[Q] Mult. Walks through Arcadia

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Jack Crow

unread,
Jul 28, 2001, 8:49:53 PM7/28/01
to
You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right?

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 28, 2001, 9:05:42 PM7/28/01
to
In message <3b635c8d...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes

>You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right?

What else would you suggest doing with them?

If, however, you mean playing multiple on one action, no.

If you mean playing one on each of several actions, why wouldn't you be
able to?

--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6
YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

Sorrow

unread,
Jul 29, 2001, 8:54:30 AM7/29/01
to
> >You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right?
> If, however, you mean playing multiple on one action, no.

You can play multiples on the same action if you use
Mask, correct?

Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood
Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood
Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is
unblockable.

Yes?

Sorrow
---
If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on,
you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made
your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you
from the earth.


LSJ

unread,
Jul 29, 2001, 5:49:40 PM7/29/01
to
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > >You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right?
> > If, however, you mean playing multiple on one action, no.
>
> You can play multiples on the same action if you use
> Mask, correct?
>
> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood
> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood
> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is
> unblockable.
>
> Yes?

The restriction is "per minion", yes.

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 29, 2001, 8:57:37 PM7/29/01
to
In message <3B6484F4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
wolf.com> writes

>> You can play multiples on the same action if you use
>> Mask, correct?
>>
>> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood
>> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood
>> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is
>> unblockable.
>>
>> Yes?
>
>The restriction is "per minion", yes.

How does :

"Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been
played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking
vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already
been spent.) [RTR 19980623] "

interact with this? I couldn't have played both WtA, as minion C.

LSJ

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 8:01:11 AM7/30/01
to
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3B6484F4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> You can play multiples on the same action if you use
> >> Mask, correct?
> >>
> >> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood
> >> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood
> >> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is
> >> unblockable.
> >>
> >> Yes?
> >
> >The restriction is "per minion", yes.
>
> How does :
>
> "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
> capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been
> played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking
> vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already
> been spent.) [RTR 19980623] "
>
> interact with this? I couldn't have played both WtA, as minion C.

No, but there have been no action modifiers played that minion C
would not have played. He could've played the first. He could've played
the second (since he didn't actually play the first). And now he can
play the third (since he hasn't actually played one yet).

BernieTime

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 12:19:19 PM7/30/01
to
While it's keen that a player can play more than one
(of the same) action modifier by using Mask of 1000 faces,
doesn't it go against the spirit of section 6.2??
____________________________________________
"Any ready untapped minion you control can take an action. The
procedure for resolving an action is described in the following sections.
Note that action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time
in this process, as appropriate, subject to the restrictions on adding stealth
and intercept listed below and the restrictions against the same minion
playing the same action modifier or reaction card more than once
(see Minion Cards, sec. 1.6.3) and following the same sequencing strictures
of all effects (see General, sec. 1.6.1)."

MASK OF 1000 FACES:
Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion
(who is capable of performing the action). Untap the acting minion and tap
this vampire instead. Now this vampire is the acting minion. The action
resumes where it left off.
____________________________________________

It would seem that this is simply a loophole that is being exploited.

The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity,
why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier?

It's in truth the "same" minion, only the face has changed. By
allowing a stacking loophole it breaks down the integrity of the game.
Don't even get me started on minions being able to play action
modifiers while tapped (ie. cloak).


Them's my two pesos

Bernie Bresnahan
Prince of Lansing, MI.

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 12:23:50 PM7/30/01
to
In message <20010730121919...@ng-ck1.aol.com>, BernieTime
<berni...@aol.com> writes

>The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity,
>why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier?

Card text and rulings.

>It's in truth the "same" minion, only the face has changed.

In V:TES truth, it's been X different minions, the balancing
errata/ruling notwithstanding.

LSJ

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 12:36:46 PM7/30/01
to
BernieTime wrote:
>
> While it's keen that a player can play more than one
> (of the same) action modifier by using Mask of 1000 faces,
> doesn't it go against the spirit of section 6.2??
> [snip]

> The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity,
> why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier?

For the same reason that you don't have the new acting vampire pay the
blood costs of the previous acting minion's action modifiers and that
you allow a minion to wear two pairs of IR goggles.

Namely: it's a card game, not an RPG.

> It's in truth the "same" minion, only the face has changed. By
> allowing a stacking loophole it breaks down the integrity of the game.

In (card game) truth, it's a different minion.
By applying the rules precisely, the intergrity of the game is preserved.
The game attempts to model the WoD backstory. But certain concessions
are made to make/keep the game playable.
The integrity of the game should not be confused with the integrity of
the model.

A minion playing Illusions of the Kindred was, briefly, in combat. Even
though in the WoD "truth", it was just an illusion all along (maybe).

> Don't even get me started on minions being able to play action
> modifiers while tapped (ie. cloak).

Or, say, Lost in Crowds?
Most action modifiers become useless if you prohibit them from being
played by a tapped minion.

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 12:45:01 PM7/30/01
to
In message <9k42j2$btf$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>, Matt Latham
<mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> writes
>On a related note, is this scenario legal?

By card text, "combat occurs" as normal, following the resolution.

That suggests that the card is played immediately prior to entering
combat, after the phase for Mask has passed.

>Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?

This wouldn't be possible anyway. A block has been successful. Playing
stealth now isn't possible.

Matt Latham

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 12:35:40 PM7/30/01
to
On a related note, is this scenario legal?

Minion 1 announces Corruption
Minion x blocks
Minion 1 plays Venenation
Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
Minion 2 plays Venenation
Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
Minion 3 plays Venenation


Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?

Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor?

