TOM: Word on trade-in???

2 views
Skip to first unread message

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 22, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/22/95
to
jmle...@mtu.edu (James M. Leithead) writes:
> Have you heard any word from anyone on the possibility of a card
>trade-in? I hope we hear soon, one way or the other (of course, I'd very
>much like it to be an affirmative response). This question has been left
>hanging a LONG time now.

All questions have been left hanging for a long time now.

Welcome to the wondeful world of non-support.

The sooner the world forgets Jyhad ever existed, the happier WotC will be.

(Why support a good game that is too complicated for the masses, when the
masses will sink untold fortunes into a hack-job (albeit an excellent and
original hack job) game like MtG?)
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/23/95
to
In article <41dpjv$m...@amhux3.amherst.edu>,
Neil Bernstein <nwbe...@news.amherst.edu> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
>: (Why support a good game that is too complicated for the masses, when the

>: masses will sink untold fortunes into a hack-job (albeit an excellent and
>: original hack job) game like MtG?)
>
>I'm surprised that you call a game that produced and still dominates its
>own genre a "hack job". They've made some mistakes (like the OOP spoilers)
>along the way, but done a reasonable job of rectifying them. Chess went
>through an evolutionary process too, you know.
>
>You know a Jyhad trade-in is completely unfeasible, even for a company
>with much more money to lose on its gamble than WotC. As many people
>have argued, a moment's thought to the sorting and reprinting problems
>involved will answer that question. Also, I've seen the

Who was talking about a trade in? I was talking about the absence of a
WotC presense (or even a pretense) on the net (or anywhere else) in
support of Jyhad and/or V:tES.

Please don't quote me out of context and then attribute some other
(false) quote to me.

I know that a trade-in won't happen. I've never agued for or against
a trade-in. I have no opinion on the matter.

>new backs (someone brought a few back from GenCon) and they're really not
>that much of a Bad Thing. They aren't so radically different; if you
>casually glance at your opponent's deck, odds are you won't even notice.
>(If you're card-counting, of course, then I suggest you take your skills
>to the casino.) I think my group will do just fine with a minimum 10%
>blending house rule.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Frederick Scott

unread,
Aug 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/23/95
to
nwbe...@news.amherst.edu (Neil Bernstein) writes:

>Also, I've seen the new backs (someone brought a few back from GenCon) and


>they're really not that much of a Bad Thing. They aren't so radically
different; if you casually glance at your opponent's deck, odds are you
>won't even notice.

We already knew that the printing would be similar ("green marble backs"
according to the press release). But so? It's like that woman you spent the
night with being only "a little pregnant". Card backs match or they don't.

Fred

Michael Whitbread

unread,
Aug 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/24/95
to
Nice analogy Fred; and a very true statement too. Pity WOTC can't get their act
together and work out a happy solution to the problem they created.

M Whitbread


Frederick Scott

unread,
Aug 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/26/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:

>L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>Who was talking about a trade in? I was talking about the absence of a
>>WotC presense (or even a pretense) on the net (or anywhere else) in
>>support of Jyhad and/or V:tES.
>

>I am here, and I watch this group just as much (proportionally) as I do
>magic.rules. There just happens to be very little here that falls under
>my procedure for deciding to reply to something. Specifically, there are
>relatively few rules questions here, and most of those have been answered
>by the time I read them, and I don't believe in posting duplicate responses
>to perfectly good questions. While I suppose I could comment more on the
>other major threads that crop up here, like "should there be card limits?"
>and deck/card strategies, it's not like I commonly respond to such threads
>on the Magic groups either.

Would you care to comment on the Gencon Jyhad tournament? If I understood
the reports correctly, it: 1) Was sponspored by WotC; and 2) involved 4/deck
card limits, in spite of DC rules to the contrary. If both those points are
correct, I guess I don't completely understand WotC's position on Jyhad
card limits (I thought I did) and on using DC rules in sponsored tournaments
(Unless the tournament was intended as an experimental one. In which case,
why were the posters so surprised by that?).

Fred

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/26/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>Who was talking about a trade in? I was talking about the absence of a
>>WotC presense (or even a pretense) on the net (or anywhere else) in
>>support of Jyhad and/or V:tES.

>I am here, and I watch this group just as much (proportionally) as I do
>magic.rules. There just happens to be very little here that falls under
>my procedure for deciding to reply to something. Specifically, there are
>relatively few rules questions here, and most of those have been answered
>by the time I read them, and I don't believe in posting duplicate responses
>to perfectly good questions.

OK, then how about answering the following three thus far unaswered questions
(which are up to two months old):

=====
1:
Does Strike: End Combat resolve at the logical time (as per V:tES), or
is the DT gonna cling to their ill-conceived ruling?

=====
2:
From: sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: TOM: Q: Brujah Frenzy and Mask 1K or Archon.
Date: 15 Aug 1995 02:21:58 GMT

Tom:
What happens when my Acting Brujah remains unblocked,
but is subsequently Brujah Frenzied, and I then use
Mask of 1000 Faces to make a non-Brujah the acting
vampire.

I assume the masking vampire is still blocked by whatever
minion the Frenzier chose.

---
Also, what happens when an Archon Brujah gets Frenzied?
The Brujah Frenzy says the action is blocked.
As an Archon, blocking that Brujah costs 1 pool.
Who pays? (a) the Meth playing Brujah Frenzy. (b) the Meth
controlling the target (blocking) minion.

(Or, just for laughs, if the acting Brujah is Frenzied, then
an Aching Beauty Archon uses Mask1K to take over, what then? :-)

=====
3:
(from SHWT): Can Retainers damage Retainers (with R damage)?

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Aug 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/26/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>Who was talking about a trade in? I was talking about the absence of a
>WotC presense (or even a pretense) on the net (or anywhere else) in
>support of Jyhad and/or V:tES.

I am here, and I watch this group just as much (proportionally) as I do
magic.rules. There just happens to be very little here that falls under
my procedure for deciding to reply to something. Specifically, there are
relatively few rules questions here, and most of those have been answered
by the time I read them, and I don't believe in posting duplicate responses

to perfectly good questions. While I suppose I could comment more on the
other major threads that crop up here, like "should there be card limits?"
and deck/card strategies, it's not like I commonly respond to such threads
on the Magic groups either.

