Common V:TES Misconceptions
All contributions for Common V:TES Misconceptions will be greatfully received at vekn@zephyr.org.uk
So, I can only have 4 of one card in a deck, right?
Wrong. Jyhad, unlike a lot of other card games out there right now, is officially played without any sort of "card-limit". When it was first designed as Jyhad, Richard Garfield had seen what happened with Magic: The Gathering. He had thought that no-one would own more than a couple of hundred cards, maybe a thousand at the outside, and thought that that would limit it. When Jyhad was designed (and so, carried over into V:TES) he settled on the idea of making sure that having a deck made of fifty of one card should not be a problem. Some people feel he messed up a bit, other people have their own reasons for choosing to play with a 4 card limit (commonly known as 4CL), or a six card limit (6CL). If you choose to do that, fine. But the official way to play is with no card limits.
I play my cards face down...
Wrong. You play every single card you ever, ever play face up. You also tell people exactly what it's going to do, with the exception of Political Action cards, where you don't tell them exactly how the vote will go, but you do tell them what the vote is. This way, it's fairer. You get to see everything that people do, and you can't accuse them of cheating. It also avoids utter ludicrousness resulting from inconsistencies as to when something should go face up and something should go face down.
Hey, cool, I'll just bleed anyone I like.
No. For a long time, this was the case, but it was never explicitly supported in the rules, and was allowed only by a ruling that has since been overturned. Since bleeding is the most effective way to attack someone's pool, being as other people don't participate, and it will oust them quickly, a random cross-table bleeder will quickly disrupt the game. Now, unless a (D) bleed card explicitly allows you to bleed someone else, you can only bleed your prey with it. It also helps stop people manipulating new players to their own interests, since it's much harder to get them to harm other people for you.
So, just how does this Bloodhunt thing work then?
Essentially, a Bloodhunt vote after a vampire has commited diablerie works like any other vote in the game. However, there are two important exceptions. Action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Since the bloodhunt referendum was not caused by a political action, there is no action to react to or to modify. So, Bewitching Oration and Dread Gaze, say, are useless in these situations. Secondly, because it isn't a political action, a lot of master cards which grant you extra votes do so during a political action. These cannot be used here since it is not a political action. Ventrue Headquarters is an important exception, since it only grants you votes during a vote, and not a political action, so you can use it during a political action.
Also, you will want to watch out for political action cards. Whilst you can only play one of these from your hand, just like during a political action someone else calls, this is imporant. Many players erroneously think that they can only use the votes that are available on the table, from Ventrue HQ, vampires and the Edge. This is an important thing to remember, since political action cards are neither reactions or action modifiers, they may still be played.
Aggravated damage confuses me....
Well, there's no real need because it's fairly simple, when you work it out, using the new rules. (They were changed from Jyhad to V:TES, making aggravated damage a lot more powerful. The current change helps to neuter that, to some extent.)
Essentially, you have to remember the following:
- In any batch of damage, deal with normal damage, then agg damage.
- If you are not going to torpor or in torpor already, the first point of agg damage does that. After that, any additional points of agg damage require you to burn a blood to avoid destruction.
- If you are already in or going to torpor, *all* points of agg damage require you to burn a point of blood to avoid destruction.
- If you get hit by a batch of damage when you are not already going to torpor, at least one of which is aggravated, which is *TWO* greater than your current level of blood, you will be burned, assuming that you prevent none of it.
Can I have some examples of how that aggravated damage thing works then?
Oh, okay... if you insist. It really is quite trivial.
Agg damage works like this.
If I have a strike where I only take agg damage, say a Wolf Claws, the first point of damage requires you to go to torpor BUT not burn a blood. Any additional points of aggravated damage would require you to burn a blood to stop yourself being burned. So, if you had 0 blood on you, and I dealt 1 aggravated hand damage, you would go to torpor from the first point, with no additional points to deal with. If you have 0 blood on you, and I dealt two aggravated hand damage to you, the first point would send you to torpor. For the second point, you would have to burn a blood to avoid burning. You do not have a point of blood to burn, so you die. If you had 1 blood and I dealt you two aggravated damage, you would survive but be in torpor with 0 blood - first point sends you to torpor, still with 1 blood. The second point burns that 1 blood. So, at 1 blood, I would deal you three aggravated damage to burn you, if I'm only dealing with aggravated damage - say, a Gangrel using Wolf Claws, Lucky Blow and a Ritual Challenge.
However, when you interact with normal damage, it gets more interesting. You resolve all the usual damage first, and then do the aggravated damage, and if you're already on your way to torpor, the first point of aggravated damage doesn't send you to torpor - it requires you to burn a blood to survive destruction. So, if I deal you 1 normal damage and 1 aggravated damage (say, a Wolf Companion and a 1 point claw) and you have 0 blood, the normal damage will send you to torpor as normal, and the agg damage will require you to burn a point to avoid destruction (since you are already going to torpor) and you'll be burned.
So, essentially, in any given "block" of damage, if you are *not* currently going to torpor, I need to deal you X+2 damage (where X is your number of blood counters) to burn you, if at least one of them is aggravated. (e.g. you have 0 blood, I have to deal 2 damage, at least 1 of which must be aggravated; you have 10 blood, I have to deal 12 damage, at least 1 of which must be aggravated etc.)
The thing to remember is that the first point of agg damage will send you to torpor and not require you to burn a blood if you are not already in torpor or on your way there. You have to burn a blood to avoid being burned if you are already on your way to torpor, even if that point of aggravated damage is the first. This also includes other ways of going to torpor. Say, you come in and bleed me with Gitane St Clair (1 blood), I block with Ian Forestal with a Dementation card, you throw down a superior Dawn Operation. We go into combat. I play Drawing out the Beast. You try to hit me with a Channeling the Beast, but I dodge with Sideslip. I then additional strike you with Acrobatics, and play a Coma, sending you to torpor. At this point, combat ends. You are on your way to torpor already, so the point of aggravated (due to the Dawn Ops) damage (from the Drawing out the Beast) hits you at 0 blood (due to the cost of Channeling). Since you are already going to torpor, you have to burn a blood to avoid destruction. You can't, so you get burned.