Matt


LSJ

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 12:42:41 PM7/30/01
to
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> On a related note, is this scenario legal?
>
> Minion 1 announces Corruption
> Minion x blocks
> Minion 1 plays Venenation
> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
> Minion 2 plays Venenation
> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
> Minion 3 plays Venenation

Yes.

> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?

This play is legal, but won't cause the action to
become unblocked. (See Venenation's card text).

> Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor?

The result is the same - minion 4 end up in combat with
the blocker.

Sorrow

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 1:30:34 PM7/30/01
to
> > On a related note, is this scenario legal?
> > Minion 1 announces Corruption
> > Minion x blocks
> > Minion 1 plays Venenation
> > Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
> > Minion 2 plays Venenation
> > Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
> > Minion 3 plays Venenation

Side note, I built a deck that uses this combo and Change of
Target. It's really nasty. Not only does the blocking minion
now have a horde of Venenations on it, but it didn't even get
into combat.

> > Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor?
> The result is the same - minion 4 end up in combat with
> the blocker.

Except, of course, in the case where there are enough
Venenations on the blocker to allow you to gain control
of the blocker thus bypassing combat (Venenation card
text).

Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden

BernieTime

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 1:36:17 PM7/30/01
to
>Matt Latham wrote:
>>
>> On a related note, is this scenario legal?
>>
>> Minion 1 announces Corruption
>> Minion x blocks
>> Minion 1 plays Venenation
>> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
>> Minion 2 plays Venenation
>> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
>> Minion 3 plays Venenation
>
>Yes.
>
>> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?
>
>This play is legal, but won't cause the action to
>become unblocked. (See Venenation's card text).
>
>> Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor?
>
>The result is the same - minion 4 end up in combat with
>the blocker.
>
>--
>LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com)

And at this point you play change of target leaving 4 corruption
counters on the blocking minion.

Plus, it would appear if you could build up enough corruption
counters (via Mask & Ven.), you could end combat taking
control of the target vampire.

Bernie B.
Sheriff of Lansing, MI.

LSJ

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 1:38:47 PM7/30/01
to
BernieTime wrote:
> >> Minion 1 announces Corruption
> >> Minion x blocks
> >> Minion 1 plays Venenation
> >> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
> >> Minion 2 plays Venenation
> >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
> >> Minion 3 plays Venenation

[snip]

> And at this point you play change of target leaving 4 corruption
> counters on the blocking minion.

Right.

> Plus, it would appear if you could build up enough corruption
> counters (via Mask & Ven.), you could end combat taking
> control of the target vampire.

Avoiding combat (instead of "ending" combat), yes.

Aaron

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 5:00:20 PM7/30/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B654C87...@white-wolf.com>...

> James Coupe wrote:
> > In message <3B6484F4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> > wolf.com> writes
> > >> You can play multiples on the same action if you use
> > >> Mask, correct?
> > >>
> > >> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood
> > >> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood
> > >> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is
> > >> unblockable.
> > >>
> > >> Yes?
> > >
> > >The restriction is "per minion", yes.
> >
> > How does :
> >
> > "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
> > capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been
> > played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking
> > vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already
> > been spent.) [RTR 19980623] "
> >
> > interact with this? I couldn't have played both WtA, as minion C.
>
> No, but there have been no action modifiers played that minion C
> would not have played. He could've played the first. He could've played
> the second (since he didn't actually play the first). And now he can
> play the third (since he hasn't actually played one yet).

I bleed with Govern the unaligned. I play superior Command of the
Beat. Mask it, second vampire plays superior CotB, third vampire
masks it, plays superior CotB and Conditioning. Bleed for 7?

I call a vote and play bewitching Oration, mask and play BO, mask
again play another BO for(assuming all superior) 13 total votes?

Seems Dangerously Cheezy.

Aaron.

Sorrow

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 5:04:01 PM7/30/01
to
> I bleed with Govern the unaligned. I play superior Command of the
> Beat. Mask it, second vampire plays superior CotB, third vampire
> masks it, plays superior CotB and Conditioning. Bleed for 7?

This is possible.
And now I finally have enough CotB to make it work. Horribly card
intensive, but funny! :)

> I call a vote and play bewitching Oration, mask and play BO, mask
> again play another BO for(assuming all superior) 13 total votes?

Nope, cannot work. The action is already successful (and past the
time that Mask can be played) but the time that BO can be played.
BO is only usable during the referrendum part of the action.

Sorrow
---
"Are they dead?" - Pugsly
"Does it matter?" - Wednesday


Noal McDonald

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 5:36:54 PM7/30/01
to
"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote:
> Minion 1 announces Corruption
> Minion x blocks
> Minion 1 plays Venenation
> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
> Minion 2 plays Venenation
> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
> Minion 3 plays Venenation
> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?

*eyes widen in fear*
Matt, you are a bad, bad man.

Regards,
Noal

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 2:25:08 AM7/31/01
to
In message <bb705c59.01073...@posting.google.com>, Noal
McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes

>> Minion 2 plays Venenation
>> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
>> Minion 3 plays Venenation
>> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?
>
>*eyes widen in fear*
>Matt, you are a bad, bad man.

I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not
"the rest of the block occurs as normal".

The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and
"combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is
played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started.

Reyda

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 6:34:13 AM7/31/01
to

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>

> >> Minion 2 plays Venenation
> >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
> >> Minion 3 plays Venenation
> >> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?

(snip)

> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not
> "the rest of the block occurs as normal".
>
> The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and
> "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is
> played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started.

I spent a long time meditating this, and i must admit that james coupe's
logic is the best for Venenation. I simply don't think there is space
between Venenation and "combat begins" to play another action modifier. A
ruling should be wise on that, should'nt it ? could we have LSJ going
backwards again ?

reyda

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 6:38:10 AM7/31/01
to
In message <9k613m$3pr$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes

>I spent a long time meditating this, and i must admit that james coupe's
>logic is the best for Venenation.

I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck that
basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I steal
you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you.

(Obviously, refining the deck for some defence, but you get the idea.)

I am, shall we say, uncomfortable with the possibility of four or five
Venenations per action, even if it is *very* card intensive, when the
previous Corruption archetype allows one per action, maximum.

It doesn't even have to be every action, of course. Just save a few up
and then catch them unawares.

"Oh well, I have 2 counters on this copy of Rake.... I think I can
afford a block with this 2nd Tradition."

*snatch*

"Oops."

Sorrow

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 7:47:11 AM7/31/01
to
> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not
> "the rest of the block occurs as normal".
> The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and
> "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is
> played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started.

If this were the case, it would preclude the use of any other Action
Mods that are used just before combat begins (ie, Change of Target).
Since you can (and should be able to) use Change of Target after
you play Venenation, it follows that you can use any other Action
Mode (ie, Mask).

Sorrow

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 7:52:15 AM7/31/01
to
> I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck that
> basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I steal
> you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you.

Except if you have nothing but Mask and Venenation, you won't be
bleeding for more than one. Plus, Venenation costs a blood so you'll
have to be hunting pretty often. Finally, there aren't that many weenies
that have Serpentis. And if you pack a whole bunch of Skill cards
you'll still be hunting because the Path of Typhon only works with FoS.

> I am, shall we say, uncomfortable with the possibility of four or five
> Venenations per action, even if it is *very* card intensive, when the
> previous Corruption archetype allows one per action, maximum.
> It doesn't even have to be every action, of course. Just save a few up
> and then catch them unawares.

I've a deck that does this. And yes, it can be (and has been on
a few occasions) very nasty. However, as you point out, it is *very*
card intensive. I've prolly 20+ Venenations in the deck and I think
12 Masks. The most I've ever played in one action was 3. And the
most minions I've ever stolen with this deck in one game: 4. And
only cuz they were smallish. I played this deck on Sunday against
a Lasombra prey and was only able to steal Cameron. Couldn't quite
pull enough to steal either Alvaro or Lucita.

Sorrow
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------


LSJ

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 8:57:50 AM7/31/01
to
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <bb705c59.01073...@posting.google.com>, Noal
> McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes
> >> Minion 2 plays Venenation
> >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
> >> Minion 3 plays Venenation
> >> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds?
> >
> >*eyes widen in fear*
> >Matt, you are a bad, bad man.
>
> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not
> "the rest of the block occurs as normal".

The "as normal" is the key.

> The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and
> "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is
> played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started.

I see the implication of "as normal" as just remining the player that
the combat occurs as normal - at it's normal time and everything.
Not that the combat is somehow shuffled forward.

LSJ

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 9:01:09 AM7/31/01
to
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > I bleed with Govern the unaligned. I play superior Command of the
> > Beat. Mask it, second vampire plays superior CotB, third vampire
> > masks it, plays superior CotB and Conditioning. Bleed for 7?
>
> This is possible.
> And now I finally have enough CotB to make it work. Horribly card
> intensive, but funny! :)

Correct, except that the bleed is for 9 in the example (assuming
Conditioning is played in superior as well).

All you need is a bunch of vampires standing around with obf and DOM.
Which is scary all by itself, without the 7-card combo.

> > I call a vote and play bewitching Oration, mask and play BO, mask
> > again play another BO for(assuming all superior) 13 total votes?
>
> Nope, cannot work. The action is already successful (and past the
> time that Mask can be played) but the time that BO can be played.
> BO is only usable during the referrendum part of the action.

Correct.

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 2:21:32 PM7/31/01
to
In message <3B66AB4E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
wolf.com> writes

>> >*eyes widen in fear*
>> >Matt, you are a bad, bad man.
>>
>> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not
>> "the rest of the block occurs as normal".
>
>The "as normal" is the key.

How is combat "canceled" [typo] then, if there is no combat to be
cancelled?

LSJ

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 3:14:26 PM7/31/01
to
James Coupe wrote:
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes

> >> >*eyes widen in fear*
> >> >Matt, you are a bad, bad man.
> >>
> >> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not
> >> "the rest of the block occurs as normal".
> >
> >The "as normal" is the key.
>
> How is combat "canceled" [typo] then, if there is no combat to be
> cancelled?

Canceled (one ell) is the preferred spelling, not a typo.
Consulting m-w.com before issuing spelling corrections is a good way
to save face.

Combat occurs if a block succeeds. [6.2.3]

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 3:31:27 PM7/31/01
to
In message <3B670392...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
wolf.com> writes

>Combat occurs if a block succeeds. [6.2.3]

But we have established that the combat is not occurring nor is about to
occur.

There is, currently, no combat to cancel.

I can cancel a card as it is played (DI), I can cancel an action in
progress, I can cancel a Political Action that is in the referendum.

How can I cancel a combat that does not exist?

LSJ

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 3:47:51 PM7/31/01
to
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3B670392...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >Combat occurs if a block succeeds. [6.2.3]
>
> But we have established that the combat is not occurring nor is about to
> occur.

I do not concur.

> There is, currently, no combat to cancel.

The successful block says there is a combat. [6.2.3]

> I can cancel a card as it is played (DI), I can cancel an action in
> progress, I can cancel a Political Action that is in the referendum.
>
> How can I cancel a combat that does not exist?

You cancel the combat that occurs as a result of the successful block.

cf. Blood Brother Ambush, Canopic Jar, Change of Target, Clan Loyalty,
Malleable Visage, Obedience, Red Herring, Set's Call, and Voice of Madness

Xian

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 5:35:11 PM7/31/01
to

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:f5VnjixS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...

> I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck
that
> basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I
steal
> you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you.

Don't block? :)

> (Obviously, refining the deck for some defence, but you get the
idea.)

I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary.
Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and
you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And
then there's always deflection.

Though a Sensory Dep/Venenation/Mask deck would invite lots of blocks.
Of course, you probably couldn't do it with weenies.

Xian


Sorrow

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 5:45:18 PM7/31/01
to
> > you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you.
> Don't block? :)

That has screwed me more times that I can count. Though, what I
ended up doing was put in Social Charms and Enchant Kindred to
provoke the block. However, that meant I had to cut down on the
Venenations.

> I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary.
> Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and
> you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And
> then there's always deflection.

That and pool gain.

I'll post my deck later tonight when I get home for comment.

Sorrow
---
"Our fathers were our models for God.
If they bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to be
prepared for the possibility that God does not like you."
- Tyler Durden

Jack Crow

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 2:12:45 AM8/1/01
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:36:46 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:

>BernieTime wrote:
>>
>> While it's keen that a player can play more than one
>> (of the same) action modifier by using Mask of 1000 faces,
>> doesn't it go against the spirit of section 6.2??
>> [snip]
>> The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity,
>> why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier?

It is not clear to me via your logic, so I must ask...

Minion 1 announces Corruption
Minion x blocks
Minion 1 plays Venenation
Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor

Minion 2 plays Venenation
Minion 1 plays Mask at minor
Minion 1 plays Venenation
ad nauseum...

Legal?

Sorrow

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 7:11:05 AM8/1/01
to
> It is not clear to me via your logic, so I must ask...
> Minion 1 announces Corruption
> Minion x blocks
> Minion 1 plays Venenation
> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
> Minion 2 plays Venenation
> Minion 1 plays Mask at minor
> Minion 1 plays Venenation
> ad nauseum...
> Legal?

Yes, but each minion can play Mask and Venenation
but once.

Sorrow
---
"This is my costume.
I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else."
-- Wednesday Addams


Sorrow

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 9:26:36 AM8/1/01
to
> > I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary.
> > Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and
> > you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And
> > then there's always deflection.
> I'll post my deck later tonight when I get home for comment.

Here's my deck. Comments welcome:

Crypt:
1x Celine Chevalier 3 obf ser
1x Lalitha 2 ser
1x Qufur am-Heru 7 OBF SER PRE - burn-recycle
1x Khalil Anvari 3 ser pre
1x Count Ormonde 5 OBF ser pre
1x Sir Marriot D'Urban 5 obf ser PRE
2x Nepata 4 obf ser pre
2x Samat Ramal-Ra, Archon - OBF ser pre - Free Bloodhunt
2x Hesha Ruhadze 6 obf SER pre - Hunting +1 stealth +1 blood

Library:
1x Powerbase: Montreal
1x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x Temple Hunting Ground
2x Visit from the Capuchin
3x Blood Doll
2x Khobar Towers, Al-Khubar
2x The Path of Typhon
2x Presence
2x Serpentis
3x Social Charm
7x Corruption (for when they stop blocking)
3x Enchant Kindred
16x Venenation
8x Change of Target
6x Aire of Elation
10x Mask of 1k Faces
7x Majesty
6x Catatonic Fear
6x Ecstacy
2x Delaying Tactics

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 10:47:15 AM8/1/01
to
In message <3b679c72....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes

>It is not clear to me via your logic, so I must ask...
>
>Minion 1 announces Corruption
>Minion x blocks
>Minion 1 plays Venenation
>Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
>Minion 2 plays Venenation
>Minion 1 plays Mask at minor
>Minion 1 plays Venenation
>ad nauseum...
>
>Legal?

Minion one has now played Venenation twice, which is illegal. [1.6.3.2]

This is a *very* basic rule. I would suggest you put down the Java
coding and *read the rules*.

Simidh

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 3:40:09 PM8/1/01
to
"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<gsT97.354$5d.4...@newshog.newsread.com>...


Hehe, you're an evil man Sorrow >;->

I suspect you play that corruption card with a loosely veiled threat,
of 'would you care to block that?' and an evil glint in your eye? >;->

Simidh --> Glad to be back on the newsgroup after much hassle with
access to it via normal news servers (thanks google)

Talo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 4:08:01 PM8/1/01
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:42:41 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:

>Matt Latham wrote:
>>
>> On a related note, is this scenario legal?
>>
>> Minion 1 announces Corruption
>> Minion x blocks
>> Minion 1 plays Venenation
>> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
>> Minion 2 plays Venenation
>> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor
>> Minion 3 plays Venenation
>
>Yes.

Wait a second. That makes NO sense.

Time for a Mask rewrite then. So that the masking vamp cannot play
action modifiers already played for that action.

T

Jack Crow

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 6:20:35 PM8/1/01
to
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:47:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

Do not treat me like an idiot. I will ask what I like for my own
reasons. Your answers are noted. I'm surprised that people continue to
make the same comments "read the rules Jack" as if I didnt hear that
the first 10 times.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 6:58:41 PM8/1/01
to
In message <3b687ea3....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes

>>Minion one has now played Venenation twice, which is illegal. [1.6.3.2]
>>
>>This is a *very* basic rule. I would suggest you put down the Java
>>coding and *read the rules*.
>
>Do not treat me like an idiot.

You get treated in a manner consistent with your actions. Cause brings
about effect, and all that.

You very, very clearly don't understand the basic rules of the game.
Your time would be better spent learning the game rather than typing
Java commands.

Jack Crow

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 7:06:18 PM8/1/01
to
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:58:41 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3b687ea3....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow

And you are clearly wrong. Do not claim your opinion as fact, you know
the difference.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 7:18:56 PM8/1/01
to
In message <3b6889e0....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes

>And you are clearly wrong. Do not claim your opinion as fact, you know
>the difference.

If you understand the basic rules of the game, why are you wasting
people's time with questions that you obviously already know the answer
to because 1.6.3.3 makes it quite clear that the play you stated was
completely illegal?

Jack Crow

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 7:56:21 PM8/1/01
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:18:56 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3b6889e0....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow

Since I'm a professional programmer, I obviously know nothing about
logic or logical processes.

Normal performs ArbitraryActionModifier
Lucretia masks and performs AAM as she is not considered the acting
vampire. She is considered a new minion with her own unique 'history'.
Normal masks...

There is no logical reason that Normal should not be able to perform
the AAM. It is not automatically 'implied' that new Normal is the
original acting minion Normal. The fact that VTES considers the new
Normal as the same Normal who began, inheriting it's history so to
speak, is a leap in logic.

The 2 processes simply differ, as can be described in a number of
ways. Email me. I can demonstrate the paradox of assuming the first
Normal is the second Normal using a number of real world instances
involving rudimentary physics, if you like.

Just because it is something you take for granted, does not mean I
agree or assume it without doubt. I ask to clarify. You need only
answer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 8:14:49 PM8/1/01
to
In message <3b689624....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes

>There is no logical reason that Normal should not be able to perform
>the AAM. It is not automatically 'implied' that new Normal is the
>original acting minion Normal.

Of course it is.

It's the same copy of the same vampire. The rules is one named action
modifier per minion per action.

It's the same minion because, er, it's the same minion. How could it be
anything else? Who started an action is irrelevant. A minion is a
minion is a minion. A minion cannot play the same action modifier twice
during the same action.

Has Normal already played that action modifier before on this action?
Yes.

Derek Ray

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 10:56:01 PM8/1/01
to
On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:20:35 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:47:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:
>

>>Minion one has now played Venenation twice, which is illegal. [1.6.3.2]
>>
>>This is a *very* basic rule. I would suggest you put down the Java
>>coding and *read the rules*.
>

>Do not treat me like an idiot. I will ask what I like for my own
>reasons. Your answers are noted. I'm surprised that people continue to
>make the same comments "read the rules Jack" as if I didnt hear that
>the first 10 times.

STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM


I took exception to your recent _X_ post to ___r.g.t-c.jyhad___.
(newsgroup)
___ email

It was (check all that apply):

___ lame.
_X_ stupid.
_X_ boring.
_X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be
capable.

Your attention is drawn to the fact that:

_X_ what you posted/said has been done before.
_X_ Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
___ your post/mail was a pathetic imitation of ___________________.
(net.personality)
___ your post/mail was intended to be email/a post.
_X_ your post was obviously flamebait.
___ your post referred to the newsgroup as a Board, BBoard, BBS, SIG
or Notesfile.
___ your post contained commercial advertising.
THE FINE FOR THIS IS $100. Please remit immediately to:
Derek Ray
755 Hank Aaron Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30316
or your posting privileges will be canceled.
___ your post/letter contained numerous spelling errors.
___ you deliberately misspelled 4 letter Anglo-Saxon words to
slither the article past the moderators.
___ your post/letter contained "y"s substituted for random vowels.
___ which made it unintelligible.
___ your post/letter contained "q"s substituted for random "k"s,
"c"s or "ck"s
___ you spell-checked but it obviously substituted incorrect
word(s) with a similar sound/spelling for your misspelled
word(s) rather than the correct spelling.
___ Feeble attempt at Dan Quayle humor.
_X_ your post/letter contained multiple grammatical errors.
___ your post/letter served no purpose other than to correct
spelling/grammatical errors of another article/letter.
___ YOUR POST CONTAINED EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION AND/OR
PUNCTUATION!!!!!
_X_ your post was a Garbage Post.
___ CRAP (just plain CRAP)
___ CRAP (deluxe mocha CRAP)
_X_ 100% USDA CRAP
_X_ (picture of trash can)
___ all of the above.
___ you created a new topic that should have been a followup to
another article.
___ Deliberately.
___ You don't know the difference between "Post" and "Follow-up".
___ You were too lazy to look for the existing article.
___ and you asked the moderators to find the article and move
it for you.
___ you created a new topic designed to generate replies and set
followups to a different newsgroup.
___ You set followups to alt.test or misc.test.
___ You set followups to alt.sex.(anything).
___ You set followups to a group holding a completely opposite
view, (ie, an article about Wicca and paganism with followups
set to soc.religion.southern-baptist) hoping to generate a
flame war.
___ and if my argument had as little substance as yours, I would
too, in the hope that nobody would be able to show me up.
___ 'Hit and Run' posting: you cancelled your article after it
generated several replies.
___ ...which was a good thing because you looked like a fool.
___ you quoted an article in followup and added no new text.
___ you quoted an article in followup and only added the
line "Me, too!!!"
_X_ you quoted _29_ lines of text in followup and only added _4_ lines.
___ you predicted the "Immanent Death of the Net[tm]" (sic).
___ *without* adding "<form of representation> at 11".
___ you asked for replies via email because you "don't read
this group".
_X_ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you.
_X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
___ your lines are 80 columns wide or wider... consistently.
___ you forgot which newsgroup this was.
_X_ you have a lame login name.
_X_ your machine has a stupid name.
___ your name signed at the end contains silly extraneous punctuation.
___ your article contains a PGP signature.
___ that exceeds the length of the article itself.
___ the PGP fingerprint was just random hex digits anyway.
___ and you assumed that anyone really cared if it was really you.
___ you included a USENET .sig .
___ your .sig is longer than four lines.
___ And your newsreader truncated it.
___ your .sig is wider than 80 columns.
___ your .sig is tabdamaged.
___ your .sig is longer than your included text.
___ your .sig is longer than the entire rest of your post.
___ your .sig is ridiculous because (check all that apply):
___ you listed ___ snail mail address(es).
___ you listed a nine-digit ZIP code.
___ you listed ___ phone numbers for people to use in prank
calls.
___ you included a stupid disclaimer.
___ your pathetic attempt at being witty in it
failed.
___ Miserably.
___ you included:
___ a stupid self-quote.
___ a stupid quote from a net.nobody.
___ a stupid quote from
___ Rush Limbaugh.
___ Dan Quayle.
___ Bill Gates.
___ a rock band member.
___ from Rush.
___ (one of) the U.S. Founding Father(s).
___ a reference to Beavis & Butthead.
___ lame ASCII fonts
___ lame ASCII graphic(s) (Choose all that apply):
___ USS Enterprise
___ Australia
___ The Amiga logo
___ Company logo
___ and you stated that you don't speak
for your employer.
___ Bicycle
___ Bart Simpson
___ Sword
___ Dinosaur
___ Cat/Dog
___ plural
___ excessive misuse of punctuation marks,
namely __________
___ excessive whitespace

Furthermore:

_X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of _r.g.t-c.j__.
(newsgroup)
___ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the net.
_X_ You are a loser.
_X_ You must have spent your entire life in a Skinner box to be this
clueless.
___ *plonk*
_X_ This has been pointed out to you before.
_X_ It is recommended that you:
___ Go Away. Now.
___ stick to America Online and come back when you've grown up.
_X_ find a volcano and throw yourself in.
___ get a gun and shoot yourself.
_X_ stop reading USENET and get a life.
___ stop sending email and get a life.
_X_ get a clue (hey, they're cheap!)
_X_ consume excrement.
___ consume excrement and thus expire.

Additional comments:


-- Derek

"Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn

Derek Ray

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 11:52:50 PM8/1/01
to
LSJ: this is not entirely a flame. see about halfway down with the bit
about the Mask inconsistency; has this ever been looked at by the Rules
Team?

On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:56:21 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:18:56 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:
>

>>If you understand the basic rules of the game, why are you wasting
>>people's time with questions that you obviously already know the answer
>>to because 1.6.3.3 makes it quite clear that the play you stated was
>>completely illegal?
>>

>Since I'm a professional programmer, I obviously know nothing about
>logic or logical processes.

This statement is definitely half true.

>Normal performs ArbitraryActionModifier
>Lucretia masks and performs AAM as she is not considered the acting
>vampire. She is considered a new minion with her own unique 'history'.
>Normal masks...

There's no "considered" about it. Lucretia IS a different minion than
Normal. Any attempts to claim otherwise fly in the face of common
sense. There IS an inconsistency here, however - see below.

Normal, on the other hand, is the same minion as Normal, something which
is obvious on the face of it.

>There is no logical reason that Normal should not be able to perform
>the AAM. It is not automatically 'implied' that new Normal is the
>original acting minion Normal. The fact that VTES considers the new
>Normal as the same Normal who began, inheriting it's history so to
>speak, is a leap in logic.

This is possibly the most stupid statement I've seen in a long time.
What "new" Normal? He's the same minion who played the original action
card. Again, a simple case of common sense.

>The 2 processes simply differ, as can be described in a number of
>ways. Email me. I can demonstrate the paradox of assuming the first
>Normal is the second Normal using a number of real world instances
>involving rudimentary physics, if you like.

This is not the real world, however, it is a card game. There is no
paradox. Normal is the same card and the same minion at all times. He
does not magically generate multiple instances of himself.

>Just because it is something you take for granted, does not mean I
>agree or assume it without doubt. I ask to clarify. You need only
>answer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

Jack, you are going out of your way to find contradictions where none
actually exist in an attempt to make yourself seem erudite and wise,
when anyone with an ounce of common sense could answer the question in
thirty seconds.

If you had any clue at all, you would be asking about the REAL
inconsistency in Mask, illustrated by the following example:

(LSJ: start here)

Roland Bishop bleeds. Crowley attempts to block with 2nd Tradition.
Roland plays Faceless Night for stealth. Agrippina takes over with Mask
at superior, and now plays another Faceless Night - a total of +3
stealth on the action.

Now, if Roland had played Conditioning, Agrippina could not have taken
over the action. One of the current rulings on Mask states:

"Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been
played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking
vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already
been spent.) [RTR 19980623]"

This is consistent with logic; Mask is clearly intended to simulate
deception where one minion is appearing to be another, and it is not
logical that a minion without Dominate could utilize the discipline.

What is inconsistent is that Mask's text and the ruling above both
clearly indicate that only ONE minion is actually involved with the
action... yet the same action modifier can be played twice on the
action. Logically, Agrippina should not be able to play Faceless Night
above, because she has already played it while pretending to be Roland.

I suspect that the ruling will not change, however, because it turns
things into a logistical nuisance; if Roland plays Elder Impersonation
prior to the Mask, the blood has to be deducted from Agrippina and
restored to Roland when she Masks, adding yet another note of complexity
to an already-complex game and an already-complex card.

And god knows, with people like you playing, things obviously need to be
spelled out in words of one syllable. Let me break it to you simply...
You aren't as smart as you think you are. You aren't as good as you
think you are. And you don't know as much as you think you do. Your
prima-donna shit is not welcome here. If you want to write a client, DO
SO,... but none of us are impressed by your ivory-tower pronouncements.

Want real help? Stop trying to come off like some demigod who is
deigning to help us mere mortals by creating this incredible work of
art, and start acting like a real person. "professional", my ass. If
you worked for me, I'd have fired you within three months of your hire
date for this kind of attitude, and I wouldn't give a damn HOW good you
were; you can easily be replaced.

Wes

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 11:47:28 PM8/1/01
to

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote

<snip>

Well, despite asking people to be nicer to each other in another thread,
this post reduced me to tears of laughter.

This is a keeper :)

Cheers,
WES


spinney99

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 2:30:08 AM8/2/01
to
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:

>
> STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM
>
>
> I took exception to your recent _X_ post to ___r.g.t-c.jyhad___.
> (newsgroup)
> ___ email
>
> It was (check all that apply):
>
> ___ lame.
> _X_ stupid.
> _X_ boring.
> _X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be
> capable.
_X_ funnier than much of your self-congratulatory viperism.

>
> Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
>
> _X_ what you posted/said has been done before.
> _X_ Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
> ___ your post/mail was a pathetic imitation of ___________________.
> (net.personality)
> ___ your post/mail was intended to be email/a post.
> _X_ your post was obviously flamebait.
_X_ as usual.
_X_ but i doubt pointing this out will phase you, as it's
all about you, you, YOU!
_X_ or a lot worse ratio than that :)

> ___ you predicted the "Immanent Death of the Net[tm]" (sic).
> ___ *without* adding "<form of representation> at 11".
> ___ you asked for replies via email because you "don't read
> this group".
> _X_ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you.
_X_ and therefore has every right to treat you and everyone else
like crap the second they burst from the soil onto this newsgroup,
helping to discourage newbies from continuing in the game, promotion
of which is the ostensible purpose of same newsgroup.

> _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
_X_ in his infallible opinion.
_X_ because jimi hendrix and jello biafra never had as
great a thought as, say, foghorn leghorn.

> ___ from Rush.
> ___ (one of) the U.S. Founding Father(s).
> ___ a reference to Beavis & Butthead.
_X_ uhhhh. uhhh... HUH-HUH-HUH-HUH
_X_ and not expire so the intestinal flavor of your many
witticisms will remain fresh in your own mouth and mind.

> ___ consume excrement and thus expire.
>
> Additional comments:
_X_ even i had lost interest in this fascinating form, and
intelligently, ceased and desisted.

>
>
> -- Derek
>
> "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn
making a mockery is flattery, but mocking a mockery is just flat. -
nonsensical self-quote, an unforgivable sin, for which my name should
be expunged from all the pyramids where it is engraved.
-- spinney

Jason Bell

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 3:28:43 AM8/2/01
to

"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote
[snip]

> Just because it is something you take for granted, does not mean I
> agree or assume it without doubt. I ask to clarify. You need only
> answer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

Jack,

Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions
to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no
goodwill for you or your programming effort.

- Jason Bell


LSJ

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 6:34:14 AM8/2/01
to

I've addressed this before recently (in this thread, I believe), with
the blood-cost-modifier example.

At some point, you have to draw the line and say, "it's just a card game".
Perhaps the line was drawn too close. But the situation was examined.
If the rule becomes a problem with the new card set, we'll reexamine it.

Derek Ray

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 9:52:19 AM8/2/01
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 06:34:14 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

>Derek Ray wrote:
>> I suspect that the ruling will not change, however, because it turns
>> things into a logistical nuisance; if Roland plays Elder Impersonation
>> prior to the Mask, the blood has to be deducted from Agrippina and
>> restored to Roland when she Masks, adding yet another note of complexity
>> to an already-complex game and an already-complex card.
>
>I've addressed this before recently (in this thread, I believe), with
>the blood-cost-modifier example.

Hm. OK. I've been ignoring the thread, because people have been
running around shrieking about how horrible it is that you could
multiple-modify an action with mask/venenation, and my opinion is that
anyone who wants to make that deck is perfectly welcome to; once you get
enough Masks and Venenations in it, you'll probably run out of room for
anything else, and will get bled out promptly while your prey refuses to
block your bleeds of 1. :)

>At some point, you have to draw the line and say, "it's just a card game".
>Perhaps the line was drawn too close. But the situation was examined.
>If the rule becomes a problem with the new card set, we'll reexamine it.

well, that was the gist of my final-quoted paragraph above; the line had
to be drawn somewhere, and i suspected "there" was where it's going to
stay. As long as it got looked at at some point, fair enough.

Derek Ray

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 9:53:44 AM8/2/01
to
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:47:28 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote:

>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote


>
>Well, despite asking people to be nicer to each other in another thread,
>this post reduced me to tears of laughter.
>
>This is a keeper :)

Heh. Lesson to be learned, kids: It's ok to be a Real Prick(tm) as
long as you're funny about it! =)

(I don't think this is the right lesson for kids to learn. =)

Gene Wirchenko

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 7:31:43 PM8/2/01
to
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>_X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.

Thanks for letting me know. I might not have figured it out
otherwise. You're using a form to claim wittiness?

I find your response rude in the extreme.

Speaking as a professional computer programmer/analyst, I find it
entirely usual to see a P/A asking for more detail and the (possible)
end user not understanding why the questions are pointful.

Common sense is not something that computers have. It (or an
imitation) has to be programmed. That can mean asking many seemingly
obvious questions. I have on occasion gotten a response to the tune
of "But that hardly ever happens." (Its handling still has to be
programmed.) or "Oh, yeah. I forgot about that." or worse.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 8:31:06 PM8/2/01
to
In message <Li7a7.55315$J37.12...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes

>Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions
>to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no
>goodwill for you or your programming effort.

Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to
build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics.

He has an inappropriately low knowledge of the game to even consider a
programming effort of the magnitude he is attempting.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 8:33:15 PM8/2/01
to
In message <3b698f40....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko
<ge...@shuswap.net> writes

> I find your response rude in the extreme.

Hint: Maybe that was the point.


Jack is a complete, total and utter fuckwit. I will be direct in this.
He has no knowledge of the game. He has no knowledge of even the most
basic of rules. He is stupid and unable to apply even the most basic
common sense before spouting garbage onto Usenet.

Perhaps when he has graduated from kindergarten he can give it another
go.

Gene Wirchenko

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 10:43:40 PM8/2/01
to
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

>In message <Li7a7.55315$J37.12...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
>Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>>Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions
>>to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no
>>goodwill for you or your programming effort.
>
>Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to
>build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics.
>
>He has an inappropriately low knowledge of the game to even consider a
>programming effort of the magnitude he is attempting.

Actually, I suspect that it's the other way around: that he has
insufficient programming/analysis skill. The rules of the game in all
their detail isn't as complicated as P/Aing in all its detail.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 11:05:31 PM8/2/01
to
In message <3b6a0f43....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko
<ge...@shuswap.net> writes

> The rules of the game in all
>their detail isn't as complicated as P/Aing in all its detail.

The basic rules aren't that complicated. That Jack is having problems
with these is more telling than anything else he does.

*Any* competent player can explain that you can't play more than one of
the same action modifier with the same minion on the same action. This
level of competence comes from reading the rulesbook and playing, say, 6
or 7 games.

Jack Crow

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 11:34:30 PM8/2/01
to
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:05:31 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3b6a0f43....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko

That wasnt the question.

Derek Ray

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 11:34:52 PM8/2/01
to
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:33:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3b698f40....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko


><ge...@shuswap.net> writes
>> I find your response rude in the extreme.
>
>Hint: Maybe that was the point.

Bonus points, that man.

Gene: with regards to common sense, it should be common sense to
determine that the vampire card with "Normal" printed on it is, in fact,
the vampire card "Normal" at all times, no matter how many cards get
played inbetween changing the acting minion, parameters, etc.

For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink"
attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and
aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his
position.

As far as his programming effort... if he produces something, that's
great. If it works, better yet. The capacity to produce something that
works doesn't justify the cheering accolades and throngs of admirers he
seems to be waiting for, however. Shame.

Jason Bell

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 12:59:06 AM8/3/01
to

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>

>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
> >Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions
> >to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no
> >goodwill for you or your programming effort.
>
> Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to
> build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics.

What if you're wrong? Are your petty attempts to undermine
him worth the chance that those attacks will dissuade him from
attempting this task?

> He has an inappropriately low knowledge of the game to even consider a
> programming effort of the magnitude he is attempting.

What if you're wrong?

As well, Derek Ray wrote:
> For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my sh*t doesn't stink"


> attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and
> aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his
> position.

It's laughable that you're so threatened by his project
that you must snipe him at each opportunity, infer stupidity from
his asking of questions, and criticize his defense of himself as
snobbishness. Stop being such a child.

Well there you go, Jack. It's all right there in front of you.

The wonder twins resent your effort to write this program, are
threatened by the idea that it will succeed and be useful, so
they have made it their business to undermine you, by flaming
your rules questions, insulting your intellect, programming
capabilities (nice webpage, by the way), social skills, whatever
it takes to dissuade you from using this resource to help your
project.

Why they would want to discourage your effort is beyond me,
maybe they don't want this game played online. That you seem
willing to do this without charging for it, I would have assumed
that everyone on this forum would do whatever they could to
try to help, not try to take your legs out.

Killfile them, they are not here to help you.

- Jason Bell


James Coupe

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 8:59:12 AM8/3/01
to
In message <jc6kmtc8moel001rk...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes

>For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink"
>attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much,

His flouncing and posturing would actually be tolerable if he wasn't
such a know-nothing fuckwit.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 8:58:24 AM8/3/01
to
In message <ucqa7.60028$J37.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes

>> Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to
>> build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics.
>
>What if you're wrong?

I'm not. Every single shred of evidence on the newsgroup continually
proves how little Jack knows about the game.

James Coupe

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 8:57:23 AM8/3/01
to
In message <3b6a1aa5....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>That wasnt the question.

The question involved a minion playing the same action modifier twice,
which is illegal by one of the most basic rules of the game:

"Minion 1 plays Venenation
Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor
Minion 2 plays Venenation
Minion 1 plays Mask at minor
Minion 1 plays Venenation"

Hope that helps.

Raille

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 9:32:00 AM8/3/01
to
Jason Bell wrote:
> Killfile them, they are not here to help you.
>

I think I have to concur.

Programing a game such as VTES is a lot of work, and will require a GOOD
working knowledge of the game.

Apparently Jack with all his newbie questions gets on some peoples
nerves, but at least he is asking questions, even if he is not getting
answers.

Jack also needs to lighten up some though, questioning endlessly simple
rules templates gets you know where.

Raille
and I hope you actually complete your project.

Jason Bell

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 4:39:17 PM8/3/01