CST will happily answer any phone calls relating to V:TES. I hear a few
such calls answered every day.

While the Duelist coverage of Jyhad/VTES has been spotty, this is being
corrected as of issue #7, and this has been due to communications with
the V:TES team itself as much as anything else.

We have demos and tournaments at all the major conventions, and some of
the non-major ones.

The Jyhad FAQ has been updated more frequently than the Magic FAQ. We
distribute the corrected rules to anyone for free, if they ask.

And so on. Saying that there is no support for Jyhad or V:TES is not
exactly accurate.

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


Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Aug 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/29/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>What happens when my Acting Brujah remains unblocked,
>but is subsequently Brujah Frenzied, and I then use
>Mask of 1000 Faces to make a non-Brujah the acting
>vampire.
>
>I assume the masking vampire is still blocked by whatever
>minion the Frenzier chose.

I believe that Brujah Frenzy simply begins the combat, and there is no
time to play further action modifiers or reactions before that combat
begins, so there would not be time to play the Mask on that.

>Also, what happens when an Archon Brujah gets Frenzied?
>The Brujah Frenzy says the action is blocked.
>As an Archon, blocking that Brujah costs 1 pool.
>Who pays? (a) the Meth playing Brujah Frenzy. (b) the Meth
>controlling the target (blocking) minion.

While the action is now treated as blocked, the subject vampire is not
actually "attempting to block" the action. A vampire which had been affected
by Seduction could be chosen as the subject of the BF combat, for example.
So no blood is burned.

>(Or, just for laughs, if the acting Brujah is Frenzied, then
>an Aching Beauty Archon uses Mask1K to take over, what then? :-)

This one I'm less sure on, but I'm pretty sure no pool is burned, since
again, the victim of the combat isn't actually blocking the Brujah.
You essentially treat BF as if the Brujah had Bums Rushed the victim of
the combat. I will have to double check that, tho.

>(from SHWT): Can Retainers damage Retainers (with R damage)?

Both versions of the rules (V:TES and corrected Jyhad) imply that the answer
is no, but don't come out and say it, so I'll have to double check that.

>Does Strike: End Combat resolve at the logical time (as per V:tES), or
> is the DT gonna cling to their ill-conceived ruling?

This one I ignored because you were grandstanding again. If you want to
know whether we're going to adopt a V:TES rule early, just ask. If you've
been crusading for such a change, we'll know that, and rudely reminding us
of that isn't going to score you points.

To answer the question, no one's talked of adopting that V:TES rule early.
In general, we do not adopt rules prior the actual release of those rules,
and we are not making an exception to that policy here. If you want to adopt
the rule in advance, go for it.

J. Hunter Johnson

unread,
Aug 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/30/95
to
In article <41mjgb$e...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>While I suppose I could comment more on the
>other major threads that crop up here, like "should there be card limits?"
>and deck/card strategies, it's not like I commonly respond to such threads
>on the Magic groups either.

What about "Are there official card limits?" This was my take given the way
the WotC-sanctioned V:TES tournament was run at GenCon (no more than 4 of
any one card). Is this something that will be true in all sanctioned
V:TES tourneys, an experiment at GenCon, or a simple flub?
--
J. Hunter Johnson
jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online)
"Eventually, all school subjects at all grades will be taught with
GURPS supplements." -- Moriah (Mike Sullivan)

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/30/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>Does Strike: End Combat resolve at the logical time (as per V:tES), or
>> is the DT gonna cling to their ill-conceived ruling?

>This one I ignored because you were grandstanding again. If you want to
>know whether we're going to adopt a V:TES rule early, just ask. If you've
>been crusading for such a change, we'll know that, and rudely reminding us
>of that isn't going to score you points.

I certainly don't need to score points with the Mt$-ingrained Design
Team who have trouble seeing that Jyhad is a separate game. I've resigned
myself to figuring out the rules on my own, since (other than JRM, SHWT,
and once upon a time JC and ASHK) no one else seems willing to devote
the time to the game of Jyhad.

Repetive and incorrect whining and/or rhetoric ("I'm here, I just don't
post because there aren't any questions", or "We know what the card says
and we know what the background is and we know how the game is thusly
broken, but we're going to stick with our spurious ruling", or "4-card
limits all 'round!") isn't going to score WotC points from the Jyhad
players, which WotC does need.

Raymond Mulford

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:

>>This one I ignored because you were grandstanding again. If you want to
>>know whether we're going to adopt a V:TES rule early, just ask. If you've
>>been crusading for such a change, we'll know that, and rudely reminding us
>>of that isn't going to score you points.

>I certainly don't need to score points with the Mt$-ingrained Design
>Team who have trouble seeing that Jyhad is a separate game. I've resigned
>myself to figuring out the rules on my own, since (other than JRM, SHWT,
>and once upon a time JC and ASHK) no one else seems willing to devote
>the time to the game of Jyhad.

I found Tom's response quite revealing. Apparently WotC is so
all-powerful and wonderful that it owes its customers nothing, but
instead, its customers are expected to ingratiate themselves and kiss
up to the company.

Kinda fits with the way we Jyhad players have been treated, no?

Ray
Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?


Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to

J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@io.com> wrote:
>What about "Are there official card limits?" This was my take given the way
>the WotC-sanctioned V:TES tournament was run at GenCon (no more than 4 of
>any one card). Is this something that will be true in all sanctioned
>V:TES tourneys, an experiment at GenCon, or a simple flub?

As far as I can tell, it was just done for the tournament at GenCon, and
the DC has no plans to impose a general card limit on V:TES.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>I certainly don't need to score points with the Mt$-ingrained Design
>>Team who have trouble seeing that Jyhad is a separate game. I've resigned
>>myself to figuring out the rules on my own, since (other than JRM, SHWT,
>>and once upon a time JC and ASHK) no one else seems willing to devote
>>the time to the game of Jyhad.

>V:TES *is* treated as a separate game. The project team is not a subset

Your mis-rulings on S:CE and (D) symbols reeks of confusing Jyhad with Mt$.
And then there's the WotC-sanctioned 4-card limit.

>of the Magic team, and there is very little overlap in personnel between
>the two. The rules team for Magic, and the rules team for V:TES, are
>basically distinct entities. There are people devoting time to V:TES.
>Expansions have been designed and are being designed, the PPG is in the

First year expansions:
MtG: 4
OnTE: 3
INWO: 1
Jyhad: 0

>works, the marketing plan is greatly expanded over the Jyhad plan, etc.
>Coverage is increasing in the Duelist. And so on. If that is not obvious

Coverage has nowhere to go but up in the Duelist.

>on this group, it is because the work that is being done is not the sort
>of thing which tends to get trumpeted over the Net, whether the work is done
>for Magic or for V:TES. But to say that V:TES has no support is ridiculous;
>I sit right by Matt Burked, and see how hard he works on the game, and see
>the support that the rest of the company gives to the team.

>>Repetive and incorrect whining and/or rhetoric ("I'm here, I just don't
>>post because there aren't any questions", or "We know what the card says
>>and we know what the background is and we know how the game is thusly
>>broken, but we're going to stick with our spurious ruling", or "4-card
>>limits all 'round!") isn't going to score WotC points from the Jyhad
>>players, which WotC does need.

>1. There *aren't* questions posted here, to speak of. Or at least, not

That would explain the absense of a response to Retainers vs. Retainers
question. And the Archon Frenzy question. And the official stance on
a 4-card limit.

Obviously, the posts with those questions weren't posts at all. Or maybe
they weren't questions. :-)

Just because we've gotten most of our questions answered early on, and my
summary sheets keep the newbie-questions to a minimum (thereby decreasing
the signal-to-noise ratio) doesn't mean that we aren't still thinking up
new situations and combinations which are unclear.

>questions that don't get answered just fine by other people. Do I really
>have to make a "no, you can't attack your prey's vampires without a card
>that lets you do so" post, if someone else has already done so? To me,
>that's just clutter. Here's what the topic list for this group looked
>like today, after I read through the card limit and "what's your edge?" threads

[Typical noise-clogged jyhad group listing deleted]

>How much of that do you think is going to be rules-related? vast wealth
>thread, but an answer I had already given was quoted back to the poster
>(thanks, Scott). card clarification, but that wasn't exciting either.
>"vitae" has potential, but I haven't gotten to it yet. and that's a typical
>spread for this newsgroup. i'll see more annoying questions I can't answer
>in a day on magic.rules, than i'll see in over a week on this group.

Try releasing an expansion. Most of us know the answers to any question
posed, so we can answer them while you're off answering questions on the
latest Mt$ expansion. When the Jyhad expansion comes out, I'm sure you'll
get more interesting questions.

Point: you'll also see more noise on the magic groups in a day than you'll
see here in a week. They simply get more traffic.

>2. You have to keep in mind that we cannot assume that all of the players
>have easy access to the net, or want to put up with lots of card errata and
>such. While changing cards at will because they might not have properly
>reflected a V:tM concept might be fine for a small group of people who are
>always talking to each other, it does not work for us to expect that hundreds
>or thousands of people will a) get word of such a change, and b) not be pissed
>off that we changed a card. Card errata is a *bad thing*, and generally
>only done if there is an actual error, or a game imbalance that can't be solved
>without errata. If you disagree with this position on issuing card errata,
>then it only means that we disagree on this position. It doesn't mean that
>we don't care about the game.

I *do* agree with that position. Moreso than the DT: I expand that position
to include rules errata as well.

Why stick on the rules errata on S:CE? That obviously wasn't breaking the
game (quite the contrary, the errata does break the game).

And why put cross-grain errata on Rotschreck when neither use breaks the
game? Let it work as written and save people the trouble of remembering
your changes.

And why put "Only Usable" errata on 2nd Tradition when it worked intuitively
without it? Now it has a crippled feel to it. (A Prince can't police
his domain if he's not been running around tending other business?).

You can't have it both ways.

>3. The 4-card limit for the GenCon tournament was done just for the heck of
>it. It should not be interpreted as an intention to impose a general card
>limit on V:TES. (I was not able to check with the judge of the tournament
>until today.) And, by the way, I'm told that new tournament rules will be
>released on Friday.

"For the heck of it."

I feel better already.

Will the tourney rules include rule 0?

0: Sanctioned events will be run under the whim of the coordinators. Any
rules herein are guidelines only. No advance notice need be given to
changes herein. No amount of rational argument will hold sway WRT: card
limits. Enjoy your game.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>I certainly don't need to score points with the Mt$-ingrained Design
>Team who have trouble seeing that Jyhad is a separate game. I've resigned
>myself to figuring out the rules on my own, since (other than JRM, SHWT,
>and once upon a time JC and ASHK) no one else seems willing to devote
>the time to the game of Jyhad.

V:TES *is* treated as a separate game. The project team is not a subset

of the Magic team, and there is very little overlap in personnel between
the two. The rules team for Magic, and the rules team for V:TES, are
basically distinct entities. There are people devoting time to V:TES.
Expansions have been designed and are being designed, the PPG is in the

works, the marketing plan is greatly expanded over the Jyhad plan, etc.
Coverage is increasing in the Duelist. And so on. If that is not obvious

on this group, it is because the work that is being done is not the sort
of thing which tends to get trumpeted over the Net, whether the work is done
for Magic or for V:TES. But to say that V:TES has no support is ridiculous;
I sit right by Matt Burked, and see how hard he works on the game, and see
the support that the rest of the company gives to the team.

>Repetive and incorrect whining and/or rhetoric ("I'm here, I just don't
>post because there aren't any questions", or "We know what the card says
>and we know what the background is and we know how the game is thusly
>broken, but we're going to stick with our spurious ruling", or "4-card
>limits all 'round!") isn't going to score WotC points from the Jyhad
>players, which WotC does need.

1. There *aren't* questions posted here, to speak of. Or at least, not

questions that don't get answered just fine by other people. Do I really
have to make a "no, you can't attack your prey's vampires without a card
that lets you do so" post, if someone else has already done so? To me,
that's just clutter. Here's what the topic list for this group looked
like today, after I read through the card limit and "what's your edge?" threads

a Jefe 1 **JEFES JYHAD SINGLES AUCTION-MI...CARDS 50CENTS-8/29**
b Lorne Richardson 1 [SALE] Jyhad liquidation
d Ed Bayne 2 SALE:**....JYHAD............Cards Avail!(R/Unc/Vmps)!**
Ed Bayne
e P Charles 2 vast wealth
L. Scott Johnson
f Paul D Osborne 1 card list
g Joe Reed 2 >Card clarification, please.
James R. McClure
i Jason D Edwards 1 Web site?
j ri...@u.washingt 1 >Newsgroup rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad, A...for sale?
l David Kent 2 >Opaque backed sleeves
Tracy Lauricella
o Richard Reinking 1 vitae
r Hu Johnson 1 >TOM: Word on trade-in???
L. Scott Johnson 2 >Score Points?!?
Raymond Mulford
s NoMarvel 1 >WTB: RIFTS (Palladium, main book)
Marcus Spears 1 >Greenleaf, Spamming, and Greed

How much of that do you think is going to be rules-related? vast wealth
thread, but an answer I had already given was quoted back to the poster
(thanks, Scott). card clarification, but that wasn't exciting either.
"vitae" has potential, but I haven't gotten to it yet. and that's a typical
spread for this newsgroup. i'll see more annoying questions I can't answer
in a day on magic.rules, than i'll see in over a week on this group.

2. You have to keep in mind that we cannot assume that all of the players


have easy access to the net, or want to put up with lots of card errata and
such. While changing cards at will because they might not have properly
reflected a V:tM concept might be fine for a small group of people who are
always talking to each other, it does not work for us to expect that hundreds
or thousands of people will a) get word of such a change, and b) not be pissed
off that we changed a card. Card errata is a *bad thing*, and generally
only done if there is an actual error, or a game imbalance that can't be solved
without errata. If you disagree with this position on issuing card errata,
then it only means that we disagree on this position. It doesn't mean that
we don't care about the game.

3. The 4-card limit for the GenCon tournament was done just for the heck of


it. It should not be interpreted as an intention to impose a general card
limit on V:TES. (I was not able to check with the judge of the tournament
until today.) And, by the way, I'm told that new tournament rules will be
released on Friday.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>What happens when my Acting Brujah remains unblocked,
>>but is subsequently Brujah Frenzied, and I then use
>>Mask of 1000 Faces to make a non-Brujah the acting
>>vampire.
>>
>>I assume the masking vampire is still blocked by whatever
>>minion the Frenzier chose.
>I believe that Brujah Frenzy simply begins the combat, and there is no
>time to play further action modifiers or reactions before that combat
>begins, so there would not be time to play the Mask on that.

So the Brujah couldn't play other Action Mods, such as
Dawn Operation or Freak Drive?
And the target "blocker" couldn't play Reaction cards like
Cat's Guidance (which now must be played before Combat) or
Obedience?

That doesn't seem right.

>>Also, what happens when an Archon Brujah gets Frenzied?
>>The Brujah Frenzy says the action is blocked.
>>As an Archon, blocking that Brujah costs 1 pool.
>>Who pays? (a) the Meth playing Brujah Frenzy. (b) the Meth
>>controlling the target (blocking) minion.

>While the action is now treated as blocked, the subject vampire is not
>actually "attempting to block" the action. A vampire which had been affected
>by Seduction could be chosen as the subject of the BF combat, for example.
>So no blood is burned.

"Attempt to Block" is text from Camarilla Exemplary.
Archon says that Blocking the Vampire costs one (Methuselah) pool.
The vampire has been blocked - card text requires someone to pay.

>>(Or, just for laughs, if the acting Brujah is Frenzied, then
>>an Aching Beauty Archon uses Mask1K to take over, what then? :-)

>This one I'm less sure on, but I'm pretty sure no pool is burned, since
>again, the victim of the combat isn't actually blocking the Brujah.
>You essentially treat BF as if the Brujah had Bums Rushed the victim of
>the combat. I will have to double check that, tho.

OK - now I'm getting you confused (this is too complicated :-). Sorry.
Either Mask 1K can be used or it can't. The fact that now an Aching Beauty
is attempting to Mask shouldn't change the ability to play a Mask at all.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>(from SHWT): Can Retainers damage Retainers (with R damage)?

>Both versions of the rules (V:TES and corrected Jyhad) imply that the answer
>is no, but don't come out and say it, so I'll have to double check that.

True, but WotC-issued errata says that damage from retainers (specifically
Murder of Crows and Wolf Companion, presumably extending to Ghoul Retainer)
says that the Retainers should be read as "Does 1(R) extra damage during
strike resolution for vampire employing it." [DTR 11/9/94]

Which says that the damage is coming from the Vampire.

Which (in the case of Crows and Ghouls with Guns) means that the Ranged
damage is coming from an Minion and can target opposing Vampire's Retainers.

James R. McClure Jr.

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>Coverage is increasing in the Duelist. And so on. If that is not obvious
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?

Peace Tom,

[You just knew I'd jump in eventually, didn't you?] You could have fooled me on
that "increasing" Jyhad coverage in the Duelist. The most recent one hardly
mentions VtES, even though WotC products scheduled for release after VtES were
listed (Home-whatevers for Mt$). If the amount of Jyhad coverage in the most
recent Duelist is an example of "increasing coverage," it should be pretty obvious
why some of us hear feel left out in the cold.

>3. The 4-card limit for the GenCon tournament was done just for the heck of
>it. It should not be interpreted as an intention to impose a general card
>limit on V:TES. (I was not able to check with the judge of the tournament
>until today.) And, by the way, I'm told that new tournament rules will be
>released on Friday.

I'm glad you clarified that. I look forward to seeing the official tourney rules
(finally).

Nil carborundum illigitimi,

James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle

<insert disclaimer here>

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
: >I certainly don't need to score points with the Mt$-ingrained Design
: >Team who have trouble seeing that Jyhad is a separate game.

: V:TES *is* treated as a separate game. The project team is not a subset


: of the Magic team, and there is very little overlap in personnel between
: the two. The rules team for Magic, and the rules team for V:TES, are
: basically distinct entities. There are people devoting time to V:TES.

Tom:

Re-read what Scott wrote: I doubt that anyone can argue that a lot of
effort is going into Vampire:TES, given the glossy promo-mags and Vampire
Days hype, and advertisements, etc. etc. etc.

That's not what Scott was talking about. His references were to Jyhad,
_not_ V:TES.

Maybe WotC _has_ figured out/decided how to promote this very excellent
game now that they have re-named it: that doesn't stop the evidence to
the contrary indicating that they didn't give two farts in a windstorm
about the game _in comparison to MtG_ prior to about 6 months ago.

Can you please answer the questions Scott posed (as best you know how) in
reference to the past behaviour over Jyhad, and not the current/future
behaviour over V:TES? Namely:

- Did Jyhad have its own design team, or was it a subset of MtG?
- Was the DT for Jyhad basically the same entity as the DT for MtG?
- Did people devote time to Jyhad?

One final question: Now that WotC has decided to properly promote and
pay attention to V:TES, will you be stepping down as the Answer Man? You
self-admittedly spend far more time on the Magic groups than here, and
equally self-admittedly have not _played_ much actual Jyhad. It would be
a nice gesture on the part of WotC to provide a Vampire-dedicated answer
person, as I assume they will do once Nethack ever gets released.

Shane H.W. Travis | When a stupid man is doing something he is
tra...@duke.usask.ca | ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Bernard Shaw


SHIELDS MATTHEW C

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:

: Who was talking about a trade in? I was talking about the absence of a
: WotC presense (or even a pretense) on the net (or anywhere else) in
: support of Jyhad and/or V:tES.

: Please don't quote me out of context and then attribute some other
: (false) quote to me.

: -----


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


will you look at the subjects you post under?
don't post under one, and then yell at someone for assuming that's what
you were talking about. it's not THAT irrational an assumption.


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to
tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>: >I certainly don't need to score points with the Mt$-ingrained Design
>: >Team who have trouble seeing that Jyhad is a separate game.

>: V:TES *is* treated as a separate game. The project team is not a subset


>: of the Magic team, and there is very little overlap in personnel between
>: the two. The rules team for Magic, and the rules team for V:TES, are
>: basically distinct entities. There are people devoting time to V:TES.

>Tom:

>Re-read what Scott wrote: I doubt that anyone can argue that a lot of
>effort is going into Vampire:TES, given the glossy promo-mags and Vampire
>Days hype, and advertisements, etc. etc. etc.

>That's not what Scott was talking about. His references were to Jyhad,
>_not_ V:TES.

[Good points deleted].

Actually, I'm of the camp that sees Jyhad and V:tES as the same game,
and so I was talking of the lack of perceived support offered either
of them. Where the rules differ, I'll make a note of which rules I'm
refering to, but that's about it.

And the game will always be Jyhad to me <sniff> :-).

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to
fsm...@aurora.alaska.edu (SHIELDS MATTHEW C) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:
>: Who was talking about a trade in? I was talking about the absence of a
>: WotC presense (or even a pretense) on the net (or anywhere else) in
>: support of Jyhad and/or V:tES.

>: Please don't quote me out of context and then attribute some other
>: (false) quote to me.

>will you look at the subjects you post under?


>don't post under one, and then yell at someone for assuming that's what
>you were talking about. it's not THAT irrational an assumption.

1) Who's yelling? (besides you yelling your name and the word 'that')
2) People only read subjects and not whole posts before responding?
No wonder there's so much clutter around here.
3) Threads go on and diverge from the initial topic all the time. If a
reader hasn't noticed that, the reader is too new to be posting.
Try news.newuser.questions first.

Alec Habig

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>It would be a nice gesture on the part of WotC to provide a Vampire-dedicated
>answer person, as I assume they will do once Nethack ever gets released.
^^^^^^^

Whoa - Nethack?

Is that what they're calling their long-awaited cyberpunk game?

If so, WotC should check with their copyright lawyers. Nethack is a public
domain computer game with more history behind it than most gaming companies
currently in existence.

The last thing we need is yet another midstream name-change. Not to mention
the fact that this would be a great disservice to one of the best computer
games of all time.

Alec
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to
Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:

: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
: >It would be a nice gesture on the part of WotC to provide a Vampire-dedicated
: >answer person, as I assume they will do once Nethack ever gets released.
: ^^^^^^^

: Whoa - Nethack?

I should have put, "... or whatever they're going to call it." at the end
of that sentence. AFAIK, no name for the game has et been settled on,
but at one time I do recall hearing Nethack as a possible title. This
may have just been rumour, however.

Tom: direct question to you here. Is there a proper title, and anything
like an anticipated release date for this game yet?

(sorry for being off-topic here.)

Frederick Scott

unread,
Sep 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/1/95
to

I have to say this is a really good point. Speaking as a player who's
participated in a fairly healthy number of tournaments, I can say that
tournament coordinators who think it's a whee of good time to fiddle around
with the rules (_particularly_ deck construction rules) long after the
opportunity to advertise the rule changes has passed drive me nuts.
Tournaments rules should follow a simle maxim: if it's too late to advertise
a change in the rules, it's too late to change the rules - period.
("Catastropic" situations excepted.)

I really wish WotC would take the lead in this respect and lead by example.
I didn't think much of the last-minute prohibition of expansions at last
year's Magic National Championship and I don't think much of WotC throwing
card limits into what was advertised a Convocation-rules Jyhad tournament "for
the heck of it". People travel hundreds of miles with their decks tuned under
the set of rules they understood to be in effect and some guy decides to change
those rules for reasons we still don't quite understand. That really shouldn't
happen, IMHO.

Fred

Alan Kwan

unread,
Sep 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/3/95
to
In article <4249hb$c...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:

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

>>Card errata is a *bad thing*, and generally
>>only done if there is an actual error, or a game imbalance that can't be solved
>>without errata. If you disagree with this position on issuing card errata,
>>then it only means that we disagree on this position. It doesn't mean that
>>we don't care about the game.

>I *do* agree with that position.

So do I. Players who really feel like it, can always use house
rules.

But, what about the card errata on Cat Burglary, which has been issued (IMO)
to `cover up' for a mis-rule and mis-errata? What about Army of Rats
(Hello, Net Elders; how many of you think that the AOR `errata' is
/really/ necessary)?

--
"Live Life with Heart."

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

CurtAdams

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

>(Hello, Net Elders; how many of you think that the AOR `errata' is
>/really/ necessary)?

Hi Alan,

Wish you hadn't directed the question to "Net Elders" because I can't
answer it without seeming arrogant.

But, that never bothered me before :-), so:

With the current Earth Meld and Form of Mist:
Yes, it IS necessary.

With EM and FoM fixed, as they need to be:
No, it is NOT necessary.

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

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/5/95
to

Alec Habig <aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>>It would be a nice gesture on the part of WotC to provide a Vampire-dedicated
>>answer person, as I assume they will do once Nethack ever gets released.
> ^^^^^^^
>Whoa - Nethack?
>Is that what they're calling their long-awaited cyberpunk game?

No. The current name for it is Netrunner, not nethack. The name comes from
the appropriate character class in the Cyberpunk RPG.

>The last thing we need is yet another midstream name-change. Not to mention
>the fact that this would be a great disservice to one of the best computer
>games of all time.

Amen to that!

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Sep 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/5/95
to

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>But, what about the card errata on Cat Burglary, which has been issued (IMO)
>to `cover up' for a mis-rule and mis-errata? What about Army of Rats
>(Hello, Net Elders; how many of you think that the AOR `errata' is
>/really/ necessary)?

Well, those are cases where we did feel the errata was necessary. I know
that Army of Rats was an "oops", for example. Issues of play balance aside,
it really should have been printed as non-cumulative, so it had errata.
Cat Burglarly was a case of a card failing to keep pace with changes to the
rules.

While I think most people would agree that we shouldn't be issuing errata
every time a card seems to be slightly tweaked, I think most people would
also agree that there are times when errata is needed. The main arguments
are over where to draw the line :)

James R. McClure Jr.

unread,
Sep 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/5/95
to
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:

> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>>(Hello, Net Elders; how many of you think that the AOR `errata' is
>>/really/ necessary)?
>
>With the current Earth Meld and Form of Mist:
>Yes, it IS necessary.
>
>With EM and FoM fixed, as they need to be:
>No, it is NOT necessary.

Peace Curt,

Why do you see EM & FoM linked to AoR? I don't see how fixing EM & FoM
would make AoR 'weak' as errata'd. I believe that AoR needs to be non-
cumulative to prevent Gangrel from just sitting around and draining their
prey with no effort. Gangrel can afford to sit on their multiple AoRs
and block minions trying to burn them.

CurtAdams

unread,
Sep 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/5/95
to
"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>
writes:

>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:

>>>(Hello, (active net posters); how many of you think that the AOR
`errata' is
>>>/really/ necessary)?


>>With the current Earth Meld and Form of Mist:
>>Yes, it IS necessary.
>>With EM and FoM fixed, as they need to be:
>>No, it is NOT necessary.

>Why do you see EM & FoM linked to AoR? I don't see how fixing EM & FoM


>would make AoR 'weak' as errata'd.

(arguments for his position deleted)

You and Alan went over this last spring. My arguments would be roughly
the same as Alan's and neither of you changed your position. If you want
to reopen this, we can, but frankly it probably wouldn't matter even if
one of us won anyway.

I was just putting out my opinion, as per Alan's request. You should sign
on with approval for the errata.

Better, perhaps, would be to move the whole thing onto the house rules
list, e.g.

"
AoR is cumulative

[ASWK] [CSA]
-JRM-
"

since the house rules list seems perfect for this kind of thing and
bandwidth is scarce.


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

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
Tom, any word on further clarification to the following?

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

>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
Tom, any word from the design team on clarifications to the following?

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:

>>(from SHWT): Can Retainers damage Retainers (with R damage)?

>Both versions of the rules (V:TES and corrected Jyhad) imply that the answer
>is no, but don't come out and say it, so I'll have to double check that.

True, but WotC-issued errata says that damage from retainers (specifically
Murder of Crows and Wolf Companion, presumably extending to Ghoul Retainer)
says that the Retainers should be read as "Does 1(R) extra damage during
strike resolution for vampire employing it." [DTR 11/9/94]

Which says that the damage is coming from the Vampire.

Which (in the case of Crows and Ghouls with Guns) means that the Ranged
damage is coming from an Minion and can target opposing Vampire's Retainers.

Thomas R Wylie

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

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>True, but WotC-issued errata says that damage from retainers (specifically
>Murder of Crows and Wolf Companion, presumably extending to Ghoul Retainer)
>says that the Retainers should be read as "Does 1(R) extra damage during
>strike resolution for vampire employing it." [DTR 11/9/94]
>Which says that the damage is coming from the Vampire.

Where are you getting that ruling from? The 11/9/94 DTR, or at least the
copy I have, doesn't say anything about the Crows and the Wolf at all.
And the October 94 DTR explicitly states that the damage from such a
retainer is "not a strike" and can't be dodged, which basically means that
it's not part of any strike, not even that of the employing minion.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
In article <42jiae$j...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>True, but WotC-issued errata says that damage from retainers (specifically
>>Murder of Crows and Wolf Companion, presumably extending to Ghoul Retainer)
>>says that the Retainers should be read as "Does 1(R) extra damage during
>>strike resolution for vampire employing it." [DTR 11/9/94]
>>Which says that the damage is coming from the Vampire.
>
>Where are you getting that ruling from? The 11/9/94 DTR, or at least the
>copy I have, doesn't say anything about the Crows and the Wolf at all.
>And the October 94 DTR explicitly states that the damage from such a
>retainer is "not a strike" and can't be dodged, which basically means that
>it's not part of any strike, not even that of the employing minion.

Sorry, it was from the 11/9/94 Errata sheet, not the DTR:

From: aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.deckmaster,alt.games.jyhad
Subject: REPOST/UPDATE: Errata to cards for Jyhad
Date: 9 Nov 1994 12:52:59 -0800
Message-ID: <39rcrb$s...@perv.hal.COM>

New or modified entries since 11/9/94 are marked with a +++.
This version incorporates errata found in Duelist #3, page 79.

Simple printing errors such as having the wrong color border (the Accounting)
or having the card name misspelled (Psychic Projection) aren't listed here.
A couple of these are more for clarification than necessary errata...

[...]

Murder of Crows:
Should be read as "Does 1R extra damage during strike resolution
for vampire employing it."

[...]

Wolf Companion:
Read as "Does 1 extra dmage during strike resolution for
vampire employing it."

--

Thomas R Wylie

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

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>Simple printing errors such as having the wrong color border (the Accounting)
>or having the card name misspelled (Psychic Projection) aren't listed here.
>A couple of these are more for clarification than necessary errata...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>[...]
>
>Murder of Crows:
> Should be read as "Does 1R extra damage during strike resolution
> for vampire employing it."
>
>[...]
>
>Wolf Companion:
> Read as "Does 1 extra dmage during strike resolution for
> vampire employing it."

These two would fall more into the "clarification" category. And actually,
I'm not even sure that the "for vampire employing it" is supposed to clarify.
But the Wolf and the Crows are dealing the damage themselves. This is
the intent of the card; this is how the VTES versions are written. The
"for" in the quote-unquote errata should be read as "on behalf of".

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
In article <42kog6$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>>I believe that Brujah Frenzy simply begins the combat, and there is no
>>>time to play further action modifiers or reactions before that combat
>>>begins, so there would not be time to play the Mask on that.
>>So the Brujah couldn't play other Action Mods, such as
>>Dawn Operation or Freak Drive?
>
>Right.

>
>>And the target "blocker" couldn't play Reaction cards like
>>Cat's Guidance (which now must be played before Combat) or Obedience?
>
>Also correct.

>
>>That doesn't seem right.
>
>Well, remember, the Brujah just drops into Frenzy. It's not really expecting
>to drop in, and neither is its victim. From a role-playing perspective,

The victim of a Bum's Rush *is* expecting it?

>the Brujah wouldn't have time to prepare itself for a Day Op ("hm, I think
>I'll just let my Frenzy simmer for a few hours while I psych myself up for
>a day job"? I don't think so), and it's not at all inclined to be obedient

How would you rule on:

1. My brujah bleeds you with a Day Operation (this action cannot be blocked).
2. I Frenzy your brujah (this action is blocked). !Contradiction!

After the action is completed (the combat ends) the acting Brujah goes to
torpor according to text on Day Operation. But the vampire fightng him
in broad daylight is fine. OK.

Or:

1. My brujah bleeds you with a Dawn Operation (all damage is aggravated)
2. I Frenzy your Brujah (this action is blocked)

Now, suddenly, the Brujah was *not* acting at Dawn? Curioser and Curiouser.

>to anything. And from a game-mechanics perspective, effects in V:TES simply
>take effect as soon as they resolve, with reactions being impossible except
>in specific cases like Sudden Reversal.


>
>>"Attempt to Block" is text from Camarilla Exemplary.
>>Archon says that Blocking the Vampire costs one (Methuselah) pool.
>>The vampire has been blocked - card text requires someone to pay.
>

>The Frenzied Brujah has *not* been blocked. Combat has simply started,
>just as if the Brujah had played a Bum's Rush that was never blocked.
>The action the Brujah was taking is blocked for purposes of being an
>unsuccessful action (i.e. no pool would be lost if the action was a bleed),
>but the other minion is just a victim of the action, not jumping up and
>blocking the Brujah. Remember, the card is acting on the Brujah, not
>on the victim.

This whole argument is counter to the card text on Brujah Frenzy.
"The Action is Blocked"
and the card is definately acting on both the victim and the Brujah
"Tap the target Vampire" or somesuch.
Since combat does not in-and-of-itself tap a vampire, it seems the card
is acting on the victim, in a apparent attempt to emulate blocking.

-----

How about a nice, consistent ruling like the following?

Brujah Frenzy -
The action is blocked (card text).
The target vampire is the blocker (apparent emulation).
Any Action Modifiers/Reactions normally allowed on a Block are permissible.
(consistency).

There. No convolutions, nothing new to remember, just a straightforward
application of precedent.

Thomas R Wylie

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

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>I believe that Brujah Frenzy simply begins the combat, and there is no
>>time to play further action modifiers or reactions before that combat
>>begins, so there would not be time to play the Mask on that.
>So the Brujah couldn't play other Action Mods, such as
>Dawn Operation or Freak Drive?

Right.

>And the target "blocker" couldn't play Reaction cards like
>Cat's Guidance (which now must be played before Combat) or Obedience?

Also correct.

>That doesn't seem right.

Well, remember, the Brujah just drops into Frenzy. It's not really expecting
to drop in, and neither is its victim. From a role-playing perspective,

the Brujah wouldn't have time to prepare itself for a Day Op ("hm, I think
I'll just let my Frenzy simmer for a few hours while I psych myself up for
a day job"? I don't think so), and it's not at all inclined to be obedient

to anything. And from a game-mechanics perspective, effects in V:TES simply
take effect as soon as they resolve, with reactions being impossible except
in specific cases like Sudden Reversal.

>"Attempt to Block" is text from Camarilla Exemplary.
>Archon says that Blocking the Vampire costs one (Methuselah) pool.
>The vampire has been blocked - card text requires someone to pay.

The Frenzied Brujah has *not* been blocked. Combat has simply started,
just as if the Brujah had played a Bum's Rush that was never blocked.
The action the Brujah was taking is blocked for purposes of being an
unsuccessful action (i.e. no pool would be lost if the action was a bleed),
but the other minion is just a victim of the action, not jumping up and
blocking the Brujah. Remember, the card is acting on the Brujah, not
on the victim.

>OK - now I'm getting you confused (this is too complicated :-). Sorry.


>Either Mask 1K can be used or it can't. The fact that now an Aching Beauty
>is attempting to Mask shouldn't change the ability to play a Mask at all.

The Mask wouldn't be usable.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/7/95
to
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>>A couple of these are more for clarification than necessary errata...
>>Wolf Companion:
>> Read as "Does 1 extra dmage during strike resolution for
>> vampire employing it."
>These two would fall more into the "clarification" category. And actually,
>I'm not even sure that the "for vampire employing it" is supposed to clarify.
>But the Wolf and the Crows are dealing the damage themselves. This is
>the intent of the card; this is how the VTES versions are written. The
>"for" in the quote-unquote errata should be read as "on behalf of".

Then I certainly don't understand why any of the original "errata" was
issued at all - it certainly doesn't clear up anything. Glad you guys
have gotten better since then :-).

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/10/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
:
: >This whole argument is counter to the card text on Brujah Frenzy.


: >"The Action is Blocked"
: >and the card is definately acting on both the victim and the Brujah
: >"Tap the target Vampire" or somesuch.

: >Since combat does not in-and-of-itself tap a vampire, it seems the card
: >is acting on the victim, in a apparent attempt to emulate blocking.

: It is not really trying to emulate blocking, as much as it is stopping
: the Brujah from acting successfully despite the fact that it is now
: foaming at the mouth, and doing its best to pound some poor fool
: into the dirt.

I've gotta go with Scott on this one: You have repeatedly said that
combat in and of itself does not tap a minion. A victim of a Bum's
Rush is not tapped. Why is the 'victim' of the Brujah's frenzy tapped?

: >How about a nice, consistent ruling like the following?


: >Brujah Frenzy -
: > The action is blocked (card text).
: > The target vampire is the blocker (apparent emulation).
: > Any Action Modifiers/Reactions normally allowed on a Block are permissible.
: > (consistency).
: >There. No convolutions, nothing new to remember, just a straightforward
: >application of precedent.

: No, there would be something new to remember, namely the added stipulation
: that the target minion is blocking. The card text says nothing about this.

Card text also says nothing about the fact that Reactions/Action
Modifiers may not be used, but you seem to have no problem whatsoever
adding _that_ stipulation for people to remember...

Since one is adding things _anyway_, no matter which way one rules, why
not make it consistent and _easier to remember_?

Adding to the end of the sentence, "This action is blocked" the words,
"... and the second vampire named is considered to be the blocker." seems
a lot easier to remember and more straightforward than any other
convolutions...

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


Thomas R Wylie

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

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>Well, remember, the Brujah just drops into Frenzy. It's not really expecting
>>to drop in, and neither is its victim. From a role-playing perspective,
>The victim of a Bum's Rush *is* expecting it?

Bum's Rush is basically setting up a trap for the target, and it takes
time to properly set up a trap, and arrange for the victim to walk into it.
It could conceivably take weeks for this to happen, if the victim is
paranoid enough. Contrast this to a Brujah's frenzy, which kicks in at
the drop of a hat and with little to no warning.

>How would you rule on:
>1. My brujah bleeds you with a Day Operation (this action cannot be blocked).
>2. I Frenzy your brujah (this action is blocked). !Contradiction!

Brujah Frenzy breaks the rules and orders the action to be considered
blocked. It does not order the victim to be a blocking minion, so don't
worry so much about whether it could have blocked the Brujah normally.

>After the action is completed (the combat ends) the acting Brujah goes to
>torpor according to text on Day Operation. But the vampire fightng him
>in broad daylight is fine. OK.

*shrug* bizarre interactions will happen occasionally. That's the price
of allowing cards to break the rules, and in my opinion a more than
aceptable price, given the amount that rules-breaking adds to the game.

>This whole argument is counter to the card text on Brujah Frenzy.
>"The Action is Blocked"
>and the card is definately acting on both the victim and the Brujah
>"Tap the target Vampire" or somesuch.
>Since combat does not in-and-of-itself tap a vampire, it seems the card
>is acting on the victim, in a apparent attempt to emulate blocking.

It is not really trying to emulate blocking, as much as it is stopping
the Brujah from acting successfully despite the fact that it is now
foaming at the mouth, and doing its best to pound some poor fool
into the dirt.

>How about a nice, consistent ruling like the following?


>Brujah Frenzy -
> The action is blocked (card text).
> The target vampire is the blocker (apparent emulation).
> Any Action Modifiers/Reactions normally allowed on a Block are permissible.
> (consistency).
>There. No convolutions, nothing new to remember, just a straightforward
>application of precedent.

No, there would be something new to remember, namely the added stipulation
that the target minion is blocking. The card text says nothing about this.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Sep 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/11/95
to
In article <42u2rl$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>Well, remember, the Brujah just drops into Frenzy. It's not really expecting
>>>to drop in, and neither is its victim. From a role-playing perspective,
>>The victim of a Bum's Rush *is* expecting it?
>
>Bum's Rush is basically setting up a trap for the target, and it takes
>time to properly set up a trap, and arrange for the victim to walk into it.
>It could conceivably take weeks for this to happen, if the victim is
>paranoid enough. Contrast this to a Brujah's frenzy, which kicks in at
>the drop of a hat and with little to no warning.

So why is the victim tapped in the case of a non-well-planned attack and
not tapped in the case of a set-up?

>>This whole argument is counter to the card text on Brujah Frenzy.
>>"The Action is Blocked"
>>and the card is definately acting on both the victim and the Brujah
>>"Tap the target Vampire" or somesuch.
>>Since combat does not in-and-of-itself tap a vampire, it seems the card
>>is acting on the victim, in a apparent attempt to emulate blocking.
>
>It is not really trying to emulate blocking, as much as it is stopping
>the Brujah from acting successfully despite the fact that it is now
>foaming at the mouth, and doing its best to pound some poor fool
>into the dirt.

If it isn't trying to emulate blocking, why does it tap the defender?

Thomas R Wylie

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

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>It is not really trying to emulate blocking, as much as it is stopping
>>the Brujah from acting successfully despite the fact that it is now
>>foaming at the mouth, and doing its best to pound some poor fool
>>into the dirt.
>If it isn't trying to emulate blocking, why does it tap the defender?

Probably someone got stuck into emulate-blocking thinking during development,
so had that part added to the card.

Once again, if you read between the lines and look at the card concept,
the Brujah is clearly running off on its own and jumping some other minion.
This is a very different process than that second minion going out and
figuring out what the Brujah is doing and then interfering with those
plans (i.e., blocking).

L. Scott Johnson

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

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>It is not really trying to emulate blocking, as much as it is stopping
>>>the Brujah from acting successfully despite the fact that it is now
>>>foaming at the mouth, and doing its best to pound some poor fool
>>>into the dirt.
>>If it isn't trying to emulate blocking, why does it tap the defender?
>
>Probably someone got stuck into emulate-blocking thinking during development,
>so had that part added to the card.
>
>Once again, if you read between the lines and look at the card concept,
>the Brujah is clearly running off on its own and jumping some other minion.
>This is a very different process than that second minion going out and
>figuring out what the Brujah is doing and then interfering with those
>plans (i.e., blocking).
>

So it's equivalent to a Bum's Rush and has no business tapping the target
victim.

Shane Travis

unread,
Sep 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/14/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:

: >If it isn't trying to emulate blocking, why does it tap the defender?

: Probably someone got stuck into emulate-blocking thinking during development,
: so had that part added to the card.

Okay. So now we have three errata to this card:

1) Defender is not supposed to tap.
2) Defender may not use reactions.
3) Brujah may not use further action modifiers.

Seems to me that this _has_ to be over the DT 'Errata threshold'....

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages