Rules Team Rulings: 1/12/96

56 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/14/96
to

GENERAL RULINGS

1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
Justicar and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
members will say specifically that IC members can play them.

2) Cards that require you to choose a "set" of Methuselahs, such as Rumors of
Gehenna, require that you choose at least one player.

3) Though this is not clear in the rulebook, only one Blood Hunt vote can be
called each time a vampire successfully commits diablerie.

REVERSALS

None detected.

ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES

1) The V:TES version of Hector Sosa has inferior Potence. This should be
superior Potence.

2) When Shackles of Enkidu is used, control of it stays with the player who
controlled the minion using it. (Think of the Shackles as a master card played
by a minion rather than by the Methuselah, at least with respect to control.)

3) The action to burn Triole's Revenge should be a directed action, and the
player who played the Revenge is always its controller.

4) Rotschreck should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to
inflict aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor.
During the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of
untapping the vampire."

5) The equipment locations from Dark Sovereigns, such as Palatial Estate, do
not count as equipment while they are in play.

6) Javier Montoya should say "blood", not "pool".

7) Thoughts Betrayed just prevents the opposing vampire from playing cards, not
from using cards already in play.

8) The following actions should be directed: Sensory Deprivation, basic
Shepherd's Innocence, and Trick of Danya.


CARD RULINGS

1) If a vampire is sent to the uncontrolled region by an effect like
Banishment, any minion cards on the vampire become uncontrolled, just like the
vampire itself. This means that they do not count for contention, and cannot be
affected by cards such as Arson or Cryptic Mission. If the vampire comes back
into play, these minion cards come back into play as well.

Master cards played on a vampire sent to the uncontrolled region are still
controlled by the Methuselah who presently control them, so they could become
contested.

2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the Choose
Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For example, playing
them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.

3) Stefano Giovanni can only burn 1 blood for one vote once during each
political action.

4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
The new versions only count during a bleed action.

5) When the Rack falls out of contention, you do not get to point it at a
new/different vampire.

6) Horrid Reality only pulls weapons out of the library.

7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two
things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any other
effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are removed.

Additionally, the passive effects of a Banished vampire's cards are still in
effect while the vampire is uncontrolled, but active effects may not be used.
So a Discipline card on such a vampire would still be in effect, but a Blood
Doll could not be used.

8) If you get control of an equipment location (such as Palatial Estate), you
choose which minion gets it when you get control of the location. For example,
if the Estate was selected for Disputed Territory, you would not choose who
would get it unless/until the vote actually passed. If you have no minions when
you get control of the equipment location, the location is burned.

9) Black Cat will not reduce the cost of playing an equipment location, as the
cost is in blood rather than pool. Ravnos Cache can pay for an equipment
location, since it doesn't care about the nature of the cost it's paying for.

10) Tereza Rostas must pay 2 blood when attempting to steal the Edge regardless
of whether the attempt is successful. Note that this breaks the usual rule
about paying the costs of an action.

11) Spiritual Protector does not prohibit retainers from using weapons against
its employer.

12) Legacy of Power may end a combat where the opposing minion is an ally. In
this case, your vampire goes into torpor, and the ally is unaffected.

13) Non-Camarilla vampires still suffer the effects of blocking a vampire who
is an Archon or Camarilla Exemplary, even though they may become neither.

14) Using Vial of Garou Blood counts as your one source of additional strikes
for each round, so it may not be used if you've already acquired additional
strikes this round and prohibits you from playing any further additional strike
cards for the rest of the combat.

15) The strike provided by superior Veiled Sight may only be played once during
the combat.

16) Disguised Weapon may be played even if you have no weapons in your hand,
but in this case, it would have no effect (even if you draw a weapon to
replace DW).

17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.

18) Yes, Regina Giovanni really can reduce the pool cost of employing a
retainer (such as the cost of Ghoul Retainer).

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/14/96
to
tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: CARD RULINGS
>: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the Choose

>: Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For example, playing
>: them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.

>Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
>legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
>are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?

Still Legal - the question that produced this ruling was: can I prevent
damage (w/ Skin of Rock, e.g.), and thne - having drawn a Claws to replace
the played Skin card - could I play Claws? The answer is 'no' to avoid
some possible timing issues.

>: 4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally


>: apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>: The new versions only count during a bleed action.

>'optionally apply at all times'? What the heck does that mean?

>IIRC, there was a ruling that _all_ equipment was optional, _all the
>time_ for Jyhad. Has this ruling been rescinded in favour of
>incorporating it into VTES, or is this ruling still supposed to apply?

Optionally applied at all times is the same as always optional.

>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two


>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any other
>: effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are removed.

>Is the gaining of a title remembered?

No. No card is in play granting the title.

>What about permanent effects which _point_ at the vampire, but which are
>never actually played on the vampire, such as Gangrel De-evolution,
>The Rack and Blood Bond?

Gangrel De-Evolution is not a card in play, so its effect would cease.
I think Blood Bond is the same way.

The Rack is a card in play, so its effect would continue once the vampire
re-entered the active region.
--
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 V:tES Rulemonger. |

Shane Travis

unread,
Jan 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/14/96
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: GENERAL RULINGS

: 2) Cards that require you to choose a "set" of Methuselahs, such as Rumors of


: Gehenna, require that you choose at least one player.

Then it ain't a _set_, is it?

Not surprising that they would rule this way, however; there is
_supposed_ to be a general paradigm in this game that one cannot play a
card for no effect. (See the Disguised Weapon ruling below, however...)

: ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES

: 5) The equipment locations from Dark Sovereigns, such as Palatial Estate, do


: not count as equipment while they are in play.

...and a cheer went up from the crowd...

Just to clarify this, however; (correct me if I'm wrong)
They _can_ be fished out by Vast Wealth or Magic of the Smith.
They can no longer be the target of any 'steal/destroy equipment' cards.
They cannot be transferred to another vampire by that vampire taking an
action, since it is no longer considered equipment.
A vampire performing Diablerie on a vampire equipped with an Estate will
no longer get the Estate, as they only get blood and equipment.
It can no longer be transferred using Heidleburg Castle.


: CARD RULINGS

: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the Choose


: Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For example, playing
: them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.

Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still

legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?

: 4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally


: apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
: The new versions only count during a bleed action.

'optionally apply at all times'? What the heck does that mean?

IIRC, there was a ruling that _all_ equipment was optional, _all the
time_ for Jyhad. Has this ruling been rescinded in favour of
incorporating it into VTES, or is this ruling still supposed to apply?

: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two


: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any other
: effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are removed.

Is the gaining of a title remembered?

What about permanent effects which _point_ at the vampire, but which are

never actually played on the vampire, such as Gangrel De-evolution,
The Rack and Blood Bond?

: 10) Tereza Rostas must pay 2 blood when attempting to steal the Edge regardless


: of whether the attempt is successful. Note that this breaks the usual rule
: about paying the costs of an action.

Wow. Does that ever make her _pathetic_ then...

: 14) Using Vial of Garou Blood counts as your one source of additional strikes


: for each round, so it may not be used if you've already acquired additional
: strikes this round and prohibits you from playing any further additional strike
: cards for the rest of the combat.

Glad to see this one.

: 16) Disguised Weapon may be played even if you have no weapons in your hand,


: but in this case, it would have no effect (even if you draw a weapon to
: replace DW).

PARDON me? Where is this coming from? The Jyhad version of the card
clearly states:

Disguised Weapon Combat Obfuscate
Normal: Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand. Only usable
at the beginning of a round. Pay weapon's cost from blood pool
as normal.

Where is the loophole in this which allows it to be played _without_
equipping the vampire with a weapon? (Unless it is in the VTES wording,
I _cannot_ understand this ruling...)

Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the
tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody
| gets busy on the proof.

Biomech8

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
In article <4d9hmu$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) writes:

>1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
Justicar >and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
members will say >specifically that IC members can play them.

What about cards that do not effect a Prince/Justicar... can you
call a bloodhunt on an IC member???


>2) When Shackles of Enkidu is used, control of it stays with the player
who >controlled the minion using it. (Think of the Shackles as a master
card played by a >minion rather than by the Methuselah, at least with
respect to control.)

Off the topic... but is Enkidu the Enkidu who was the companion of
Gilgamesh???


>2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
Choose >Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
example, playing
>them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.

Is this acceptable: Gangrel says "I use hand damage". Victem says "I
use hand damage". Gangrel says "before we take damage I make mine
aggravated" ? If not... Badger has a slight disagreement with the Rules
Team... :-) ~Biomechanoid

James Puzzo

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
Biomech8 (biom...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4d9hmu$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
: Wylie) writes:

: >1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a


: Justicar >and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
: members will say >specifically that IC members can play them.

: What about cards that do not effect a Prince/Justicar... can you


: call a bloodhunt on an IC member???

The ruling isn't about targets, it is about those that require a prince or
justicar to play them. Certainly you could call a bloodhunt on an IC member.

Then again, perhaps I just didn't understand your question about the ruling...

-James

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to

Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>6) Horrid Reality only pulls weapons out of the library.
>> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>Which of these is supposed to be news?

Neither is really news; it's correccting the use of "equipment" in the
first sentence.


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


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>CARD RULINGS

>4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
>apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>The new versions only count during a bleed action.

While equipment is always optional, retainers are never optional (I couldn't
make this stuff up!). Tasha (Jyhad text) would always count for Retribution.

Or are we finally going to retainers are optional as well?

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>CARD RULINGS
>8) If you get control of an equipment location (such as Palatial Estate), you
>choose which minion gets it when you get control of the location. For example,
>if the Estate was selected for Disputed Territory, you would not choose who
>would get it unless/until the vote actually passed. If you have no minions when
>you get control of the equipment location, the location is burned.

Does the new target have to be Ready, or can you choose a vampire in torpor
to whom to give the location?

>17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.

You can burn a card that another Methuselah controls with an undirected action?
Good thinking.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: 5) The equipment locations from Dark Sovereigns, such as Palatial Estate, do

>: not count as equipment while they are in play.
>Just to clarify this, however; (correct me if I'm wrong)
>They _can_ be fished out by Vast Wealth or Magic of the Smith.
>They can no longer be the target of any 'steal/destroy equipment' cards.
>They cannot be transferred to another vampire by that vampire taking an
> action, since it is no longer considered equipment.
>A vampire performing Diablerie on a vampire equipped with an Estate will
> no longer get the Estate, as they only get blood and equipment.
>It can no longer be transferred using Heidleburg Castle.

All correct.

>: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the


>: Choose Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
>: example, playing them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes
>: already played.

>Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
>legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
>are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?

You still get to wait to find out whether the blocking minion dodges, since
they decide before the end of the Choose Strikes phase.

>: 4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally


>: apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>: The new versions only count during a bleed action.

>'optionally apply at all times'? What the heck does that mean?
>IIRC, there was a ruling that _all_ equipment was optional, _all the
>time_ for Jyhad. Has this ruling been rescinded in favour of
>incorporating it into VTES, or is this ruling still supposed to apply?

The point is that the VTES versions say they only apply (optionally) during
a bleed action. The Jyhad versions don't say this, so if you're playing
them as written, you can count the modifier at any time, if you wish.

>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two


>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any
>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are
>: removed.

>Is the gaining of a title remembered?

Yes.

>What about permanent effects which _point_ at the vampire, but which are
>never actually played on the vampire, such as Gangrel De-evolution,
>The Rack and Blood Bond?

The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
(which is unknown, at least to me).

>: 16) Disguised Weapon may be played even if you have no weapons in your hand,


>: but in this case, it would have no effect (even if you draw a weapon to
>: replace DW).

>PARDON me? Where is this coming from? The Jyhad version of the card
>clearly states:
>
>Disguised Weapon Combat Obfuscate
> Normal: Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand. Only usable
> at the beginning of a round. Pay weapon's cost from blood pool
> as normal.
>
>Where is the loophole in this which allows it to be played _without_
>equipping the vampire with a weapon? (Unless it is in the VTES wording,
>I _cannot_ understand this ruling...)

It's the general rule about being able to play cards and effects uselessly.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two

>>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any
>>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are
>>: removed.
>>Is the gaining of a title remembered?

>Yes.

Why? This is not one of the two things you say they remember - titles
gained are gained in the same manner that titles are lost - by a vote.
The vote card is no longer in play (tho most groups leave it on the
table as a reminder)

Why is gaining a title an exception to your rule, but losing one is not?

>The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
>to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
>us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
>(which is unknown, at least to me).

You have already stated that the Blood Bond effect will cease when the
targetted vampire leaves play. Since Blood Bond is not one of the two
things remembered (it is not a card in play) - its effect should cease
in this case as well.

<You can play Disguised Weapon with no weapon>


>It's the general rule about being able to play cards and effects uselessly.

Like untapping with +2 intercept when you're already untapped?

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
>>apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>>The new versions only count during a bleed action.
>While equipment is always optional, retainers are never optional (I couldn't
>make this stuff up!). Tasha (Jyhad text) would always count for Retribution.
>Or are we finally going to retainers are optional as well?

No; Tasha should not have been used as an example in the ruling. I just
threw in the first couple of +bleed permanents I thought of.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>8) If you get control of an equipment location (such as Palatial Estate), you
>>choose which minion gets it when you get control of the location...
>>...If you have no minions when

>>you get control of the equipment location, the location is burned.
>Does the new target have to be Ready, or can you choose a vampire in torpor
>to whom to give the location?

You can choose a vampire in torpor.

>>17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.

>You can burn a card that another Methuselah controls with an undirected action?

In certain cases, yes.

Biomech8

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <4dd6pf$j...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) writes:

>>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only
remember
>two
>>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them.
Any
>>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title),
are
>>: removed.
>>Is the gaining of a title remembered?
>
>Yes.

Doesn't that constitute a permanent effect? What about patagia and other
cards?

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two

>>>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any
>>>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are
>>>: removed.
>>>Is the gaining of a title remembered?
>>Yes.
>Why? This is not one of the two things you say they remember - titles
>gained are gained in the same manner that titles are lost - by a vote.
>The vote card is no longer in play (tho most groups leave it on the
>table as a reminder)

Whurps. I was thinking the card really was put into play, and (stupidly)
only checked Of Noble Blood to "verify" that. A title will only be retained
if it is provided by a card that is (actually) left on the vampire.

>>The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
>>to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
>>us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
>>(which is unknown, at least to me).
>You have already stated that the Blood Bond effect will cease when the
>targetted vampire leaves play. Since Blood Bond is not one of the two
>things remembered (it is not a card in play) - its effect should cease
>in this case as well.

Well, I said that back when the only way for a vampire to leave play was
to burn it. What's actually true in that case is that the effect doesn't
end... it's just totally irrelevant. It's not clear whether it should remain
in effect for a Banished vampire, which is often going to come back without
requiring a special card.

><You can play Disguised Weapon with no weapon>
>>It's the general rule about being able to play cards and effects uselessly.
>Like untapping with +2 intercept when you're already untapped?

Whether you think Domain should be written this way or not, the VTES version
says it can only be used by a tapped Prince or Justicar, and the Jyhad
version should be read this way as well. There's a difference between
doing something uselessly, and being flatly prohibited from doing something.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to

Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote:
>>1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
>Justicar >and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
>members will say >specifically that IC members can play them.
> What about cards that do not effect a Prince/Justicar... can you
>call a bloodhunt on an IC member???

Those probably should get errata to not affect IC members, but I'll have to
verify that with the rules team.

>>2) When Shackles of Enkidu is used, control of it stays with the player
>who >controlled the minion using it. (Think of the Shackles as a master
>card played by a >minion rather than by the Methuselah, at least with
>respect to control.)

> Off the topic... but is Enkidu the Enkidu who was the companion of
>Gilgamesh???

According to Paul Peterson, the WoD material doesn't say anything about
this in the material on Enkidu, but it would be a logical conclusion.

>>2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
>Choose >Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
>example, playing
>>them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.

> Is this acceptable: Gangrel says "I use hand damage". Victem says "I
>use hand damage". Gangrel says "before we take damage I make mine

>aggravated" ?...

Yes, precisely. And the victim could then make her damage aggravated :)

James R. McClure Jr.

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

Peace Thomas,

I'll say it for Scott, incase he wouldn't. So, you just changed the card
text to agree with your broken ruling, so what. Jyhad has a "you can't
play a card uselessly" paradigm, why are you ruling that more and more
cards now break that paradigm? Hand jams are a good thing. Avoiding
them requires long thought during deck construction. Allowing more and
more cards to become "free discards" dumbs down the game.


Nil carborundum illigitimi,

James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle

<insert disclaimer here>


refp...@best.com

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

In Article<4dlpr0$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> write:
> Path: shellx.best.com!news1.best.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!hermes.louisville.edu!news
> From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 1/12/96
> Date: 18 Jan 1996 15:43:28 GMT
> Organization: University of Louisville
> Lines: 28
> Message-ID: <4dlpr0$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>
> References: <4d9hmu$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <4da0p8$a...@tribune.usask.ca> <4dd6pf$j...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <4ddibh$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <4dgqqa$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: jmcclure.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wakes and Rats warning can be played uselessly.
REF


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
jes...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Jesse Chounard) writes:

>Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

>: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: >: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the


>: >: Choose Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
>: >: example, playing them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes
>: >: already played.

>: >Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still

>: >legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
>: >are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?

>: You still get to wait to find out whether the blocking minion dodges, since

>: they decide before the end of the Choose Strikes phase.

>Does this mean there is no way I can use dodge to get away from
>Wolf Claws? If so, that's depressing.

Of course you can use Dodge, you simply have to choose 'Dodge' as your strike
when the time comes to choose a strike. If you don't dodge a vampire
with protean making a hand strike against you, you can expect to get clawed.

Jesse Chounard

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
: >: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the


: >: Choose Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
: >: example, playing them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes
: >: already played.

: >Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
: >legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
: >are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?

: You still get to wait to find out whether the blocking minion dodges, since
: they decide before the end of the Choose Strikes phase.

Does this mean there is no way I can use dodge to get away from
Wolf Claws? If so, that's depressing.

jjc

Petri Wessman

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
On 14 Jan 1996 00:11:10 GMT, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) said:
...
Tom> 10) Tereza Rostas must pay 2 blood when attempting to steal the
Tom> Edge regardless of whether the attempt is successful. Note that
Tom> this breaks the usual rule about paying the costs of an action.

Why, oh why, make a special ruling that makes her ability practically
useless?

Tom> 18) Yes, Regina Giovanni really can reduce the pool cost of employing a
Tom> retainer (such as the cost of Ghoul Retainer).

But what about retainers that are paid from the vampire's own blood
(the Zombie, most importantly)? If Regina's ability doesn't lower
their cost then it's also practically useless (wow, I can get a cheap
Ghoul Retainer. Big deal). The Giovanni clan retainers (Zombies) are
the ones that Regina's ability would really be useful on. So what's
the official ruling, dead the reduction also apply to blood paid by
the vampire?

Both of the above vampires are expensive, diluting their intrinsic
abilities just makes them wallpaper IMHO.

//Petri

Wallpaper Paste

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
>The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
>to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
>us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
>(which is unknown, at least to me).

Just a bit of input on the question of the rack. My
interpretation of the wording on the card (Name a vampire),
which is shared by the group I play with, is that, since the
rack is a location controlled by the methuselah, it will stay
in play, affecting the same vampire until stolen or burned, no
matter what happens to the vampire. Thus, if the vampire it
benefits is burned (by diablerie, or whatever) and then brought
out again from the crypt, then the rack would continue to
benefit that vampire. I would think that this concept would
apply to the banishment issue, as well.

-Wallpaper Paste
for all those useless cards

refp...@best.com

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to


> refp...@best.com writes:
> [47-line re-quoted text deleted]

>
> >Wakes and Rats warning can be played uselessly.
>
> Rat's warning may not be played uselessly. You must untap the playing
> vampire, and only tapped vampires may play it. It is a measurable effect.

> --
> L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
But you don't have to block with the now untapped vampire.
Seems like a very similar effect to me.
And that still leaves wakes.
REF


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
refp...@best.com writes:
[47-line re-quoted text deleted]

>Wakes and Rats warning can be played uselessly.

Rat's warning may not be played uselessly. You must untap the playing
vampire, and only tapped vampires may play it. It is a measurable effect.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and

DOUGDWISE

unread,
Jan 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/21/96
to
I have to agree with James R. McClure in his response to Tom. The tactic
of making cards exempt from the "no useless play discards" (which is a
great rule) in order to avoid fixing broken card text is hurting the game.
If we wanted to play M:the$ we could. If I can simply clear my hand jams
as soon as they occur without any preparation or forethought I need never
use a Fragment of the Book of Nod. Jyhad is the best card
game ever and V:TES is still awexome but please, Tom: Stop making
exceptions for bad card text.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

Wallpaper Paste <dc...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Just a bit of input on the question of the rack. My
>interpretation of the wording on the card (Name a vampire),
>which is shared by the group I play with, is that, since the
>rack is a location controlled by the methuselah, it will stay
>in play, affecting the same vampire until stolen or burned, no
>matter what happens to the vampire. Thus, if the vampire it
>benefits is burned (by diablerie, or whatever) and then brought
>out again from the crypt, then the rack would continue to
>benefit that vampire. I would think that this concept would
>apply to the banishment issue, as well.

Burning the vampire will definitely snap the benefits of the Rack, even
if another vampire of the same name comes into play. If the chosen vampire
becomes contested, and the new copy wins out, the Rack's effect will also end.
The Rack effectively chooses a card, not a meta-name.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>...Jyhad has a "you can't

>play a card uselessly" paradigm, why are you ruling that more and more
>cards now break that paradigm? Hand jams are a good thing. Avoiding
>them requires long thought during deck construction. Allowing more and
>more cards to become "free discards" dumbs down the game.

You have that paradigm backwards: you can play a card useleslly, unless
the rules or the card stop you from doing so. It so happens that many
of the standard mechanicsms, such as stealth and maneuvers, only allow
you to use those mechanisms usefully. But random abilities, such as
Anarch Troublemaker or Disguised Weapon, don't care whether you can use
their ability successfully; you can still use them.

The standard use of "dumbing down" a game means to *reduce* the options
available, so I don't think your comment on that applies here.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.
>>You can burn a card that another Methuselah controls with an undirected
>>action?
>
>In certain cases, yes.

Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with that:

6.3.1. Directed and Nondirected Actions

Directed Actions: These are actions that directly affect another
Methuselah, one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls.

This is a part of game terminology, not a rule (card text does not
alter game terminology - except in the 'Oh, yeah' ruling on Legendary
Vampire, which should have been fixed with errata rather than
terminology re-definition). Since The Treatment is controlled by
another Methuselah, burning it is a directed action.

<6.3.1 continues>
Cards that involve directed actions have a "D" in the card text.

This you have taken to be a rule, which it isn't. But since it is, you
should use errata to place the (D) symbol on The Treatment's burn action,
since that action is, by definition, directed.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
In article <4e0ugs$6...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>Allowing more and more cards to become "free discards" dumbs down the game.
>
>The standard use of "dumbing down" a game means to *reduce* the options
>available, so I don't think your comment on that applies here.

The standard use of dumbing down has little to do with the number of options.
It has to do with reducing the skill/strategy required to do well.

By allowing cards to be played uselessly - even when card text is against
such use (Disguised Weapon) is a bad thing. ("Hah! my cane is actually...
thin air!")

In an unrelated note, preventing a card from being used for a real, useful
effect even when card text allows such use (original Domain) is also a
bad thing.

I can disguise thin air, but I can't police my domain as effectively if
I remain on guard (not running around the city spreading rumors) with
a raven spy than if I have no raven spy and spend my time less vigilantly.

Not only do you break the paradigm (by printing new text to support the
bad ruling, or by simply making a new bad ruling), but you do so in the
face of game-world logic.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jan 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/25/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
-> James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
-->...Jyhad has a "you can't play a card uselessly" paradigm, why are you
-->ruling that more and more cards now break that paradigm? Hand jams
-->are a good thing. Avoiding them requires long thought during deck
-->construction. Allowing more and more cards to become "free discards"
-->dumbs down the game.
->
-> You have that paradigm backwards: you can play a card useleslly, unless
-> the rules or the card stop you from doing so. It so happens that many
-> of the standard mechanicsms, such as stealth and maneuvers, only allow
-> you to use those mechanisms usefully. But random abilities, such as
-> Anarch Troublemaker or Disguised Weapon, don't care whether you can use
-> their ability successfully; you can still use them.
->
-> The standard use of "dumbing down" a game means to *reduce* the options
-> available, so I don't think your comment on that applies here.

Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.
Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
worthwhile.
---
Eric Pettersen
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Gary Schwartz

unread,
Jan 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/25/96
to
In article <4e6odr$a...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@homer.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen)
writes:

>Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
>zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
>as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
>the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
>clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.
>Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
>process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
>during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
>discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
>necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
>consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
>Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
>worthwhile.
>---
> Eric Pettersen
> pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

What about playing tons of unnecessary votes on a political action
which you know will pass? Is that considered playing useless cards.
As far as I'm concerned, if the rules or card text tell you that
you can play a card, then you can play it, whether or not it will
have any effect.

Gary S.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to

Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
>zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
>as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
>the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
>clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.

If we disallow playing Disguised Weapon when you have no weapons in your
hand, then we also have to disallow things like playing Magic of the
Smith when you happen to know you have no equipment in your library.
Sure, you can argue that someone using DW knows whether they could
have equipped or not, but what about the Smith? Did they "forget" they
had no equipment, or did they actually think they did? If they don't
turn up equipment, do you get on their case for burning cards needlessly,
or not?

It is not always possible to know whether you can play a card successfully
or not. And out-of-play zones are generally treated the same. There's
no real reason to treat the hand and library differently.

Besides, you can't stamp out every instance of someone burning their
hand uselessly. What's to stop me from playing WWeF when I have no
intention of blocking or reacting? What's to stop me from loading up
my deck with Magic of the Smith when I'm not playing with equipment?
(Granted, MotS is an action, so this is not a very efficient method.)
What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first place?
What's to stop me from playing an intercept card when I know I can't
overcome the stealth of an action, even if a draw another intercept to replace?

The only card wastage we're really interested in stamping out is cards
that use the standard mechanisms. You can't empty your hand with stealth
cards, unless you're trying to overcome intercept. You can't maneuver five
times in a single round, unless you're canceling the opponent's maneuvers.
And so on. But we really don't care about random methods like Disguised
Weapons, since there's no way to ever stamp them all out. If you care about
a particular method of hand dumping, disallow it as a house rule. But we're
not going to violate a general principle, such as playing effects uselessly,
just to stamp out one particular method.

>Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
>process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
>during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
>discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
>necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
>consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
>Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
>worthwhile.

No, it means that there are different ways to cycle your hand. If you
aren't using cards that can play uselessly occasionally, you consider
playing with a card like The Barrens. What you really want is a hand
that doesn't jam in the first place anyway.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:


>Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>>Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
>>zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
>>as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
>>the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
>>clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.

>If we disallow playing Disguised Weapon when you have no weapons in your
>hand, then we also have to disallow things like playing Magic of the

<lotsa effects that actually do something, presented as examples of
doing nothing, deleted>

Disguised weapon says "Equip with a weapon from your hand"
You say I can target a non-existing weapon.

Does this mean I can play Illegal Search and Seizure on a minion
with no weapon (actually, a non-existing weapon) to cause
harm to that minion?

I don't think so.

BTW,
Magic of the Smith targets your library, not a card in the library
(cf. Demonic Tutor in MtG). You'll probably say that I can
target a non-existing library, but I can't (although I can target
a library with zero cards).

--
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 V:tES Rulemonger. |

The Corrupter

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to
Basic Arguement: Free card cycling is a Bad Thing. Since a player cannot
get a new card without playing a card, good deck construction becomes an
exercise in efficiency. A good deck is created by figuring out how to
get your hand to stay useful and not clog up. The basic rule or paradigm
for a card is that playing it must do something, even if it only does it
partially or if the effect is for naught. It is my (and many others)
contention that cards that break this rule are a detriment to the
evolution of a good Jyhad environment. I.e., Free Discards are Bad...

In article <4ebbhg$h...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:

> Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
> >Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
> >zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
> >as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
> >the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
> >clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.

> If we disallow playing Disguised Weapon when you have no weapons in your
> hand, then we also have to disallow things like playing Magic of the

> Smith when you happen to know you have no equipment in your library.
> Sure, you can argue that someone using DW knows whether they could
> have equipped or not, but what about the Smith? Did they "forget" they
> had no equipment, or did they actually think they did? If they don't
> turn up equipment, do you get on their case for burning cards needlessly,
> or not?

This is a bad example. Unlike the Disguised Weapon ruling, something DID
happen. The minion is tapped. Why get on their case when they had to
tap a vampire (thus reducing the number of actions they can take and the
amount of defence they have up) to reduce their library size by one? In
addition, card text on disguised weapon targets a weapon in hand. Card
text on MotS targets the library.



> It is not always possible to know whether you can play a card successfully
> or not. And out-of-play zones are generally treated the same. There's
> no real reason to treat the hand and library differently.

> Besides, you can't stamp out every instance of someone burning their
> hand uselessly. What's to stop me from playing WWeF when I have no
> intention of blocking or reacting?

The one good example. Many would love errata to this. My own take is
that WwEF not be replaced until your discard phase (yes, that means you
will play your next turn with only six cards). This attributes an actual
cost or effect even if you do not block.

> What's to stop me from loading up
> my deck with Magic of the Smith when I'm not playing with equipment?
> (Granted, MotS is an action, so this is not a very efficient method.)

Again, MotS accrues an effect.

> What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
> vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first place?

This, too, has an effect. Someone else can't use the News Radio, they
can't use the Second Tradition to block. Basicly, this type of "card
cycling" acrues an effect.



> What's to stop me from playing an intercept card when I know I can't
> overcome the stealth of an action, even if a draw another intercept to
replace?

If you do this, you are getting closer to the minion. What if a Ravnos
uses Ignis Fatuus? What about that News Radio acrossed the table? If
you have the intercept card in hand, maybe you'll have another to use.



> The only card wastage we're really interested in stamping out is cards
> that use the standard mechanisms. You can't empty your hand with stealth
> cards, unless you're trying to overcome intercept. You can't maneuver five
> times in a single round, unless you're canceling the opponent's maneuvers.
> And so on. But we really don't care about random methods like Disguised
> Weapons, since there's no way to ever stamp them all out. If you care
about
> a particular method of hand dumping, disallow it as a house rule. But
we're
> not going to violate a general principle, such as playing effects
uselessly,
> just to stamp out one particular method.

> >Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
> >process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
> >during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
> >discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
> >necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
> >consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
> >Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
> >worthwhile.

> No, it means that there are different ways to cycle your hand. If you
> aren't using cards that can play uselessly occasionally, you consider
> playing with a card like The Barrens. What you really want is a hand
> that doesn't jam in the first place anyway.

Of course I really want a hand that doesn't jam in the first place. A
deck that already uses disguised weapons is going to gain a twofold
benefit. The first part is just as card text says, getting out a weapon
in combat. This is a wonderful game effect, as well as having the
meta-effect of getting two cards cycled. In the second case ("My cane is
really.... Nothing!"), it only has a meta-effect, to cycle a card. Thus,
in a deck that REALLY wants to get a disguised weapon in play, they can
build their original deck without them. After making a deck, throw in
however many DW that they can realistically hold. Rather than having to
think, all they have to do is throw card after card until they get to
something useful, or run out of the useless cards. As long as they don't
put _too_ many in, they will be doing nothing but the equivalent of
(Magic comparison here, sorry) putting in 30 Uzra's Bauble's in their
tight 60 card tournament deck.

Free discards "dumb down" the game, and result in a Jyhad that is
slightly worse for wear. Oh, Richard Garfield, wherever you are, why
can't you be on the DTR? ;)

"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$


Marion Delgado

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to
Gary Schwartz (schw...@math.uiuc.edu) wrote:

....

: >discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought


: >necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
: >consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
: >Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
: >worthwhile.

: >---


: > Eric Pettersen
: > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

: What about playing tons of unnecessary votes on a political action

But exactly! votes that would be useful in another context, and which are a
resource. If I found out I was playing against a Nosferatu deck that did
nothing but combat, i would play spirit's touch v. Ebeneezer's bum's rush
ability. get a card out of my hand. if my opponent god/made two princes, a
justicar and an inner circle, i would throw all my votes in against his
next vote, come what may ... get them out of my hand. it is not because i
was "dumb.." to "put them in." what a silly silly silly statement, it is
astoundingly clueless and shows limited skill at Jyhad and especially at
deckbuilding. I have made many a deck vote heavy because if they flop
I can always rid my hand of votes quickly! Even expected to do so in 2 out
of 3 games.

: which you know will pass? Is that considered playing useless cards.


: As far as I'm concerned, if the rules or card text tell you that
: you can play a card, then you can play it, whether or not it will
: have any effect.

: Gary S.

Hear f-----g hear!

In fact i flat disagree with this "dumbing down" crap. For example, I often
stay at close with a "Fame"-ed caitiff, then fire his zip gun and hope the
other vampire will have to use hand damage. should i be prevented from
getting any advantage out of this? after all, i am simply wasting the
blood of the vampire, not using the zip gun to maximum advantage by
maneuvering to long or something ... am i up to something?

I even play disciplines on other peoples vampires to get them out of my
hand. Why didn't i think of that when i built the deck!!! Bad dog!!
I have been known to DELIBERATELY PICK a Fortitude card that prevents
more damage than i have been dealt, rather than one that just matches it!!!

I sometimes play dodges at range with my brujah even though i know my
opponent has no potential (Arms Dealer) for ranged damage at all. I am
WASTING the dodge to replenish my hand. Oooh! I bad. Heck, when I feel
like being a downright CRIMINAL I waste dodges at range with my BLOCKING
minion EVEN AFTER MY OPPONENT HAS NOT TRIED A RANGED STRIKE!

Confession: If no one was watching, I would even play a Brainwash on
someone's only uncontrolled vampire, EVEN AFTER USING HARROD TO DETERMINE
THAT THEY ALREADY HAD THAT VAMPIRE OUT. *sob* take me away, take me away,
I'm a rat, a weasel.

I dislike the ruling about not playing extra stealth or intercept (intimida
tion potential there) but i live with it, as long as it doesn't go too
far. This is going too far.

alternately why not make the rule explicit:

"The Golden Rule of Jyhad Curmudgeon Rulings:

No combat decks or decks containing "lotsa" commons shall be built.
Instead, only decks with expensive permanents can be employed. Any
person not wasting cards for a vote found "wasting" cards in the
opinion of the Jyhad Curmudgeons shall be anathema or forced to
try to justify our Roetschreck rulings, whichever kills them quicker.
Tournament Winners who did not have 10 complete sets of Jyhad/VTES/DS
rares to choose from before the game shall be disallowed."

It is not a "waste" to burn a card, or if it is, add Nod, Distraction and
Deal with the Devil to your bonfire. That little pamphlet at first was very
clear, it is the greedy shortsighted back design change and the incoherent
rule changes that seem planned to turn cards into wallpaper that everyone
objects to, WOTC should CUT IT OUT, and that will be that. No Jyhad player
I know respects WOTC rulings anymore, period. They have done such a terrible
job with rule "clarifications" that now there ARE nothing but house rules
with their dorky rule theories having no more respect than any others.

WHY THIS IS ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF TRULY DORKY RULE TALK: No, [w/ respect to
a post where someone educated a JC about "wasting" Rat's Warnings] that
does not "leave Wakes." If I play a WWEF on a vampire, througout the
action, until combat ends (or doesn't start, and that can only be decided
by the end of the action) "the vampire can play reaction cards and attempt
to block as if untapped." Clearly that is very different from what I was
able to do before. It never says that I have to block. I can, for example,
wake, then say, nope, no block. Is this where the rule nances step in and
slap my hand? Don't act too soon. Are you bonding the action? okay, i will
play telepathic counter. on the other hand, if you condition it, i will
play telepathic misdirection. Maybe i'll do nothing if it's just a simple
bleed. Who knows? The fact my vampire has superior Auspex may influence
you to leave it at that. Shouldn't i have the choice? Nope. Intimidation
via a WWEF is too clever for people who would clearly rather be making
rules for that neat simplified game in the vtes pamphlet. Listen, I never
learned how to do anything with WWEF but block, that's what the card should
read!!!

Chess would be more commercial without them knights, too, i guess. New En
passant ruling: the pawn which just moved two spaces past the other pawn
may now take an extra move to capture that pawn. Newer en passant ruling:
nope, just joking, back to normal en passant. Newest en passant ruling:
there is no en passant (discontinued). Castling, promotion, stalemates and
perpetual check draws are also discontinued. The knight moved funny, so we
pulled his little butt too! Replaced him with a piece that can take an
extra move to capture your own pieces.

Marion Delgado

--
"The spectacle is a permanent opium war which aims to make people
identify goods with commodities and satisfaction with survival that
increases according to its own laws."
-- Guy Debord --

"There was a swirling mass of water that lived in a quiet pond which asked
permission of its master to visit all the lands beyond and its master
allowed it to fly so the wind swept the whirlpool across the sky."
-- The Meat Puppets --


Pit Fiend

unread,
Jan 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/27/96
to
In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960126170241.695H-100000@pentandria>,

Good arguements, I'll second the notion that free discards are bad. A card
played should do _something_ -- playing disguised weapons when you have no
weapon is a good example of a card doing _nothing_ other than being discarded.

-Jasper

--
/\ Jasper Phillips (Pit Fiend) ______,....----,
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|==================="""""""""""" ___,..-'
`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|======================----------""""""
\/ http://www.cs.orst.edu/~philljas/

The Corrupter

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to
In article <4eatgs$h...@news.cis.nctu.edu.tw>, fs...@aurora.alaska.edu
(Marion Delgado) wrote:

> Gary Schwartz (schw...@math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
[Playing "useless" cards dumbs down the game discussion]


> : What about playing tons of unnecessary votes on a political action

> But exactly! votes that would be useful in another context, and which
are a
> resource. If I found out I was playing against a Nosferatu deck that did
> nothing but combat, i would play spirit's touch v. Ebeneezer's bum's rush
> ability. get a card out of my hand. if my opponent god/made two
princes, a
> justicar and an inner circle, i would throw all my votes in against his
> next vote, come what may ... get them out of my hand. it is not because i
> was "dumb.." to "put them in." what a silly silly silly statement, it is
> astoundingly clueless and shows limited skill at Jyhad and especially at
> deckbuilding. I have made many a deck vote heavy because if they flop
> I can always rid my hand of votes quickly! Even expected to do so in 2 out
> of 3 games.

This does something. It limits the use of Vote Captivation and other
such cards. It might make it worthwhile for someone to play Kindred
Coercion (sp?). Try again...



> : which you know will pass? Is that considered playing useless cards.
> : As far as I'm concerned, if the rules or card text tell you that
> : you can play a card, then you can play it, whether or not it will
> : have any effect.

This doesn't address the arguement: Does this make the game better or
worse? In my opinion, useless discards make deck design less a thinking
game.

> Hear f-----g hear!

> In fact i flat disagree with this "dumbing down" crap. For example, I often
> stay at close with a "Fame"-ed caitiff, then fire his zip gun and hope
the
> other vampire will have to use hand damage. should i be prevented from
> getting any advantage out of this? after all, i am simply wasting the
> blood of the vampire, not using the zip gun to maximum advantage by
> maneuvering to long or something ... am i up to something?

This has an explicit effect: the caitiff goes to torpor. I often do the
same thing with a Gangrel in-and-outa-torpor deck. This example doesn't
work for two reasons: By playing the zip gun, you have gotten a weapon
into play. If it was already in play, you are missing the arguement. By
not manuevering with a permanent in play, you are making a choice as to
what you are doing with a permanent, again missing the discussion.



> I even play disciplines on other peoples vampires to get them out of my
> hand. Why didn't i think of that when i built the deck!!! Bad dog!!
> I have been known to DELIBERATELY PICK a Fortitude card that prevents
> more damage than i have been dealt, rather than one that just matches it!!!

This affects other cards such as obedience, pulling strings, etc.... The
damage prevention card you played DID something (even if it did too
much). Again, you are missing the arguement.



> I sometimes play dodges at range with my brujah even though i know my
> opponent has no potential (Arms Dealer) for ranged damage at all. I am
> WASTING the dodge to replenish my hand. Oooh! I bad. Heck, when I feel
> like being a downright CRIMINAL I waste dodges at range with my BLOCKING
> minion EVEN AFTER MY OPPONENT HAS NOT TRIED A RANGED STRIKE!

On the contrary, you are striking. This does something. If you had had
a ranged strike card in hand, this is not important. You miss the point
of the arguement, which is playing cards that do _nothing_ (Disguised
Weapon with no weapons in hand after redraw) still allows you to strike,
manuever, etc.. while accruing no other effect.



> Confession: If no one was watching, I would even play a Brainwash on
> someone's only uncontrolled vampire, EVEN AFTER USING HARROD TO DETERMINE
> THAT THEY ALREADY HAD THAT VAMPIRE OUT. *sob* take me away, take me away,
> I'm a rat, a weasel.

Well, this can stop them from using the "unlimited well" idea of an
Eco-terrorists or the like. They can no longer Govern the Unaligned and
draw off the pool from the uncontrolled vampire. You have _done_ something.



> I dislike the ruling about not playing extra stealth or intercept (intimida
> tion potential there) but i live with it, as long as it doesn't go too
> far. This is going too far.

So you feel that allowing hand jam (the only thing making deck design a
real issue) to dissipate is a good thing? Why not discard as many cards
as you want during your discard phase?



> alternately why not make the rule explicit:
>
> "The Golden Rule of Jyhad Curmudgeon Rulings:
>
> No combat decks or decks containing "lotsa" commons shall be built.
> Instead, only decks with expensive permanents can be employed. Any
> person not wasting cards for a vote found "wasting" cards in
the
> opinion of the Jyhad Curmudgeons shall be anathema or forced to
> try to justify our Roetschreck rulings, whichever kills them
quicker.
> Tournament Winners who did not have 10 complete sets of
Jyhad/VTES/DS
> rares to choose from before the game shall be disallowed."

This idea would have been a valid point of arguement for your view if it
had any backup evidence from the above...



> It is not a "waste" to burn a card, or if it is, add Nod, Distraction
and
> Deal with the Devil to your bonfire. That little pamphlet at first was very
> clear, it is the greedy shortsighted back design change and the incoherent
> rule changes that seem planned to turn cards into wallpaper that everyone
> objects to, WOTC should CUT IT OUT, and that will be that. No Jyhad player
> I know respects WOTC rulings anymore, period. They have done such a
terrible
> job with rule "clarifications" that now there ARE nothing but house rules
> with their dorky rule theories having no more respect than any others.

I agree with alot of your WotC issues, but they do not deal with this
debate...

On to your Book of Nood, etc... Your advocation for useless discards
makes those cards virtually useless. Why use the book of nod for more
combat cards if I can just manuever, countermanuever,
countercountermanuever to get rid of cards?



> WHY THIS IS ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF TRULY DORKY RULE TALK: No, [w/ respect to
> a post where someone educated a JC about "wasting" Rat's Warnings] that
> does not "leave Wakes." If I play a WWEF on a vampire, througout the
> action, until combat ends (or doesn't start, and that can only be decided
> by the end of the action) "the vampire can play reaction cards and attempt
> to block as if untapped." Clearly that is very different from what I was
> able to do before. It never says that I have to block. I can, for example,
> wake, then say, nope, no block. Is this where the rule nances step in and
> slap my hand? Don't act too soon. Are you bonding the action? okay, i will
> play telepathic counter. on the other hand, if you condition it, i will
> play telepathic misdirection. Maybe i'll do nothing if it's just a simple
> bleed. Who knows? The fact my vampire has superior Auspex may influence
> you to leave it at that. Shouldn't i have the choice? Nope. Intimidation
> via a WWEF is too clever for people who would clearly rather be making
> rules for that neat simplified game in the vtes pamphlet. Listen, I never
> learned how to do anything with WWEF but block, that's what the card should
> read!!!

WwEF is often a typical, valid example of how a card _can_ be played
uselessly. It is the only example I can think of. (Perhaps Illegal
Search &...). With WwEF, there is no cost (or at least minimal) to put
some into a deck, only gain. This leads to the Mox issue in Magic. I
don't put WwEF in all my decks, but really, I should. I don't think such
a card should exist. If the cost were increased ("Do not replace until
your next _discard_ phase"), it might have a cost equal to its use. The
Illegal Search and Seizure example someone else came up with is not
really too much of an issue, because IS&S takes up a whole master phase
action.

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to
schw...@math.uiuc.edu (Gary Schwartz) wrote:
-> In article <4e6odr$a...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@homer.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen)
-> writes:
->
->>Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
->>zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
->>as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
->>the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card
->>is clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.
->>Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
->>process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
->>during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
->>discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
->>necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
->>consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens
->>and Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
->>worthwhile.
->
-> What about playing tons of unnecessary votes on a political action which
-> you know will pass? Is that considered playing useless cards. As far
-> as I'm concerned, if the rules or card text tell you that you can play
-> a card, then you can play it, whether or not it will have any effect.

Two things:

1) There are cards whose effects depend on the margin of victory
of a vote. For example, if the vote caller starts throwing excess votes
on a referendum that was passing and Voter Captivation is a possibility,
then others may put in additional votes against (or a Delaying Tactics)
that they otherwise wouldn't have.

2) What does your comment have to do with what you quoted? Are
you saying that making it easier to get rid of cards means that the game
requires more thought?
My comment was directed to card plays that clearly are identical
to a discard, i.e. you play the card, nothing in the game is effected,
and you immediately redraw. "Excess" votes are not immediately redrawn
and do effect the game. I'm talking about things like:

Disguised weapon with no weapon card in your hand.
Illegal Search and Seizure of no one.
Fast Reaction when the opposing vampire went to torpor or was
burned in the first combat.

Allowing these doesn't "dumb down" the game?

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to

Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
> Can you play Brainwash when your prey has no uncontrolled vampires?

No, because it tells you to put it on an uncontrolled vampire of your prey.
If you can't follow that instruction, you can't play it.

>If not, why not and how does it differ from the Disguised Weapon ruling?

The only instruction disguised weapon gives you is about when you can
play it. It says nothing about playing it only when you have a weapon
in your hand.

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to
fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Marion Delgado) wrote:
-> Gary Schwartz (schw...@math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
->
-> ....
->
->>>discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
->>>necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
->>>consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens
->>>and Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds
->>>nothing worthwhile.
->>>---
->>> Eric Pettersen
->
-> : What about playing tons of unnecessary votes on a political action
->
-> But exactly! votes that would be useful in another context, and which
-> are a resource. If I found out I was playing against a Nosferatu deck
-> that did nothing but combat, i would play spirit's touch v. Ebeneezer's
-> bum's rush ability. get a card out of my hand. if my opponent god/made
-> two princes, a justicar and an inner circle, i would throw all my votes
-> in against his next vote, come what may ... get them out of my hand. it
-> is not because i was "dumb.." to "put them in." what a silly silly silly
-> statement, it is astoundingly clueless and shows limited skill at Jyhad
-> and especially at deckbuilding. I have made many a deck vote heavy
-> because if they flop I can always rid my hand of votes quickly! Even
-> expected to do so in 2 out of 3 games.

Casting votes (even if you don't expect to change the referendum outcome)
is not "no effect", as mentioned in other posts in this thread. I not
talking about cards that _may_ not have an effect. I'm talking about
cards that don't have an effect and couldn't possibly have an effect.
Like Disguising a Weapon that doesn't exist.

->
-> : which you know will pass? Is that considered playing useless cards.
-> : As far as I'm concerned, if the rules or card text tell you that
-> : you can play a card, then you can play it, whether or not it will
-> : have any effect.
->
-> : Gary S.
->
-> Hear f-----g hear!
->
-> In fact i flat disagree with this "dumbing down" crap. For example, I
-> often stay at close with a "Fame"-ed caitiff, then fire his zip gun and
-> hope the other vampire will have to use hand damage. should i be prevented
-> from getting any advantage out of this? after all, i am simply wasting
-> the blood of the vampire, not using the zip gun to maximum advantage by
-> maneuvering to long or something ... am i up to something?
->
-> I even play disciplines on other peoples vampires to get them out of my
-> hand. Why didn't i think of that when i built the deck!!! Bad dog!! I
-> have been known to DELIBERATELY PICK a Fortitude card that prevents more
-> damage than i have been dealt, rather than one that just matches it!!!
->
-> I sometimes play dodges at range with my brujah even though i know my
-> opponent has no potential (Arms Dealer) for ranged damage at all. I am
-> WASTING the dodge to replenish my hand. Oooh! I bad. Heck, when I feel
-> like being a downright CRIMINAL I waste dodges at range with my BLOCKING
-> minion EVEN AFTER MY OPPONENT HAS NOT TRIED A RANGED STRIKE!
->
-> Confession: If no one was watching, I would even play a Brainwash on
-> someone's only uncontrolled vampire, EVEN AFTER USING HARROD TO DETERMINE
-> THAT THEY ALREADY HAD THAT VAMPIRE OUT. *sob* take me away, take me
-> away, I'm a rat, a weasel.

Jeez, take a Prozac.

-> I dislike the ruling about not playing extra stealth or intercept
-> (intimida tion potential there) but i live with it, as long as it doesn't
-> go too far. This is going too far.

I dislike the ruling about being able to play short range strikes (e.g.
Undead Strength) when the combat is at long range, but I live with it, as
long as it doesn't go too far. Disguising a non-existent weapon is going
too far.

->
-> alternately why not make the rule explicit:
->
-> "The Golden Rule of Jyhad Curmudgeon Rulings:
->
-> No combat decks or decks containing "lotsa" commons shall be built.
-> Instead, only decks with expensive permanents can be employed.
-> Any person not wasting cards for a vote found "wasting" cards in
-> the opinion of the Jyhad Curmudgeons shall be anathema or forced
-> to try to justify our Roetschreck rulings, whichever kills them
-> quicker. Tournament Winners who did not have 10 complete sets of
-> Jyhad/VTES/DS rares to choose from before the game shall be
-> disallowed."

Whatever.

-> It is not a "waste" to burn a card, or if it is, add Nod, Distraction
-> and Deal with the Devil to your bonfire. That little pamphlet at first
-> was very clear, it is the greedy shortsighted back design change and
-> the incoherent rule changes that seem planned to turn cards into wallpaper
-> that everyone objects to, WOTC should CUT IT OUT, and that will be that.
-> No Jyhad player I know respects WOTC rulings anymore, period. They have
-> done such a terrible job with rule "clarifications" that now there ARE
-> nothing but house rules with their dorky rule theories having no more
-> respect than any others.

I agree with your "WOTC ruling" sentiment, though the last rulings were
mostly okay except for the Disguised Weapon thing. One of the points of
my original post was that senseless discards devalue Nod, Barrens, etc.

-> WHY THIS IS ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF TRULY DORKY RULE TALK: No, [w/ respect
-> to a post where someone educated a JC about "wasting" Rat's Warnings]
-> that does not "leave Wakes." If I play a WWEF on a vampire, througout
-> the action, until combat ends (or doesn't start, and that can only be
-> decided by the end of the action) "the vampire can play reaction cards
-> and attempt to block as if untapped." Clearly that is very different
-> from what I was able to do before. It never says that I have to block.
-> I can, for example, wake, then say, nope, no block. Is this where the
-> rule nances step in and slap my hand? Don't act too soon. Are you bonding
-> the action? okay, i will play telepathic counter. on the other hand, if
-> you condition it, i will play telepathic misdirection. Maybe i'll do
-> nothing if it's just a simple bleed. Who knows? The fact my vampire has
-> superior Auspex may influence you to leave it at that. Shouldn't i have
-> the choice? Nope. Intimidation via a WWEF is too clever for people who
-> would clearly rather be making rules for that neat simplified game in
-> the vtes pamphlet. Listen, I never learned how to do anything with WWEF
-> but block, that's what the card should read!!!

I never said anything about disallowing card plays that could have an
effect. I agree with the above use of WWEF, okay?

[final rant deleted]

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
> Besides, you can't stamp out every instance of someone burning their
> hand uselessly. What's to stop me from playing WWeF when I have no
> intention of blocking or reacting? What's to stop me from loading up

> my deck with Magic of the Smith when I'm not playing with equipment?
> (Granted, MotS is an action, so this is not a very efficient method.)
> What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
> vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first
> place? What's to stop me from playing an intercept card when I know I

> can't overcome the stealth of an action, even if a draw another intercept
> to replace?

What I'm taking issue with here is "free discards"; i.e. you play
the card, it has no immediate effect and no residual effect, and you
immediately replace it. Using Disguised weapon with no weapon in your
hand fits the bill. None of the examples above do:

WWeF is not replaced immediately and has a residual effect
Magic of the Smith taps the acting minion, may have an effect, and
certainly lets you review what cards remain in your library
Seduction has a residual effect
Playing intercept has a residual effect

Illegal Search and Seizure of no one fits the bill.

Can you play Brainwash when your prey has no uncontrolled vampires? If not,

why not and how does it differ from the Disguised Weapon ruling?

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Jan 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/30/96
to

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu writes:
>Basic Arguement: Free card cycling is a Bad Thing. Since a player cannot
>get a new card without playing a card, good deck construction becomes an
>exercise in efficiency. A good deck is created by figuring out how to
>get your hand to stay useful and not clog up. The basic rule or paradigm
>for a card is that playing it must do something, even if it only does it
>partially or if the effect is for naught. It is my (and many others)
>contention that cards that break this rule are a detriment to the
>evolution of a good Jyhad environment. I.e., Free Discards are Bad...

I assert that it is impossible to ever prevent free card cycling, without
simply closing yourself out of certain card concepts entirely, or having
to write other concepts in really bizarre ways. People will always
be able to find ways to cycle a card here or a card there. While it's
certainly true that you want to avoid it as a general principle, there
will always be ways of doing it, so you shouldn't be too energetic about
stamping out those occurrences that do pop up. This just leads to long
lists of errata, or very specific rulings, which annoy some people just as
much as free card cycling annoys others.

>> If we disallow playing Disguised Weapon when you have no weapons in your
>> hand, then we also have to disallow things like playing Magic of the
>> Smith when you happen to know you have no equipment in your library.
>> Sure, you can argue that someone using DW knows whether they could
>> have equipped or not, but what about the Smith? Did they "forget" they
>> had no equipment, or did they actually think they did? If they don't
>> turn up equipment, do you get on their case for burning cards needlessly,
>> or not?
>This is a bad example. Unlike the Disguised Weapon ruling, something DID
>happen. The minion is tapped. Why get on their case when they had to
>tap a vampire (thus reducing the number of actions they can take and the
>amount of defence they have up) to reduce their library size by one? In
>addition, card text on disguised weapon targets a weapon in hand. Card
>text on MotS targets the library.

Granted, Magic of the Smith is not an efficient way of cycling, since you have
to take an action to do it. But the point was that you can cycle. If all
you're trying to do is get a hand that's slightly out of whack back in
gear long enough to sweep through your prey this turn, this one cycle can
be enough.

Neither DW nor MotS target anything. You just play them, and they do
something when they take effect. If DW said "Choose a weapon in your hand",
that would be one thing, since you couldn't play it at all without getting
past that basic obstacle. But as written, all you have to do is get
past the "only at beginning of round" (or "only when choosing strike")
restriction.

To be clear: People here are aware that using DW to cycle your hand is
something of a sleaze, but didn't care enough to issue errata, especially
since the card doesn't have a use if you're packing it only to cycle your
hand (unlike, say, Wake With Evening's Freshness). But given people's
reactions here, I'll see if we want to reconsider.

>> What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
>> vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first place?
>This, too, has an effect. Someone else can't use the News Radio, they
>can't use the Second Tradition to block. Basicly, this type of "card
>cycling" acrues an effect.

It does not necessarily have an effect. If the vampire is tapped, and
has no untapping cards, then I've just cycled my hand, especially if I *know*
they don't have untapping cards, so it can't be argued I'm sedcuing "just in
case." If the vampire is Navar, and I'm older, then I'm clearly cycling. If I
play more than one Seduction at once on the same vampire, then I'm clearly
cycling, since the ones after the first are totally redundant. (OK, so maybe I
play the basic and then the superior on the same vampire, but then why
didn't I just play superior in the first place?) Putting arbitrary
restrictions on it like "Use only once on a vampire per action" is pretty
distasteful.

>> What's to stop me from playing an intercept card when I know I can't
>> overcome the stealth of an action, even if a draw another intercept to
>replace?
>If you do this, you are getting closer to the minion. What if a Ravnos

>uses Ignis Fatuus?...

Who cares? The question assumes that I have *no* intention of actually
intercepting the acting minion. I am therefore simply cycling my hand.

>Free discards "dumb down" the game, and result in a Jyhad that is
>slightly worse for wear. Oh, Richard Garfield, wherever you are, why
>can't you be on the DTR? ;)

I can check with Richard later, but I really doubt he's interested in
stamping out *all* instances of hand cycling, either. He'll probably
agree that yes, one can argue that borderline cases like Disguised
Weapon should be fixed, but will also agree that weird cases like
repetitve Seduction, meaningless intercept, and so on shouldn't be
prohibited. This is based on my past discusssions with him about
Magic, VTES, and Netrunner.

Stephen Beaulieu

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
In article <4em96k$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:
[snip lots of points I don't care to comment on]
[discussion about Seduction]:
: It does not necessarily have an effect. If the vampire is tapped, and

: has no untapping cards, then I've just cycled my hand, especially if I *know*
: they don't have untapping cards, so it can't be argued I'm sedcuing "just in
: case." If the vampire is Navar, and I'm older, then I'm clearly cycling. If I
: play more than one Seduction at once on the same vampire, then I'm clearly
: cycling, since the ones after the first are totally redundant. (OK, so maybe I
: play the basic and then the superior on the same vampire, but then why
: didn't I just play superior in the first place?) Putting arbitrary
: restrictions on it like "Use only once on a vampire per action" is pretty
: distasteful.
[and]
: I can check with Richard later, but I really doubt he's interested in

: stamping out *all* instances of hand cycling, either. He'll probably
: agree that yes, one can argue that borderline cases like Disguised
: Weapon should be fixed, but will also agree that weird cases like
: repetitve Seduction, meaningless intercept, and so on shouldn't be
: prohibited. This is based on my past discusssions with him about
: Magic, VTES, and Netrunner.
:
:
: Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Concerning Seduction. This is an action modifier, and there is already a
rule that only one copy of a given action modifier can be played during a
given action. So the use of repetitive Seduction is already prohibited
without resorting to a "Only use once on a vampire per action." The rule
is only one Seduction (or any other action mod) playable per action.

Any others feel this way?

stephen beaulieu
hi...@mail.utexas.edu

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Neither DW nor MotS target anything. You just play them, and they do
>something when they take effect. If DW said "Choose a weapon in your hand",
>that would be one thing, since you couldn't play it at all without getting
>past that basic obstacle. But as written, all you have to do is get
>past the "only at beginning of round" (or "only when choosing strike")
>restriction.

It says 'Equip with a weapon from your hand' - you don't get to choose that
weapon? What is it? a random draw?

>To be clear: People here are aware that using DW to cycle your hand is
>something of a sleaze, but didn't care enough to issue errata, especially
>since the card doesn't have a use if you're packing it only to cycle your
>hand (unlike, say, Wake With Evening's Freshness). But given people's
>reactions here, I'll see if we want to reconsider.

Excellent.

>>> What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
>>> vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first place?
>>This, too, has an effect. Someone else can't use the News Radio, they
>>can't use the Second Tradition to block. Basicly, this type of "card
>>cycling" acrues an effect.

>It does not necessarily have an effect. If the vampire is tapped, and
>has no untapping cards, then I've just cycled my hand, especially if I *know*

You don't know he doesn't have a method of untapping.

>they don't have untapping cards, so it can't be argued I'm sedcuing "just in
>case." If the vampire is Navar, and I'm older, then I'm clearly cycling. If I

Against Navar, yes.
<Point yeilded>

It still doesn't change the fact that DW says to equip with a weapon from
your hand whereas Seduction does *not* say 'name a vampire not currently
restricted from blocking the current action'.

>play more than one Seduction at once on the same vampire, then I'm clearly

But, as any person casually acquainted with the rules of Jyhad/VtES knows,
you can't play more than one Seduction per action.

>cycling, since the ones after the first are totally redundant.

>>> What's to stop me from playing an intercept card when I know I can't


>>> overcome the stealth of an action, even if a draw another intercept to
>>replace?
>>If you do this, you are getting closer to the minion. What if a Ravnos
>>uses Ignis Fatuus?...

>Who cares? The question assumes that I have *no* intention of actually
>intercepting the acting minion. I am therefore simply cycling my hand.

But, by playing intercept, you have entered the 'chosen blocker' category.
If your intercept is boosted (with or without you consent) by KRCG or
UKNewsRag - or if the acting minion's stealth is decreased (with or
without your consent) by Ignis Fatuus - you *will* block the action
(since, after choosing a candidate blocker, you simply check to see if
your intercept is at least as great as the acting minion's stealth).
If you didn't want to, tough - go to combat and try to explain your way
out of it :-).

>I can check with Richard later, but I really doubt he's interested in
>stamping out *all* instances of hand cycling, either. He'll probably
>agree that yes, one can argue that borderline cases like Disguised
>Weapon should be fixed, but will also agree that weird cases like
>repetitve Seduction, meaningless intercept, and so on shouldn't be

There is no repeating Seduction.

There is no such thing as meaningless intercept, due to the well-crafted
rules. *(Nice Job on that Section, really)*

>prohibited. This is based on my past discusssions with him about
>Magic, VTES, and Netrunner.

This is based on the rules and card text.

--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:


>Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>> Can you play Brainwash when your prey has no uncontrolled vampires?

>No, because it tells you to put it on an uncontrolled vampire of your prey.


>If you can't follow that instruction, you can't play it.

>>If not, why not and how does it differ from the Disguised Weapon ruling?

>The only instruction disguised weapon gives you is about when you can


>play it. It says nothing about playing it only when you have a weapon
>in your hand.

Disguised weapon says to 'equip with a weapon from your hand'
If you can't follow that instruction, what happens?

Again, how does not being able to follow the instructions on card text
prevent one from playing Brainwash, IS&S, etc. while not preventing the
play of DW?

Shane Travis

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu writes:

: >> What's to stop me from playing an intercept card when I know I can't


: >> overcome the stealth of an action, even if a draw another intercept to
: >replace?
: >If you do this, you are getting closer to the minion. What if a Ravnos
: >uses Ignis Fatuus?...

: Who cares? The question assumes that I have *no* intention of actually
: intercepting the acting minion. I am therefore simply cycling my hand.

This just twigged a thought in my brain... Can I decline to accept
intercept that another player is trying to give me?

Situation: Predator is playing Gangrel, and has Backways out. Grand
Predator is all tapped out. Gangrel-meth decided to Rampage on my grand-
predator's hunting ground(his predator). I decide to block, in an attempt
to get him to use the backways so that he cannot use it against me later
in his turn. He reacts as I expect and taps the Backways to get the action
through. I have no intention of increasing the intercept - I just wanted
the Backways out of the way.

Another Meth at the table taps his KRCG (or Evening Star, or plays Ignis
Fatuus) to give me +1 intercept. I don't _want_ to block the Gangrel.
Must I accept this 'gift'?

I would assume yes...

Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the
tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody
| gets busy on the proof.

Tze Chin Ong

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
> Situation: Predator is playing Gangrel, and has Backways out. Grand
> Predator is all tapped out. Gangrel-meth decided to Rampage on my grand-
> predator's hunting ground(his predator). I decide to block, in an attempt
> to get him to use the backways so that he cannot use it against me later
> in his turn. He reacts as I expect and taps the Backways to get the action
> through. I have no intention of increasing the intercept - I just wanted
> the Backways out of the way.

Unless you have Eagle's Sight, blocking your predator's Rampage
is out of the question: it's a (D) action. If you are playing Eagle's
sight, I suppose you cannot decline the intercept given to you, it's up
to the other Methuselah to decide. Just my 2cents.

Zhiquan

"Excuse me, does anyone
know what's happening?"

PO Box 15147, Stanford, CA 94309. Tel: (415)-497-3920


Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/4/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>Neither DW nor MotS target anything. You just play them, and they do
>>something when they take effect. If DW said "Choose a weapon in your hand",
>>that would be one thing, since you couldn't play it at all without getting
>>past that basic obstacle. But as written, all you have to do is get
>>past the "only at beginning of round" (or "only when choosing strike")
>>restriction.
>It says 'Equip with a weapon from your hand' - you don't get to choose that
>weapon? What is it? a random draw?

The point to "choose a weapon in your hand" is that that's the template
used when you make a choice as a card is played, rather than as it takes
effect.

>>>> What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
>>>> vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first place

>>>This, too, has an effect...


>>It does not necessarily have an effect. If the vampire is tapped, and
>>has no untapping cards, then I've just cycled my hand, especially if I *know*

>You don't know he doesn't have a method of untapping.

And if I've looked at his hand, so do know? The question of whether I'm
cycling my hand shouldn't depend on whether or not I happen to know the
exact contents of a player's hand. If I'm playing Seduction on every
action, that's essentially card cycling, regardless of how effective
the Seduction is at the moment.

><Point yeilded>
>It still doesn't change the fact that DW says to equip with a weapon from
>your hand whereas Seduction does *not* say 'name a vampire not currently
>restricted from blocking the current action'.

In other words, it doesn't say "choose a useful subject." Part of my point was
that because of the way DW is worded, it's not saying "choose a useful
subject."

>>play more than one Seduction at once on the same vampire, then I'm clearly

>But, as any person casually acquainted with the rules of Jyhad/VtES knows,

>you can't play more than one Seduction per action.

Remembered that later. I was trying to think of an analogy to the
WWeF cycling.

>>Who cares? The question assumes that I have *no* intention of actually
>>intercepting the acting minion. I am therefore simply cycling my hand.

>But, by playing intercept, you have entered the 'chosen blocker' category.
>If your intercept is boosted (with or without you consent) by KRCG or
>UKNewsRag - or if the acting minion's stealth is decreased (with or
>without your consent) by Ignis Fatuus - you *will* block the action
>(since, after choosing a candidate blocker, you simply check to see if
>your intercept is at least as great as the acting minion's stealth).
>If you didn't want to, tough - go to combat and try to explain your way
>out of it :-).

That doesn't stop my action from being card cycling. It just makes the
method of cycling somewhat dangerous. The point is still that I was
expecting the card action to be useless.

>>I can check with Richard later, but I really doubt he's interested in
>>stamping out *all* instances of hand cycling, either. He'll probably
>>agree that yes, one can argue that borderline cases like Disguised
>>Weapon should be fixed, but will also agree that weird cases like
>>repetitve Seduction, meaningless intercept, and so on shouldn't be

>There is no repeating Seduction.

Again, I simply forgot that.

>There is no such thing as meaningless intercept, due to the well-crafted
>rules. *(Nice Job on that Section, really)*

You and I are using different definitions of "meaningless." The fact
that playing an intercept card *might* lead to my blocking an action
due to the interference of others, whereas I'm expecting to be unable to block
the action, makes the play meaningless under my definition.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/4/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>If not, why not and how does it differ from the Disguised Weapon ruling?
>>The only instruction disguised weapon gives you is about when you can
>>play it. It says nothing about playing it only when you have a weapon
>>in your hand.
>Disguised weapon says to 'equip with a weapon from your hand'
>If you can't follow that instruction, what happens?

Nothing, just like if you use Magic of the Smith when your library has
no equipment in it, or you find equipment you can't use (like a
second Laptop on the same vampire).

Hunter Johnson

unread,
Feb 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/5/96
to
In article <4f3f3r$k...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
[previous text resurrected:]

>>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>>Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>>>> Can you play Brainwash when your prey has no uncontrolled vampires?

>>>No, because it tells you to put it on an uncontrolled vampire of your prey.
>>>If you can't follow that instruction, you can't play it.

>>>>If not, why not and how does it differ from the Disguised Weapon ruling?

>>>The only instruction disguised weapon gives you is about when you can
>>>play it. It says nothing about playing it only when you have a weapon
>>>in your hand.

>>Disguised weapon says to 'equip with a weapon from your hand'
>>If you can't follow that instruction, what happens?

>Nothing, just like if you use Magic of the Smith when your library has
>no equipment in it, or you find equipment you can't use (like a
>second Laptop on the same vampire).

Then the answer to "Can you play Brainwash when your prey has no
uncontrolled vampires" should be 'Yes', and the answer to what happens
should be "Nothing, just like . . . ."

Then the question comes up, "Where do you put the Brainwash?" Good
question. Perhaps the answer to both Brainwash and Disguised Weapon
should be "No, you can't play them unless you can follow the
directions on the card."

Magic of the Smith is different than Disguised Weapon in that it
doesn't instruct you to do something with resources you have at hand,
so to speak.

Or one of the cards (Magic of the Smith) could be clarified to
explicitly deal with the case of (unexpectedly) being unable to comply
with the instructions.

Hunter
-- /\
J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj
GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhun...@io.com for GURPS bib.
& Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-e...@io.com
"What's the point of trying if you can't be a winner?" -- Calvin

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/5/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>>> What's to stop me from increasing the flow of a stealth deck by Seducing
>>>>> vampires that I don't expect to be able to intercept me in the first place
>>>>This, too, has an effect...
>>>It does not necessarily have an effect. If the vampire is tapped, and
>>>has no untapping cards, then I've just cycled my hand, especially if I *know*
>>You don't know he doesn't have a method of untapping.

>And if I've looked at his hand, so do know? The question of whether I'm

You still don't know he won't have one at the appropriate time (if he
plays intercept on a different minion, and draws a Wakey to replace it)

>cycling my hand shouldn't depend on whether or not I happen to know the
>exact contents of a player's hand. If I'm playing Seduction on every
>action, that's essentially card cycling, regardless of how effective

No it is not. If you play stealth on every action, you'd consider that
cycling? Hardly.

>the Seduction is at the moment.

<Increasing intercept may lead to a block>


>That doesn't stop my action from being card cycling. It just makes the
>method of cycling somewhat dangerous. The point is still that I was
>expecting the card action to be useless.

Great Expectations. Altering the game environment is altering the game
environment. Doing nothing is doing nothing. Doing nothing except cycling
a card is doing nothing except cycling a card. You can not 'do nothing
except cycle a card' if you alter the game environment.

>>There is no such thing as meaningless intercept, due to the well-crafted
>>rules. *(Nice Job on that Section, really)*

>You and I are using different definitions of "meaningless." The fact
>that playing an intercept card *might* lead to my blocking an action
>due to the interference of others, whereas I'm expecting to be unable to block
>the action, makes the play meaningless under my definition.

Yes. I choose the 'without meaning' definition. You choose the
'without intent'. I'd suggest you use the term 'intentless' to avoid
confusing the English-speaking readers of this group.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/5/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>>If not, why not and how does it differ from the Disguised Weapon ruling?
>>>The only instruction disguised weapon gives you is about when you can
>>>play it. It says nothing about playing it only when you have a weapon
>>>in your hand.
>>Disguised weapon says to 'equip with a weapon from your hand'
>>If you can't follow that instruction, what happens?

>Nothing, just like if you use Magic of the Smith when your library has
>no equipment in it, or you find equipment you can't use (like a
>second Laptop on the same vampire).

From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 1/12/96
Date: 30 Jan 1996 23:24:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4em9bf$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>

Eric Pettersen <pe...@homer.ucsf.edu> wrote:
> Can you play Brainwash when your prey has no uncontrolled vampires?

No, because it tells you to put it on an uncontrolled vampire of your prey.
If you can't follow that instruction, you can't play it.


Again, from the quoted article:


>>Disguised weapon says to 'equip with a weapon from your hand'
>>If you can't follow that instruction, what happens?

>Nothing, just like if you use Magic of the Smith when your library has
>no equipment in it, or you find equipment you can't use (like a
>second Laptop on the same vampire).

So: Brainwash - can't follow instruction = can't play the card.
DisguWeap - can't follow instruction = may cycle the card uselessly

Thanks for the clarification.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Feb 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/7/96
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>You don't know he doesn't have a method of untapping.
>>And if I've looked at his hand, so do know? The question of whether I'm
>You still don't know he won't have one at the appropriate time (if he
>plays intercept on a different minion, and draws a Wakey to replace it)

But the odds of that are pretty low, so if I do that sort of thing
consistently, I'm probably cycling.

>>cycling my hand shouldn't depend on whether or not I happen to know the
>>exact contents of a player's hand. If I'm playing Seduction on every
>>action, that's essentially card cycling, regardless of how effective
>No it is not. If you play stealth on every action, you'd consider that
>cycling? Hardly.

Since I can only play a stealth card if someone's trying to block,
playing the card is obviously accomplishing something. But I only play
Seduction if I'm *guessing* someone will try to block. If I'm doing it
every action, including on relatively meaningless actions like hunting,
then I'm either cycling, or *really* paranoid about being blocked.

><Increasing intercept may lead to a block>
>>That doesn't stop my action from being card cycling. It just makes the
>>method of cycling somewhat dangerous. The point is still that I was
>>expecting the card action to be useless.
>Great Expectations. Altering the game environment is altering the game
>environment. Doing nothing is doing nothing. Doing nothing except cycling
>a card is doing nothing except cycling a card. You can not 'do nothing
>except cycle a card' if you alter the game environment.

Since you can't seem to accept this example, try this one: vote pushing.
If I already know a vote has passed, and I dump five useless-at-the-moment
votes just to get them out of my hand, is that cycling? The answer is "yes,"
and everyone who argues against unlimited pushing on this newgroup agrees
with this answer every time they argue against it. Playing an intercept card
when you don't expect to be able to catch up to the stealth value is no
different than pushing a vote that you don't expect to fail: it's card cycling,
the fact that the play will be meaningful in .0001% of all cases
notwithstanding.

>>>There is no such thing as meaningless intercept, due to the well-crafted
>>>rules. *(Nice Job on that Section, really)*
>>You and I are using different definitions of "meaningless." The fact
>>that playing an intercept card *might* lead to my blocking an action
>>due to the interference of others, whereas I'm expecting to be unable to
>>block the action, makes the play meaningless under my definition.
>Yes. I choose the 'without meaning' definition. You choose the
>'without intent'. I'd suggest you use the term 'intentless' to avoid
>confusing the English-speaking readers of this group.

Am I confusing them, or just you?

meaning (men'ing), n. 1. That which is meant; intent; aim; object.
Syn. Sense... significance... import
meaningless, adj. Without meaning

Everyone speaks a slightly different dialect. "Intentless" is incredibly
stilted, so I don't think I'll be using it, given that "meaningless"
works quite nicely for my purposes.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Feb 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/7/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:

Webster: Meaningless adj. Having no signifigance or meaning.

All of your examples have signifigance in that they change the game
environment. Therefore, they are not meaningless.

>Everyone speaks a slightly different dialect. "Intentless" is incredibly
>stilted, so I don't think I'll be using it, given that "meaningless"
>works quite nicely for my purposes.

Stilted words suit a stilted argument (cf, DW vs. Brainwash - not following
directions on card).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Smith & Wesson: the original
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | "point and click" interface.

Brian MacIntyre Tr

unread,
Feb 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/9/96
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
: L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
<<Discussion of Intercept & drawing WWEF, etc.>>

: >>cycling my hand shouldn't depend on whether or not I happen to know

: the
: >>exact contents of a player's hand. If I'm playing Seduction on every
: >>action, that's essentially card cycling, regardless of how effective
: >No it is not. If you play stealth on every action, you'd consider that
: >cycling? Hardly.
:
: Since I can only play a stealth card if someone's trying to block,
: playing the card is obviously accomplishing something. But I only play
: Seduction if I'm *guessing* someone will try to block. If I'm doing it
: every action, including on relatively meaningless actions like hunting,
: then I'm either cycling, or *really* paranoid about being blocked.

:
Depends on _what_ the target vampire has-got/can-do. I might play
Seduction on _every_ action if a certain vampire has an Ivory Bow, or
other "I-don't-like-what-it's-got" style scenario.
Also, for example, I'm hunting with an option of extra blood, I might
just prefer _not_ to be blocked, etc..
And - if I'm wasting cards on simple actions, I'm losing the chance to
use them on later, more important things.


: ><Increasing intercept may lead to a block>


: >>That doesn't stop my action from being card cycling. It just makes
: the
: >>method of cycling somewhat dangerous. The point is still that I was
: >>expecting the card action to be useless.
: >Great Expectations. Altering the game environment is altering the game
: >environment. Doing nothing is doing nothing. Doing nothing except
: cycling
: >a card is doing nothing except cycling a card. You can not 'do nothing
: >except cycle a card' if you alter the game environment.
:
: Since you can't seem to accept this example, try this one: vote pushing.
: If I already know a vote has passed, and I dump five
: useless-at-the-moment votes just to get them out of my hand, is that
: cycling? The answer is "yes," and everyone who argues against
unlimited
: pushing on this newgroup agrees with this answer every time they argue
: against it. Playing an intercept card when you don't expect to be able
: to catch up to the stealth value is no different than pushing a vote
: that you don't expect to fail: it's card cycling, the fact that the
play
: will be meaningful in .0001% of all cases notwithstanding.

:
Technically, dumping vote cards like that (5 after I've won, etc.) is only
cycling if I know it will absolutely no difference to the vote itself.

However, as I often don't know whether the opposition can still play any
Action Modifiers (acting Meth) or Reactions (others), I can never really
guarantee those "dumped" votes were not actually needed.
Another Meth may have a Dread Gaze (sup), which is now useless...


: >>>There is no such thing as meaningless intercept, due to the

: >>>well-crafted rules. *(Nice Job on that Section, really)*
: >>You and I are using different definitions of "meaningless." The fact
: >>that playing an intercept card *might* lead to my blocking an action
: >>due to the interference of others, whereas I'm expecting to be unable
: >>to block the action, makes the play meaningless under my definition.
: >Yes. I choose the 'without meaning' definition. You choose the
: >'without intent'. I'd suggest you use the term 'intentless' to avoid
: >confusing the English-speaking readers of this group.
:
: Am I confusing them, or just you?

:
I'm not sure about "confusing them" (does that imply I'm confused...?),
but there is certainly a grey area opening up in the _OFFICIAL_ rules.
Personally, I've never seen the problem of even attempted cycling, though
[*and this is not meant for discussion!*] we have usually played a 4CL
since Jyhad started, so there's less desire to clear cards from the hand.

If you don't already do it, then perhaps there's a view that you (Tom)
could throw ideas (like using DW with no weapon in hand) open for
discussion here, _before_ the Rules Team finalises such a change/errata.
Then you might get an idea of what regular players think, and avoid
situations where a rules change may _seem_ good, but is in fact contrary
to what the majority believe and/or play-by?

<<Definitions of INTENTLESS and MEANINGLESS, etc.>>

Brian.
------
Brian MacIntyre - b...@cix.compulink.co.uk - b...@triad.com