doesn't become tapped as a result of entering combat,
but rather as a result of card text" or "The minion doesn't become
tapped and the card is hereby errata'ed"?

>>I can live with that, but it is still needless errata.
>

>What errata?...


>
>>Since the card is obviously emulating a block, I say call it a block.
>

>*that* would be errata. The card does not say that the second minion is
>blocking the Brujah, therefore it is not. While I appreciate the urge
>to pigeonhole game actions into similar wordings, you are reading something
>into the card that isn't there, if you think that the second minion is
>blocking the Brujah.

But the card does say that "The Brujah's action is blocked". Who is
blocking the action, if not the second minion?

Hunter
--
J. Hunter Johnson
jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online)
"Eventually, all school subjects at all grades will be taught with
GURPS supplements." -- Moriah (Mike Sullivan)

CurtAdams

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to
Tom writes:

>Since I can't really see anyone wanting
>to play with the Jyhad rules, unless it's for political reasons, I don't
>really aniticpate this being a problem.

The vote-pushing rule alone is a good reason to play by the old rules,
assuming votes can be pushed in advanced V:tES as in the basic rules. I
prefer the Jyhad system for offing retainers, too. Under the new rules,
it will be nearly impossible to harm retainers attached to Brujah or
Gangrel close-range fighters with good maneuver abilities. Naturally
there may be rulings that go the other way, but the point is that there
are reasons to play by the old rules.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>For peace of mind then:
>Once VTES is officially and wodely released, will you (as the voice of the
>Rules Team) be issuing consistent, across-the-board answers? That is to
>say, If someone has a question about Jyhad, will you answer it using the
>old Jyhad rules/rulings/interpretations, or will all answers be based on
>the new printing/edition/whatever of the game and be retroactive?

Same story as when Magic rolls to a new edition: strictly speaking,
the old version of the game is not supported anymore, so it is assumed
that all questions and answers are about the latest edition unless
explicitly stated otherwise. Since I can't really see anyone wanting


to play with the Jyhad rules, unless it's for political reasons, I don't
really aniticpate this being a problem.

>Example: someone asks a question about card X in November (and hopefully,


>the game's release date will not have been pushed back that far... :-) )
>Will the answer be:
>(answer), and play all previously printed cards this way.
>or
>If Jyhad, (answer 1): if VTES, (answer 2).

I expect the answers to be of the first variety, in general, unless
someone is curious about exploring the differences between the
two editions.

>So far, there are at least two examples of the latter (Strike: CE and
>Retainers vs. Retainers) and none of the former. I realize that VTES is
>not yet officially released, however, and so that may be skewing things.

It is definitely skewing things. Up until the release of VTES, answers
will mostly be Jyhad-only, with the occasional mixed ruling.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a
>>second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
>>any way.
>A Master Bum' Rush, eh?

Yes, essentially.

>"Only causes combat"? So it no longer taps the second minion?

The minion is not tapped as a result entering combat, correct.

>I can live with that, but it is still needless errata.

What errata?...

>Since the card is obviously emulating a block, I say call it a block.

*that* would be errata. The card does not say that the second minion is
blocking the Brujah, therefore it is not. While I appreciate the urge
to pigeonhole game actions into similar wordings, you are reading something
into the card that isn't there, if you think that the second minion is
blocking the Brujah.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Huh?! So if I have a .44 at close range, I can't shoot the opposing minion's
>retainer?

That's correct. From what I remember of the discussion about this,
the basic idea is that you're too preoccupied with fending off the
opposing minion to shoot at the retainers that are (in general)
running around behind the scenes. Only if the round is at range do
you have the luxury of sniping at them.

>>4) A minion may play more than one additional strike card during a round,
>>even though the first card played is the only one that can actually give

>>the minion additional strikes. This means that a vampire can use superior
>>Acrobatics to dodge a blow even if he or she has already used an
>>additional strike that round; the additional strike portion of the effect
>>is simply ignored.

>Like I've said before, this is a Bad Thing (TM). Allowing player(s) to burn
>cards uselessly is contrary to one of the basic precepts of the game.

Probably true, but as I've said before, the rulebook does allow it, and


this is below our errata threshhold.

>>6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a


>>second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
>>any way.

>Are you going to change the card text?

Not as far as I'm aware of. Why?

>>7) A vampire playing Taste of Vitae gains an amount of blood equal to the
>>amount lost by the opposing vampire during that round of combat regardless
>>of the reason why the blood has been lost. The total includes stolen
>>blood, blood burned from damage, blood burned to play combat cards (such
>>as Blur), and so on.

>This is still a silly ruling also. Blood spent by the opposing vampire to
>play card should NOT be gained.

Regardless of how Taste "ought" to work, it says that it counts up
all damage lost by the opposing vampire, with no qualifiers as to *how*
that blood was lost.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to

Steven Bauer <sba...@cso.geg.mot.com> wrote:
> >First an important overall ruling: A card or ability can be
> >played, even if only part of its effects can happen. For example
> >Anarch Troublemaker can be played even if your prey only has one
> >vampire in play. Please note that this is completely opposite how
> >we rule on Magic cards. (12/2)
>So in trying to understand the effects of this ruling I looked at sup
>acrobatics I wondered if playing this card as just a srike:dodge after already
>playing another aditional strike would be covered under the "even if only part
>of its effect can happen" ruling.
>I am still not clear exactly which cards this general ruling covers, but
>I guess someone felt it did not include acrobatics.

The ruling covers all effects that are legal to play at all. Anarch
Troublemaker's ability is just a random ability, so has no special restrictions
on when it can be played. This is in sharp contrast with, for example,
stealth cards and press cards. These cards have strict restrictions on
when they could be played, and whether they can be played at a particular
appropriate time. Superior acrobatics presented a question since it wasn't
clear whether additional strike cards had playing restrictions similar
to maneuvers or presses, or whether you could play them freely (just not
cumulatively).

> Can you decide which of the unlimited number of extra strikes gives me

>extra strikes or is it always the first...

As I remember the paragraph in the rulebook, the first such card is the
one that applies. You can't play a one-strike card, draw a Blur, and use
that to get additional strikes instead. But I don't have the rulebook
with me so might be wrong on that.

>ie play unlimited strikes and pick the one you like best
>or play a bunch of actions cards till you get the one you really like.

You can only play one action card per action.

James R. McClure Jr.

unread,
Sep 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/11/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>Huh?! So if I have a .44 at close range, I can't shoot the opposing minion's
>>retainer?
>
>That's correct. From what I remember of the discussion about this,
>the basic idea is that you're too preoccupied with fending off the
>opposing minion to shoot at the retainers that are (in general)
>running around behind the scenes. Only if the round is at range do
>you have the luxury of sniping at them.

Peace Tom,

Did you (DT) find that retainers were too shortlived and that is why you are
making this change? I don't see a good reason gamewise to restrict attacks
against retainers like this, except to increase their survivability.

>>>4) A minion may play more than one additional strike card during a round,
>>>even though the first card played is the only one that can actually give
>>>the minion additional strikes. This means that a vampire can use superior
>>>Acrobatics to dodge a blow even if he or she has already used an
>>>additional strike that round; the additional strike portion of the effect
>>>is simply ignored.
>>Like I've said before, this is a Bad Thing (TM). Allowing player(s) to burn
>>cards uselessly is contrary to one of the basic precepts of the game.
>
>Probably true, but as I've said before, the rulebook does allow it, and
>this is below our errata threshhold.

The point is, Tom, since you are rereleasing the game, FIX THE RULEBOOK. Bring
add strike cards in line with everything else. It is only one sentence; it
shouldn't be too hard to fix. Not being able to uselessly burn cards is
a fundamental concept of Jyhad and VtES should close loopholes like this
(that's one of the reasons for rereleasing the game isn't it?).

>>>6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a
>>>second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
>>>any way.
>>Are you going to change the card text?
>
>Not as far as I'm aware of. Why?

See Hunter's post on the text of BF and why you are obviously errata'g it.

>>>7) A vampire playing Taste of Vitae gains an amount of blood equal to the
>>>amount lost by the opposing vampire during that round of combat regardless
>>>of the reason why the blood has been lost. The total includes stolen
>>>blood, blood burned from damage, blood burned to play combat cards (such
>>>as Blur), and so on.
>>This is still a silly ruling also. Blood spent by the opposing vampire to
>>play card should NOT be gained.
>
>Regardless of how Taste "ought" to work, it says that it counts up
>all damage lost by the opposing vampire, with no qualifiers as to *how*
>that blood was lost.

This is another thing that could/SHOULD easily be fixed between editions.
Clarify "lost" in the rules or change the cards text.


Nil carborundum illigitimi,

James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle

<insert disclaimer here>

Paul Schaaf

unread,
Sep 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/11/95
to

On 7 Sep 1995, James R. McClure Jr. wrote:

> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>
> >4) A minion may play more than one additional strike card during a round,
> >even though the first card played is the only one that can actually give
> >the minion additional strikes. This means that a vampire can use superior
> >Acrobatics to dodge a blow even if he or she has already used an
> >additional strike that round; the additional strike portion of the effect
> >is simply ignored.
>
> Like I've said before, this is a Bad Thing (TM). Allowing player(s) to burn
> cards uselessly is contrary to one of the basic precepts of the game.

I agree that burning cards uselessly is bad, but I don't see anything
wrong with paying a blood for a dodge from acrobatics. That's not
uselessly burning cards.

---------
Paul Schaaf
sch...@u.washington.edu


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/11/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>As I remember the paragraph in the rulebook, the first such card is the
>one that applies. You can't play a one-strike card, draw a Blur, and use
>that to get additional strikes instead. But I don't have the rulebook
>with me so might be wrong on that.

I pressume you have a Mt$-rulebook with you.

<sigh>

This should be something you have with you physically on your desk (as I do)
and/or in a text file on-line (as I do).

Anybody can guess.

Generally we need official answers to our questions.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/11/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>6) Brujah Frenzy only causes the affected Brujah to enter combat with a
>>>second minion; that minion is not considered to be blocking the Brujah in
>>>any way.
>>A Master Bum' Rush, eh?

>Yes, essentially.

>>"Only causes combat"? So it no longer taps the second minion?

>The minion is not tapped as a result entering combat, correct.

You said that BF *only* causes combat. This would exclude tapping
the (now untargetted) defender.

>>I can live with that, but it is still needless errata.

>What errata?...

See above.

>>Since the card is obviously emulating a block, I say call it a block.

>*that* would be errata. The card does not say that the second minion is
>blocking the Brujah, therefore it is not. While I appreciate the urge
>to pigeonhole game actions into similar wordings, you are reading something
>into the card that isn't there, if you think that the second minion is
>blocking the Brujah.

Like reading "only one additional strike card may be played" into the rulebook,
this is simply a logical extension of the rules. Errata to make the game
make sense is a good thing.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 13, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/13/95
to

In "Rules Team Rulings, 9/6/95, Jyhad/VTES", aa...@cats.ucsc.edu
(Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>
> CARD RULINGS

>
> 5) More than one Pulled Fangs card can be played on a vampire in the same
> round.

Hypothesis:
While this is true as long as the victim prevents the 1agg from the fangs,
it is not true in general. The 1agg will send the victim to torpor, ending
the combat. You cannot "stack" fangs as if they were Mt$ Lightning Bolts
and hold them until you were ready for them all to resolve.

You can "stack" all the damage done at a single time (Wolf Companion, DBR,
and so on), but that's because the damage comes all at once, not from
sequential sources such as non-strike combat cards.

Example:

Vampire: I strike for X damage.
Combatant: I strike for X+N damage (N>0).

Vampire: I heal (by paying blood).
Combatant: I heal/lose life (by paying blood).

(About to press/gain strikes/taste/ etc.)

Combatant: I pull your fangs.
Vampire: I don't prevent the 1agg.

Vampire goes to torpor, ending combat.

Combatant: I want to pull your fangs again.
Vampire: I'd like that :-), but unfortunately, combat is over.

Pulled Fangs is a combat card and so cannot be played after combat.

----
Tom, can you explain why the above isn't true? (Or undo the errata if it is?).

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/14/95
to

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Did you (DT) find that retainers were too shortlived and that is why you are
>making this change? I don't see a good reason gamewise to restrict attacks
>against retainers like this, except to increase their survivability.

I wasn't there when the VTES rules were written or finalizes, do can't
answer this.

>>Probably true, but as I've said before, the rulebook does allow it, and
>>this is below our errata threshhold.
>The point is, Tom, since you are rereleasing the game, FIX THE RULEBOOK. Bring
>add strike cards in line with everything else. It is only one sentence; it
>shouldn't be too hard to fix. Not being able to uselessly burn cards is
>a fundamental concept of Jyhad and VtES should close loopholes like this
>(that's one of the reasons for rereleasing the game isn't it?).

Note that I haven't said anything about what the VTES rulebook says about
this. The *Jyhad* rulebook allows burning additional add-strike cards;
I don't consider this a serious enough matter to talk about the VTES
treatment of add-strikes before its release.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/14/95
to

J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@io.com> wrote:
>>>"Only causes combat"? So it no longer taps the second minion?
>>The minion is not tapped as a result entering combat, correct.
>But card text says that "The minion becomes tapped". Are you saying
>"The minion doesn't become tapped as a result of entering combat,
>but rather as a result of card text" or "The minion doesn't become
>tapped and the card is hereby errata'ed"?

That is becomes tapped by card text, rather than due to entering combat.
Sorry.

>But the card does say that "The Brujah's action is blocked". Who is
>blocking the action, if not the second minion?

Nobody. Not all blocks are a transitive relationship; consider the
card effect "While this card is in play, all hunting actions are blocked."
Obviously you don't want to go around finding blocking minions whenever
something hunts; the actions are simply blocked in an intransitive way.
Brujah Frenzy is an intransitive block; it basically transforms the
action into an (unblocked) Bum's Rush.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/14/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>As I remember the paragraph in the rulebook, the first such card is the
>>one that applies. You can't play a one-strike card, draw a Blur, and use
>>that to get additional strikes instead. But I don't have the rulebook
>>with me so might be wrong on that.
>I pressume you have a Mt$-rulebook with you.

Well, no, I don't. Or rather, I probably have both of them kicking around
the apartment somewhere, and just have no idea where. I should really
correct that, thinking about it...

>This should be something you have with you physically on your desk (as I do)
>and/or in a text file on-line (as I do).
>Anybody can guess.
>Generally we need official answers to our questions.

Very true. I slap my own wrist.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/14/95
to

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Since I can't really see anyone wanting
>>to play with the Jyhad rules, unless it's for political reasons, I don't
>>really aniticpate this being a problem.
>The vote-pushing rule alone is a good reason to play by the old rules,
>assuming votes can be pushed in advanced V:tES as in the basic rules. I
>prefer the Jyhad system for offing retainers, too. Under the new rules,
>it will be nearly impossible to harm retainers attached to Brujah or
>Gangrel close-range fighters with good maneuver abilities. Naturally
>there may be rulings that go the other way, but the point is that there
>are reasons to play by the old rules.

OK, minor amendment then: I can see someone playing under VTES with
a couple of throwback rules, though I consider that sort of practice odd
given that expansion cards are going to be written solely with the new
rules in mind, meaning you're going to create incompatibilities. But,
looking at VTES and then looking at Jyhad, I can't really see many if any
people playing straightup Jyhad.

J. Hunter Johnson

unread,
Sep 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/14/95
to
In article <438cc0$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Brujah Frenzy is an intransitive block; it basically transforms the
>action into an (unblocked) Bum's Rush.

Without the optional maneuver :-)

If the Brujah in question had superior Protean and played Form of
Mist, I assume he resumes his original action, and not the virtual
Bum's Rush.

Owen Reynolds

unread,
Sep 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/15/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Not all blocks are a transitive relationship;

Arrrgg!!!! Actually, all blocks are trivially transitive because
you are misusing the word and it has no place here. Transitive means
that if I block Bob and Bob blocks Jane, than I am also blocking Jane,
and the only way something can be non-transitive is if you can produce
a situation where a-R-b, b-R-c and a-notR-c.

You probably mean to say that not all blocks are a binary
relationship -- they don't all have to involve 2 minions.

>consider the
>card effect "While this card is in play, all hunting actions are blocked."
>Obviously you don't want to go around finding blocking minions whenever
>something hunts; the actions are simply blocked in an intransitive way.

Unary. In the binary case you might say "block(Ulah, Uriah)." In
the Unary case you'd just say "block(Igo)."
Oh, almost forgot -- Arrrggg!!

>Brujah Frenzy is an intransitive

Oooowch!!!...you just stepped on my spleen.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/15/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@io.com> wrote:
>>But the card does say that "The Brujah's action is blocked". Who is
>>blocking the action, if not the second minion?

>Nobody. Not all blocks are a transitive relationship; consider the


>card effect "While this card is in play, all hunting actions are blocked."
>Obviously you don't want to go around finding blocking minions whenever
>something hunts; the actions are simply blocked in an intransitive way.

That effect would not be worded as you have it, based on current wordings.
It would say "No vampires can hunt" or "All vampire's hunting actions
are unsuccessful".

Your way would have Telepathic Counter worded as:
Note that bleeds ending up at 0 or less are considered blocked.
instead of
Note that bleeds ending up at 0 or less are not considered successful.

(The current wording is better for those of us who liked the game
better when it distinguished an unsuccessful bleed from an unsuccessful
action. But, since the RT has smeared that line as well, perhaps the
"blocked" wording would be better).

Or Pulled Fangs would say: "... and the victim's hunts are blocked."
instead of "... and the victim cannot hunt."
(Which actually makes more sense, since without fangs, a vampire could
still hunt - he simply wouldn't get much out of it :-).

>Brujah Frenzy is an intransitive block; it basically transforms the


>action into an (unblocked) Bum's Rush.

Then it should have said:
The Brujah's action is unsuccessful and the Brujah must enter combat...

(But who wants consistency, anyhow :-).

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/16/95
to
Owen Reynolds (reyn...@cs.iastate.edu) wrote:
: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
: >Not all blocks are a transitive relationship;

: Arrrgg!!!! Actually, all blocks are trivially transitive because


: you are misusing the word and it has no place here. Transitive means
: that if I block Bob and Bob blocks Jane, than I am also blocking Jane,
: and the only way something can be non-transitive is if you can produce
: a situation where a-R-b, b-R-c and a-notR-c.

: You probably mean to say that not all blocks are a binary
: relationship -- they don't all have to involve 2 minions.

Actually, he probably meant 'transitive' to be used in connection with
its grammar connotations, and not its logical ones.

A transitive verb in grammar is one that must have a direct object
whereas an intransitive verb does not have to have one.

examples:

Disappoint is a transitive verb. The sentence 'I disappoint.' is not
complete, because it is missing the direct object.

Saunter is an intransitive verb. The sentence 'I saunter.' is a
grammatically correct sentence, as no direct object is needed.

Looking at transitive/intransitive in this context, When Tom says that a
block can be intransitive, he means that it does not have to take an
object, i.e. a blocker does not have to be present for the block to be
functionally correct.

(I know, I know... what the heck is an English lesson doing in the middle
of an otherwise-fine newsgroup like this? :-)

Owen Reynolds

unread,
Sep 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/18/95
to
tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>Owen Reynolds (reyn...@cs.iastate.edu) wrote:
>:[Tom W???? -- can never get that right -- wrote]:

>: >Not all blocks are a transitive relationship;

>: You probably mean to say that not all blocks are a binary


>: relationship -- they don't all have to involve 2 minions.

>Actually, he probably meant 'transitive' to be used in connection with
>its grammar connotations, and not its logical ones.

I thought of that, but he couldn't have been thinking of the English
usage. In English, a relationship involves 2 or more things -- which is
exactly the point he's trying to refute.
On the other hand, "relation" is a technical term from formal logic
which can have only one object.

I think I remember that Tom has a math/computer-type background from
the content of some of his posts. Can't let that atrophy with all this
time spent on card games...

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/18/95
to
Owen Reynolds (reyn...@cs.iastate.edu) wrote:


: I thought of that, but he couldn't have been thinking of the English


: usage. In English, a relationship involves 2 or more things -- which is
: exactly the point he's trying to refute.
: On the other hand, "relation" is a technical term from formal logic
: which can have only one object.

<Shane reaches for his 180 000-entry Webster's English Dictionary>

Relation: definition 10. Logic, maths. a) an association between ordered
pairs of numbers, objects, etc., such as ... is greater than ... b) the
set of ordered pairs whose numbers have such an association.

Hmmm... looks like it has to have two objects to me...

Alan Kwan

unread,
Sep 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/18/95
to
In article <43ilgd$e...@tribune.usask.ca> tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>Owen Reynolds (reyn...@cs.iastate.edu) wrote:

>: I thought of that, but he couldn't have been thinking of the English
>: usage. In English, a relationship involves 2 or more things -- which is
>: exactly the point he's trying to refute.
>: On the other hand, "relation" is a technical term from formal logic
>: which can have only one object.
>
><Shane reaches for his 180 000-entry Webster's English Dictionary>
>
>Relation: definition 10. Logic, maths. a) an association between ordered
>pairs of numbers, objects, etc., such as ... is greater than ... b) the
>set of ordered pairs whose numbers have such an association.
>
>Hmmm... looks like it has to have two objects to me...

Hi Shane, you know, a dictionary is a dictionary, and is only that
good when masquerading as a math book ...

We can have uniary relations in the same way as we can have
0-nary functions. For example, a uniary relation on the set
"people" R(x) may be "x is a healthy male". A 0-nary function,
ug, is something only of concern for mad mathematicians. (Who
defined 0 to be a 0-nary function and all other natural numbers
recursive applications of a uniary function "successor" on that 0.)

:-)

--
"Live Life with Heart."

Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/19/95
to
In article <43lp5q$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>[hyp.effect] "While this card is in play, all hunting actions are blocked."

>>That effect would not be worded as you have it, based on current wordings.
>>It would say "No vampires can hunt" or "All vampire's hunting actions
>>are unsuccessful".
>The odds of us actually writing that card are immaterial. It is being
>used as a tool in analyzing the "considered blocked" text on Brujah Frenzy.

The effect doesn't exist - any more than Close Quarters exists. That's all.

>>Your way would have Telepathic Counter worded as:
>> Note that bleeds ending up at 0 or less are considered blocked.
>>instead of
>> Note that bleeds ending up at 0 or less are not considered successful.
>

>That would be a nonsensical way to write the card since bleeds are
>(typically) reduced after it's been determined that the action won't
>be blocked.

Then Brujah Frenzy is worded in a nonsensical way, since Brujah are frenzied
after it's been determined that the action won't be blocked (card text).

>>>Brujah Frenzy is an intransitive block; it basically transforms the
>>>action into an (unblocked) Bum's Rush.
>>Then it should have said:
>>The Brujah's action is unsuccessful and the Brujah must enter combat...
>>(But who wants consistency, anyhow :-).
>

>There's a crucial difference between that wording and the current wording:
>under the current wording, the Brujah may not use "do this after a
>successful action" cards.

And Under my proposed ruling, as well.
My wording explicitly says "The action is unsuccessful"
How can you use "do this after a successful action" card after the action
has been made explicitly "unsuccessful"?

There is no difference, except clarity and consistency.

>The bottom line is still that while I understand the urge to organize
>effects into as few categories as possible, the fact remains that there
>are occasionally bizarro cards, and Brujah Frenzy is, arguably, one of them.

Brujah Frenzy is a straightforward card with a Bizzaro ruling, IMHO.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/19/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>Nobody. Not all blocks are a transitive relationship; consider the
>>card effect "While this card is in play, all hunting actions are blocked."
>>Obviously you don't want to go around finding blocking minions whenever
>>something hunts; the actions are simply blocked in an intransitive way.
>That effect would not be worded as you have it, based on current wordings.
>It would say "No vampires can hunt" or "All vampire's hunting actions
>are unsuccessful".

The odds of us actually writing that card are immaterial. It is being
used as a tool in analyzing the "considered blocked" text on Brujah Frenzy.

>Your way would have Telepathic Counter worded as:


> Note that bleeds ending up at 0 or less are considered blocked.
>instead of
> Note that bleeds ending up at 0 or less are not considered successful.

That would be a nonsensical way to write the card since bleeds are
(typically) reduced after it's been determined that the action won't
be blocked.

>(The current wording is better for those of us who liked the game


>better when it distinguished an unsuccessful bleed from an unsuccessful
>action. But, since the RT has smeared that line as well, perhaps the
>"blocked" wording would be better).

I think you're reading too much into a hypothetical example. Telepathic
counter just treats the bleed as unsuccessful, and there's no particular
reason to change that.

>>Brujah Frenzy is an intransitive block; it basically transforms the
>>action into an (unblocked) Bum's Rush.
>Then it should have said:
>The Brujah's action is unsuccessful and the Brujah must enter combat...
>(But who wants consistency, anyhow :-).

There's a crucial difference between that wording and the current wording:
under the current wording, the Brujah may not use "do this after a
successful action" cards.

The bottom line is still that while I understand the urge to organize


effects into as few categories as possible, the fact remains that there
are occasionally bizarro cards, and Brujah Frenzy is, arguably, one of them.

Ken Mikolaj

unread,
Oct 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM10/3/95
to

On 3 Oct 1995, Claymore I wrote:

> I'm just getting into Jyhad (i.e. not much money spent). I'm wondering if
> I should wait for V:tES to come out or take advantage of cheap Jyhad
> boosters ($1.50 nearby) since they should be, um, for lack of a better
> term, compatible. Please e-mail me with any insights (I've lurked for a
> long time so I understand most of the gripes about V:tES and,
> consequently, WotC). Thanks in advance!
>
> Claymore
> "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the
> part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of." --TMBG
>
>
Why buy V:tES when you can get Jyhad so cheap?

Buy the Jyhad.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages