LSJ !! Diablerie and sudden death
Reyda
something happened during a tournament yesterday.
My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation in play with
Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri with Theo Bell. I blocked
with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor with 5 aggravated from a gas powered
chainsaw. His turn ended. I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla
segregation. Then i went to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the
Angry. During the diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which
means grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing
for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will support me
in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid of the Camarilla
segregation"
Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them referred to
the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could happen once the blood
hunt was called. The judge agreed to their complaints.
But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states "Any Methuselah
may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla vampire he or she controls
during his or her minion phase." I can't see anything prohibiting me from
burning Thomas steed the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the
camarilla segregation.
So LSJ ?? =)
reyda
(!salubri rules anyway ;) )
The Lasombra
> My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation
> in play with Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri
> with Theo Bell. I blocked with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor
> with 5 aggravated from a gas powered chainsaw. His turn ended.
> I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla segregation. Then i went
> to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the Angry. During the
> diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which means
> grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing
> for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will
> support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid
> of the Camarilla Segregation."
> Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them
> referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could
> happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their
> complaints.
The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
"Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
> But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states
> "Any Methuselah may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla
> vampire he or she controls during his or her minion phase."
> I can't see anything prohibiting me from burning Thomas Steed
> the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the
> camarilla segregation.
You must complete the diablerie, and resolve it, before any other
effects can take place. This will prohibit you from burning the
vampire for the Camarilla Segregation until after the Bloodhunt.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
tetragrammaton
news:3dbf75a48d2504843ac...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
>
> "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
>
hmmm, but Tapping the Ventrue headquarters during a blood hunt is allowed ?
Emiliano, vekn prince of Rome
Reyda
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dbf75a48d2504843ac...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Reyda" wrote
(snip)
>> "okay, as no one will
> > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid
> > of the Camarilla Segregation."
> > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them
> > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could
> > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their
> > complaints.
>
> The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
>
> "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
I'm sorry but the link to this previous post provides no useful explanation
for the case stated here.
> > But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states
> > "Any Methuselah may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla
> > vampire he or she controls during his or her minion phase."
> > I can't see anything prohibiting me from burning Thomas Steed
> > the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the
> > camarilla segregation.
>
> You must complete the diablerie, and resolve it, before any other
> effects can take place. This will prohibit you from burning the
> vampire for the Camarilla Segregation until after the Bloodhunt.
There is one problem here : the diablerie vote occurs after i gain blood
from the torporized vampire, and after i choose or decline to search my
library/hand/ash heap for a master discipline card. There is nothing stating
i can't burn my vampire during this step of the diablerie.
because of the fuss made by other players, i wasn't able to explain
everything to the judge but it think there is no problem burning my vamp
during this step.
if someone has a better answer (except pierre tran van), feel free to post
it here =)
thanks
reyda
François Alix
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3ca70bbe$0$25447$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
> hi !
>
> something happened during a tournament yesterday.
>
> My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation in play with
> Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri with Theo Bell. I blocked
> with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor with 5 aggravated from a gas powered
> chainsaw. His turn ended. I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla
> segregation. Then i went to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the
> Angry. During the diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which
> means grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing
> for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will support me
> in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid of the Camarilla
> segregation"
> Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them referred to
> the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could happen once the blood
> hunt was called. The judge agreed to their complaints.
Not every other players, since I never said I didn't agree. I had many reasons to agree with you, I couldn't get out a Sabbat Vamp because of Cam Seg.
But since I never saw this case before, and the voices were getting loud, I just called the Judge.
And he took a decision, that's his job! Thanks, Sylvain, you reacted fastly.
And remember, no game needs to enrage players, every situation can be resolved *CALMLY*, without any anger.
Keep the Faith!
Miller Delmardigan
Sabbat Priscus
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
LSJ
> "Reyda" wrote
> > grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing
> > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will
> > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid
> > of the Camarilla Segregation."
> > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them
> > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could
> > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their
> > complaints.
>
> The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
>
> "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
Correct.
--
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/
LSJ
> >
> > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
>
> hmmm, but Tapping the Ventrue headquarters during a blood hunt is allowed ?
Yes, per the rules on blood hunt. [6.5.6]
Ulugh Beg
> "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3dbf75a48d2504843ac...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
> >
> > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
> >
>
> hmmm, but Tapping the Ventrue headquarters during a blood hunt is allowed ?
>
Hi m8s, I think that yes, u can tap the Ventrue Head to gain the votes
in the Diablerie vote .
See u !
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CA77014...@white-wolf.com...
> The Lasombra wrote:
> > "Reyda" wrote
> > > grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing
> > > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will
> > > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid
> > > of the Camarilla Segregation."
> > > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them
> > > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could
> > > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their
> > > complaints.
> >
> > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
> >
> > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
>
> Correct.
The diablerie vote occurs after i gain blood from the torporized vampire,
and after i choose or decline to search my library/hand/ash heap for a
master discipline card. There is nothing stating i can't burn my vampire
during this step of the diablerie.
please explain =)
reyda
LSJ
See the post cited.
Diablerie is atomic.
You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step.
Chris Berger
> > > >
> > > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here:
> > > >
> > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
> > >
> Diablerie is atomic.
> You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step.
>
like any other referendum (except that it doesn't occur as part of an action)?
Like someone said above, you can tap the Ventrue Headquarters. Also, you can
lobby for people to vote for you, you may burn the Edge for a vote, you may use
any effects that grant you votes, as long as they don't require an action to be
happening. Right?
So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a
referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or
reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the diablerie to
burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no
interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a skill
card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem to
be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum...
Reyda
> > The diablerie vote occurs after i gain blood from the torporized
vampire,
> > and after i choose or decline to search my library/hand/ash heap for a
> > master discipline card. There is nothing stating i can't burn my vampire
> > during this step of the diablerie.
>
> See the post cited.
> Diablerie is atomic.
> You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that
step.
So what should i do then ?
Can i go diablerize with the "sacrifice" vampire and immediatly burn it when
the action succeeds ?
LSJ
... before resolving the diablerie?
Sure. That would be very similar to doing it before takingthe action at all,
except that you may be able to cycle some stealth cards in the meantime.
LSJ
> > > > >
> > > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it."
> > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com
> > > >
> > See the post cited.
> > Diablerie is atomic.
> > You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step.
> >
> But the Blood Hunt... isn't that supposed to be considered a referendum, just
> like any other referendum (except that it doesn't occur as part of an action)?
Yes. 6.5.6
> Like someone said above, you can tap the Ventrue Headquarters. Also, you can
Yes. 6.5.6
> lobby for people to vote for you, you may burn the Edge for a vote, you may use
> any effects that grant you votes, as long as they don't require an action to be
> happening. Right?
Yes. 6.5.6
> So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a
> referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or
> reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the diablerie to
> burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no
> interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a skill
> card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem to
> be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum...
Just the ruling cited.
Reyda
it happens during my minion phase ?
Reyda
LSJ
>
> Can i burn my vampire for the Camarilla segregation during combat, providing
> it happens during my minion phase ?
Sure.
LSJ
>
> can i burn a disarm on my vampire by spending two blood during a diablerie ?
No. Diablerie is atomic.
Reyda
> Reyda wrote:
> >
> > can i burn a disarm on my vampire by spending two blood during a
diablerie ?
>
> No. Diablerie is atomic.
Understood. Can you clarify the exact occurence of event when Vamp A
diablerize Vamp B please ? can you list the effects that can be used
(Ventrue HQ, Quentin etc... ? )
reyda
Chris Berger
> Chris Berger wrote:
>
> > So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a
> > referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or
> > reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the
diablerie to
> > burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no
> > interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a
skill
> > card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem
to
> > be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum...
>
> Just the ruling cited.
>
ruling then reversed it within a space of about a day. I don't think
reasonable consideration was put into exactly what was meant by "atomic
action." The ruling stated apparently does not allow the playing of effects
during the Blood Hunt. We all know that you can play effects during the Blood
Hunt. Are you going to give us a list of which effects are playable during a
Blood Hunt and which are not?
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3CA843D0...@white-wolf.com...
> > Chris Berger wrote:
> >
> > > So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a
> > > referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or
> > > reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the
> diablerie to
> > > burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no
> > > interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a
> skill
> > > card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem
> to
> > > be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum...
> >
> > Just the ruling cited.
> >
> The ruling cited says that diablerie is an "atomic action", and you made one
> ruling then reversed it within a space of about a day. I don't think
> reasonable consideration was put into exactly what was meant by "atomic
> action."
OK. You may be right.
> The ruling stated apparently does not allow the playing of effects
> during the Blood Hunt. We all know that you can play effects during the Blood
> Hunt. Are you going to give us a list of which effects are playable during a
> Blood Hunt and which are not?
Playable: votes, as stated before and in 6.5.6 as cited before.
Not playable: the rest
LSJ
Exact occurence: exactly as per 6.5.5 and 6.5.6
Effects that can be used: Edge for vote, PA for vote, Ventrue HQ,
ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes.
Chris Berger
> Chris Berger wrote:
> >
> > ... I don't think
> > reasonable consideration was put into exactly what was meant by "atomic
> > action."
>
> OK. You may be right.
>
> > The ruling stated apparently does not allow the playing of effects
> > during the Blood Hunt. We all know that you can play effects during the
Blood
> > Hunt. Are you going to give us a list of which effects are playable during
a
> > Blood Hunt and which are not?
>
> Playable: votes, as stated before and in 6.5.6 as cited before.
> Not playable: the rest
>
successful diablerie and the beginning of the subsequent Blood Hunt... the
rule is now: you cannot play any effects between the successful diablerie and
the end of the Blood Hunt. Except you can play effects that give you votes.
Or also effects that cancel other vampire's votes. ??? Doesn't that seem a
little bit more artificial and confusing than it needs to be?
LSJ
You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to cancel
a vampire's votes in mind?
> little bit more artificial and confusing than it needs to be?
Confusing and artificial? Sure.
More than it needs to be? no.
The atomic is necessary for the 1-4 of the diablerie.
Breaking atomicity for 5 would be at least as artificial as the current.
Halcyan 2
>Effects that can be used: Edge for vote, PA for vote, Ventrue HQ,
>ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes.
Anything else?
How about PB: Madrid?
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>> successful diablerie and the beginning of the subsequent Blood Hunt... the
>> rule is now: you cannot play any effects between the successful diablerie
>and
>> the end of the Blood Hunt. Except you can play effects that give you
>votes.
>> Or also effects that cancel other vampire's votes. ??? Doesn't that seem
>a
>
>You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to cancel
>
>a vampire's votes in mind?
The only thing I can think of is Astrid's special. She is allowed to *use* that
in a Blood Hunt, right?
Halcyan 2
LSJ
Astrid can't cancel votes.
But she can vote per normal, and other Tremere votes will be cast to match
hers, of course.
LSJ
Sure.
Anything that gains votes and isn't restricted to "political actions".
Halcyan 2
>cancel
>> >
>> >a vampire's votes in mind?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is Astrid's special. She is allowed to *use*
>that
>> in a Blood Hunt, right?
>
>Astrid can't cancel votes.
>But she can vote per normal, and other Tremere votes will be cast to match
>hers, of course.
Sorry. I tend to simply clump cancelling and changing votes into the same
general group.
In that case, is Astrid "using" her ability?
Halcyan 2
LSJ
Her ability functions, as stated above.
Halcyan 2
>> >Effects that can be used: Edge for vote, PA for vote, Ventrue HQ,
>> >ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes.
>>
>> Anything else?
>>
>> How about PB: Madrid?
>
>Sure.
>Anything that gains votes and isn't restricted to "political actions".
From the Online Rulebook:
When a vampire commits diablerie, any Methuselah may call for a referendum to
see if a blood hunt will be called on the diablerist. If the referendum passes,
a blood hunt is called, and the diablerist is burned. This referendum is not an
action, and no political action card is required. Since this is not an action,
it cannot be blocked, and action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played.
Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other.
In a normal referendum, you could for example:
#1. Tap the Barrens to discard (though of course you wouldn't draw up till
after the referendum).
#2. Tap the Fragment to draw two cards and discard (important if you're trying
to look for a PA to discard for a vote).
#3. Use effects such as Grendel's and Tusk's to look at the top card of your
crypt/library.
#4. Tap the Slaughterhouse to burn the top 2 cards of your prey's library.
#5. Burn counters off of a Temptation to gain control of a vampire (useful if
you suddenly realize you need that vampire's votes).
#6. (Discussed earlier). Burn Disarm on a vampire by burning 3 blood and/or
burn a vampire to burn Judgement: Camarilla Segregration.
* Other examples are also possible.
So since none of these effects "gain votes" (directly), they can't be used
during a Blood Hunt though they can be used during a normal referendum?
Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
far from the truth...
Halcyan 2
LSJ
> Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
> far from the truth...
Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling.
Chris Berger
> Chris Berger wrote:
> >
> > So, instead of saying that you are not allowed to play effects between the
> > successful diablerie and the beginning of the subsequent Blood Hunt... the
> > rule is now: you cannot play any effects between the successful diablerie
and
> > the end of the Blood Hunt. Except you can play effects that give you
votes.
> > Or also effects that cancel other vampire's votes. ??? Doesn't that seem
a
>
> You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to cancel
> a vampire's votes in mind?
>
political action.
> > little bit more artificial and confusing than it needs to be?
>
> Confusing and artificial? Sure.
> More than it needs to be? no.
>
> The atomic is necessary for the 1-4 of the diablerie.
> Breaking atomicity for 5 would be at least as artificial as the current.
>
The atomic ruling in itself is confusing and artificial. However, lumping in
the Blood Hunt as part of the diablerie makes it unclear why you cannot play,
for example, Madrigal during the Blood Hunt vote. If, for example, a vampire
is diablerized as an action (as opposed to with Amaranth, for which this would
probably still apply), and the entire resolution of the successful diablerie
action includes the Blood Hunt as well, then Madrigal should be playable, as it
must be played during a referendum, and can be played as a reaction/action
modifier. So, if the whole process is atomic, then it all occurs during the
resolution of the action (the same time that a referendum called by a political
action would occur).
The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie
happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this
point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used
before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or
not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over,
and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called.
Restricting certain types of effects but not others is certainly more
artificial than restricting either all effects or no effects.
If the Blood Hunt, from beginning to end, is part of the diablerie, then if the
diabelerie is the resolution of a diablerie action, then what is the rationale
for not being able to use action modifiers and reactions during it? Assuming
that the card doesn't stipulate that it is used during a political action.
The Tzimisce Lord
> hi !
>
> something happened during a tournament yesterday.
>
> My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation in play with
> Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri with Theo Bell. I blocked
> with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor with 5 aggravated from a gas powered
> chainsaw. His turn ended. I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla
> segregation. Then i went to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the
> Angry. During the diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which
> means grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing
> for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will support me
> in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid of the Camarilla
> Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them referred to
> the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could happen once the blood
> hunt was called. The judge agreed to their complaints.
>
> may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla vampire he or she controls
> during his or her minion phase." I can't see anything prohibiting me from
> burning Thomas steed the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the
> camarilla segregation.
hi all,
what a long thead!! Everything had been said, so, sorry that the
decision i made goes against you. BTW try to keep kewl in tournament
reyda. Anyway thanks for the post i can't put it miself before now,
SeeYa later
--
meshenka, tzimisce priscus
trainyRuleMonger
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
Ramsteiner
I agree with Chris on his point. I have always viewed, and taught,
that Blood Hunt is a possible consequence of diablerie. You could
play whatever cards (Ritual of the Bitter Rose, etc...) during the
diablerie, but once the diablerie action was finished, then a decision
on whether a Blood Hunt was to be called had to be made immediately
afterward. This would not allow the possibility of other actions
taking place in between the end of the diablerie action and the
decision of a Blood Hunt. I can understand identifying a checklist of
effects that occur during a diablerie, but when would I play a Ritual?
Prior to the movement of step 1 in the list? At the time of step 1
in the list? Or after step 1 in the list?
Once the diablerie action was complete, a Blood Hunt decision would be
reached (to call or not to call...) and if it was called then
political action cards, appropriate permanents and appropriate vampire
specials would apply to the Blood Hunt vote (or referendum).
I have never seen any room for another action to take place between
the diablerie action and the Blood Hunt decision (and possible
resulting vote) as it has always been considered akin to Freak Drive,
but as a verbal reaction only usable by other players after a
successful diablerie action.
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
Carl Pilhatsch
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
> > far from the truth...
>
> Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling.
Please. What exactly is an "atomic ruling"? What is considered to be
atomic? Normally atoms are atomic. How is this in any way relevant for
rulings in VTES?
Thanks.
Carl
Halcyan 2
>
>Please. What exactly is an "atomic ruling"? What is considered to be
>atomic? Normally atoms are atomic. How is this in any way relevant for
>rulings in VTES?
>Thanks.
What he means by atomic is that it is undivisible. It's not like you can simply
"divide" diablerie into X steps which occur one at a time (and there's a space
of time between each step). Instead, diablerie is this conglomeration of stuff
that all happens but it can't be divied up or interrupted. Or something like
that...
Halcyan 2
tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CA8C99E...@white-wolf.com...
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> >
> > >Astrid can't cancel votes.
> > >But she can vote per normal, and other Tremere votes will be cast to
match
> > >hers, of course.
> >
> > Sorry. I tend to simply clump cancelling and changing votes into the
same
> > general group.
> >
> > In that case, is Astrid "using" her ability?
>
> Her ability functions, as stated above.
>
Mmmh, how about tapping the powerbase: Madrid, during the bh, to gain votes
?
Emiliano
> --
Reyda
"The Tzimisce Lord" <Tzimis...@seclogd.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaahong.1f...@tzimisce.perso.fr...
> hi all,
> what a long thead!! Everything had been said, so, sorry that the
> decision i made goes against you. BTW try to keep kewl in tournament
> reyda. Anyway thanks for the post i can't put it miself before now,
> SeeYa later
Keep cool , you said ?
whenever in tournament i try to play something original i'm tired to see the
old archetypes (ventrue voter on my left and eurobrujah on my right) ganging
on me to crush me as fast as possible only because they fear the cards and
the vampires they don't know.
To those guys i just want to say : "xxxx you, lamers ! there was some
expansions after jyhad and dark sovereigns, ya know !"
LSJ
> The atomic ruling in itself is confusing and artificial. However, lumping in
> the Blood Hunt as part of the diablerie makes it unclear why you cannot play,
> for example, Madrigal during the Blood Hunt vote. If, for example, a vampire
> is diablerized as an action (as opposed to with Amaranth, for which this would
> probably still apply), and the entire resolution of the successful diablerie
> action includes the Blood Hunt as well, then Madrigal should be playable, as it
> must be played during a referendum, and can be played as a reaction/action
> modifier. So, if the whole process is atomic, then it all occurs during the
> resolution of the action (the same time that a referendum called by a political
> action would occur).
As stated in 6.5.6, no action modifiers or reaction cards can be played.
All diablerie occurs within some action, but the action is suspended while
the diablerie is handled.
> The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie
> happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this
> point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used
No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5]
> before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or
> not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over,
> and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called.
This part, not associated with any action, is true.
> Restricting certain types of effects but not others is certainly more
> artificial than restricting either all effects or no effects.
>
> If the Blood Hunt, from beginning to end, is part of the diablerie, then if the
> diabelerie is the resolution of a diablerie action, then what is the rationale
> for not being able to use action modifiers and reactions during it? Assuming
> that the card doesn't stipulate that it is used during a political action.
Rules text and the idea that the Blood Hunt is conducted independently of the
action.
The Tzimisce Lord
>
> "The Tzimisce Lord" <Tzimis...@seclogd.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnaahong.1f...@tzimisce.perso.fr...
>
>> hi all,
>> what a long thead!! Everything had been said, so, sorry that the
>> decision i made goes against you. BTW try to keep kewl in tournament
>> reyda. Anyway thanks for the post i can't put it miself before now,
>> SeeYa later
>
> Keep cool , you said ?
> whenever in tournament i try to play something original i'm tired to see the
> old archetypes (ventrue voter on my left and eurobrujah on my right) ganging
> on me to crush me as fast as possible only because they fear the cards and
> the vampires they don't know.
i got your point, it's why we try at sabbat in france to promote new
and original deck design.
We give to you, Fred pin, Benoit oliveri and others extra lots for
there creativity.
>
> To those guys i just want to say : "xxxx you, lamers ! there was some
> expansions after jyhad and dark sovereigns, ya know !"
>
>
>
--
meshenka, Tzimisce Priscus
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
Chris Berger
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020402040108...@mb-ba.aol.com...
it's not really atomic. So, by "atomic", he means "not atomic, but certain
types of effects are restricted."
Daz
-snip-
> ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes.
Aren´t ready vampires with votes considered titled?
Halcyan 2
>>
>> Her ability functions, as stated above.
>>
>
>Mmmh, how about tapping the powerbase: Madrid, during the bh, to gain votes
That was already answered and you can use PB: Madrid.
But I don't see why Astrid can use her special (which doesn't directly provide
votes) whereas Tusk and Grendel can't use theirs (which also don't directly
provide votes).
Halcyan 2
LSJ
Not all of them. See Legacy of Pander, Power Structure, Political
Struggle, etc.
CurtAdams
>But I don't see why Astrid can use her special (which doesn't directly provide
>votes) whereas Tusk and Grendel can't use theirs (which also don't directly
>provide votes).
And what about Temptation? Can you only use temptations on minions
who have votes? If things are supposed to be straightfoward and
obvious "it's a referendum in which you can't play modifiers and
reactions" is no more problematic than what you can do in referenda
in general. That's not problematic, is it?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
> > far from the truth...
>
> Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling.
>
You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects
steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that.
Apparently this new ruling needs to have the bugs worked out of it.
Don't you have a rules team for this sort of thing?
Raille
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
> > > far from the truth...
> >
> > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling.
> >
>
> You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects
> steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that.
When was that?
> Apparently this new ruling needs to have the bugs worked out of it.
Possibly, but not "apparently".
> Don't you have a rules team for this sort of thing?
For working out problem rulings? Yes.
Ramsteiner
I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the
change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt
atomic?
I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some
new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are
causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering
the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in
line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad.
LSJ
To handle Reform Body style effects properly.
It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling.
Chris Berger
"Ramsteiner" <michael...@ramstein.af.mil> wrote in message
news:9c15fdd3.02040...@posting.google.com...
>
> I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the
> change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt
> atomic?
>
> I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary.
>
Ramsteiner
<SNIP>
> > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt
> > atomic?
> >
> > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some
> > new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are
> > causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering
> > the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in
> > line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad.
>
> To handle Reform Body style effects properly.
> It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling.
Is this to stop people from using Reform Body during a Diablerie
action or force it to be played after a Blood Hunt has occured?
From how I am reading the card it states that it is only useable by a
vampire that is being burned, not actually burned. (After all I don't
recall anything in the game that allows burned vampires to play
cards.) So if a diablerie action is not blocked and the target vampire
is going to be burned at the conclusion of the action, then this card
could be played. Which would mean that the vampire was never actually
burned and therefore no Blood Hunt should occur. Am I off-base on
this reasoning?
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> Raille wrote:
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > >
> > > Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
> > > > far from the truth...
> > >
> > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling.
> > >
> >
> > You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects
> > steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that.
>
> When was that?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CA8BB9B.A74E2C7B%40white-wolf.com
This seems to lead people to believe that the effects of 1-4 are all
part of the diablery and cannot thus be seperated, hence the atomic
ruling. (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
is just So not Vtes.)
You already stated that during the blood hunt various intrupts can be
used.
You also managed to contradict yourself on the following:
------
> The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie
> happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this
> point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used
No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5]
> before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or
> not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over,
> and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called.
This part, not associated with any action, is true.
----
So do you mean that Chris was correct and that the referendum, is called
after the action, and thus not associated with any action. An important
point in reference to card play.
So to clarify the above, as I see it. The Diablery action commences,
and the events become the almagamated collections of steps leading up to
the calling of the blood hunt.
Action concludes. Referendum is voted on. Vote effects can be played,
or utilized as normal, depending upon card text. Vampire special can be
used and opperate as stated on the card text. Reaction and Action
modified cannot be used since this vote is no longer associated with an
action.
So the question I have, is how and where and or why does the atomic
effects modify the referendum of the Blood hunt.
Raille
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Raille wrote:
> > >
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > > > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is
> > > > > far from the truth...
> > > >
> > > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects
> > > steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that.
> >
> > When was that?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CA8BB9B.A74E2C7B%40white-wolf.com
>
> This seems to lead people to believe that the effects of 1-4 are all
> part of the diablery and cannot thus be seperated, hence the atomic
> ruling. (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> is just So not Vtes.)
That post in no way indicates that "only" 1-4 are indivisible. It actually
explains why 5 is included.
> You already stated that during the blood hunt various intrupts can be
> used.
No. I stated that referendum effects can be used, per 6.5.6
> You also managed to contradict yourself on the following:
>
> ------
> > The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie
> > happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this
> > point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used
>
> No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5]
>
> > before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or
> > not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over,
> > and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called.
>
> This part, not associated with any action, is true.
> ----
No contradiction. That actually reinforces the idea.
> So do you mean that Chris was correct and that the referendum, is called
> after the action, and thus not associated with any action. An important
> point in reference to card play.
No. I mean what I said - the blood hunt is part of the diablerie.
It is handled independently of the current action, as indicated in 6.5.6.
> So to clarify the above, as I see it. The Diablery action commences,
> and the events become the almagamated collections of steps leading up to
> the calling of the blood hunt.
OK.
> Action concludes. Referendum is voted on. Vote effects can be played,
> or utilized as normal, depending upon card text. Vampire special can be
> used and opperate as stated on the card text. Reaction and Action
> modified cannot be used since this vote is no longer associated with an
> action.
No. The action is suspended.
To rule otherwise creates problems with Amaranth and, say, Hidden Lurker.
> So the question I have, is how and where and or why does the atomic
> effects modify the referendum of the Blood hunt.
Becuase the blood hunt is listed in the set of things that occur as
part of diablerie, and those things need to be indivisible.
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CAB1016...@white-wolf.com>...
> <SNIP>
> > > I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the
> > > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt
> > > atomic?
> > >
> > > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some
> > > new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are
> > > causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering
> > > the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in
> > > line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad.
> >
> > To handle Reform Body style effects properly.
> > It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling.
>
> Is this to stop people from using Reform Body during a Diablerie
> action or force it to be played after a Blood Hunt has occured?
To force it to be played before conducting the diablerie (before
moving blood and equipment from the vitcim).
Chris Berger
> Raille wrote:
> >
> > ------
> > > The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie
> > > happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and
at this
> > > point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could
be used
> >
> > No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5]
> >
> > > before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either
called or
> > > not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was
over,
> > > and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then
called.
> >
> > This part, not associated with any action, is true.
> > ----
>
> No contradiction. That actually reinforces the idea.
>
with any action? If I'm not mistaken, action modifiers and reactions can be
played during an action. Why is it important that the Blood Hunt be called as
*part* of the diablerie, rather than after it?
LSJ
> If the Blood Hunt occurs as part of an action, then how is it not "associated"
> with any action? If I'm not mistaken, action modifiers and reactions can be
> played during an action. Why is it important that the Blood Hunt be called as
> *part* of the diablerie, rather than after it?
The blood hunt is part of the diablerie per the rulebook text
It isn't independently important that the BH be part of the diablerie.
But, since the rulebook indicates that it is, it is.
See also the importance of the discard phase coming after the influence phase.
Joshua Duffin
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > If the Blood Hunt occurs as part of an action, then how is it not
"associated"
> > with any action? If I'm not mistaken, action modifiers and reactions
can be
> > played during an action. Why is it important that the Blood Hunt be
called as
> > *part* of the diablerie, rather than after it?
>
> The blood hunt is part of the diablerie per the rulebook text
>
> It isn't independently important that the BH be part of the diablerie.
> But, since the rulebook indicates that it is, it is.
>
> See also the importance of the discard phase coming after the influence
phase.
Also, as I think you indicated in another post, if the Blood
Hunt happened after diablerie concluded, ie after a diablerie
action were all over and done with, it wouldn't be possible to
play, say, Freak Drive after the Blood Hunt referendum. But
it's also not possible to play Freak Drive *before* the Blood
Hunt referendum, because you're not in the "completed/completing"
part of the action until after the diablerie (bits 1-4) are
done, and if the Blood Hunt follows immediately (terminating
the action), you've closed off that stage.
(Unless you let people do things between diablerie bits 1-4
and the Blood Hunt. But that's (a) bad and (b) contradicts
years of precedent in which it wasn't possible to do anything
with a vampire that had just diablerized before it could get
burned by a Blood Hunt.)
(Also unless I'm wrong about what making the Blood Hunt "after
the action" would do to end-of-diablerie-action timing. I
don't see off the top of my head, though, how it could be
avoided without making new special-exception rules that would
be at least as confusing as the existing rules.)
Josh
or, what you will
LSJ
> >
> > It isn't independently important that the BH be part of the diablerie.
> > But, since the rulebook indicates that it is, it is.
>
> Hunt happened after diablerie concluded, ie after a diablerie
> action were all over and done with, it wouldn't be possible to
> play, say, Freak Drive after the Blood Hunt referendum. But
> it's also not possible to play Freak Drive *before* the Blood
> Hunt referendum, because you're not in the "completed/completing"
> part of the action until after the diablerie (bits 1-4) are
> done, and if the Blood Hunt follows immediately (terminating
> the action), you've closed off that stage.
>
> (Unless you let people do things between diablerie bits 1-4
> and the Blood Hunt. But that's (a) bad and (b) contradicts
> years of precedent in which it wasn't possible to do anything
> with a vampire that had just diablerized before it could get
> burned by a Blood Hunt.)
>
> (Also unless I'm wrong about what making the Blood Hunt "after
> the action" would do to end-of-diablerie-action timing. I
> don't see off the top of my head, though, how it could be
> avoided without making new special-exception rules that would
> be at least as confusing as the existing rules.)
Yes.
Even if the blood hunt were errata'ed to be after the diablerie
instead of as a part of it, it would be "independently important"
that it immediately follow the diablerie - that no other effects
could be played between the diablerie and the blood hunt.
Namely, allowing something like Hidden Lurker to be played after
the diablerie but before the blood hunt is problematic.
Pushing the blood hunt further back to "after the action" would
cause even more headaches.
Joshua Duffin
> Even if the blood hunt were errata'ed to be after the diablerie
> instead of as a part of it, it would be "independently important"
> that it immediately follow the diablerie - that no other effects
> could be played between the diablerie and the blood hunt.
>
> Namely, allowing something like Hidden Lurker to be played after
> the diablerie but before the blood hunt is problematic.
Well, things that are *much* like Hidden Lurker can very
rarely (if at all) be played after a *successful* diablerie
action. :-) But even allowing things like Freak Drive
seems to me like a bad idea.
> Pushing the blood hunt further back to "after the action" would
> cause even more headaches.
Yes, and we don't need any more headaches. We have plenty
already. ;-)
Josh
yes we have no ananas
Joshua Duffin
"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3CAC2D82...@spamcop.net...
> (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> is just So not Vtes.)
If it's not clear, 'atomic' here has nothing to do with 'atomic
energy' or 'atomic weapons'. The word's being used to mean
'indivisible', as atoms were once thought to be. (The Greek
word 'atomos' meant indivisible...)
(Apologies if you already knew all that and I've inadvertently
been patronizing. :-)
And btw, the 'atomic nature of diablerie' rule isn't
necessarily a *new* rule. It just didn't come up as an issue
much (if at all) before cards like Reform Body and Crimson
Fury were printed.
Josh
it's "nuke-yuh-lar", lisa. "nuke-yuh-lar."
Frederick Scott
> (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> is just So not Vtes.)
Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the
ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate
with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible",
not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb").
Fred
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
>Ramsteiner wrote:
>>
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CAB1016...@white-wolf.com>...
>> <SNIP>
>> > > I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the
>> > > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt
>> > > atomic?
>> > >
>> > > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some
>> > > new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are
>> > > causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering
>> > > the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in
>> > > line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad.
>> >
>> > To handle Reform Body style effects properly.
>> > It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling.
>>
>> Is this to stop people from using Reform Body during a Diablerie
>> action or force it to be played after a Blood Hunt has occured?
>
>To force it to be played before conducting the diablerie (before
>moving blood and equipment from the vitcim).
>
>
Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if
situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the
torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic.
T
CurtAdams
>Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if
>situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the
>torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic.
Cancelling a diablerie is "exceptionally powerful"?
By that standard half the cards in the game are.
Saving the blood is reasonable and expected. Yes, in
a sim-sense the thwarted diabolist would get equipment
but that's way too much hairsplitting.
LSJ
> Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if
> situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the
> torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic.
OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose.
For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie,
diablerie must be indivisible.
Or is it that in your world, this card never had a tangible
effect when played on a diablerie?
Gotta look at the big picture if you want to change the rules.
Jeff Kuta
> "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3CAC2D82...@spamcop.net...
>
> > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> > is just So not Vtes.)
>
> If it's not clear, 'atomic' here has nothing to do with 'atomic
> energy' or 'atomic weapons'. The word's being used to mean
> 'indivisible', as atoms were once thought to be. (The Greek
> word 'atomos' meant indivisible...)
>
> (Apologies if you already knew all that and I've inadvertently
> been patronizing. :-)
I preferred to think of it as a Toreador antitribu tribute to Debbie Harry.
Oh-h-h-h-h, your hair is beautiful....
Oh-h-h-h, tonight.
ATOMIC.
Raille
I understand, however, while LSJ is using the word in a proper form, the
archaic nature belittles the current word usage.
For a precedent, try using nigger in its proper word form in a public
forum. Its just don't fit.
Atomic falls into this niche.
Maybe we could use the word indivisible?
Raille
Raille
So far I understand the reasons well and can see where things are going.
I got a little confused with some of the amagamated effects, but have
sorted it out.
Basically the action includes the various steps to reach conclusion.
Thus the action itself is a modified diablery/Vote action which
incorporates aspects of Voting and referendum mechanics, but not ALL
voting and referendum mechanics since the action is not a political
action.
Raille
CurtAdams
>Thus the action itself is a modified diablery/Vote action which
>incorporates aspects of Voting and referendum mechanics, but not ALL
>voting and referendum mechanics since the action is not a political
>action.
Everybody's pretty much with that. The questions are about
effects which can be used during a referendum and are not
restricted to "only during a political action", not action modifiers
and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects
can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear,
as is the source of the dividing line. As I understand the
recent posts, it's based on whether the effect is permissible
during an "atomic" referendum, and I'm not aware of any
such distinction in cards or rules.
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > Raille wrote:
> > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> > > is just So not Vtes.)
> >
> > Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the
> > ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate
> > with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible",
> > not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb").
>
> archaic nature belittles the current word usage.
Now you're confusing me. How did you decide using the "indivisible" meaning of
the word "atomic" was an archaic form? It's been a few years since I got my
degree in Mathematics, but I'm not _that_ old. And the professors who used it
that way were definitely alive at the time. I know. I'm sure I saw them
breathing.
Fred
Chris Berger
>
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > Raille wrote:
> > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> > > is just So not Vtes.)
> >
> > Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the
> > ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate
> > with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean
"indivisible",
> > not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb").
> >
> archaic nature belittles the current word usage.
>
about. Conversations about the "atomic" bomb (which was anything but
indivisible) seem pretty archaic. When talking about fission/fusion power,
these days, one is much more likely to use the term "nuclear" power than
"atomic", although both have pretty similar primary meanings (e.g. "nuclear
family"). The term "atomic operation", meaning an operation which occurs in
one step, is used all the time when talking about computers, which are hardly
archaic.
Oh yeah, this is becoming nicely off-topic.
Ramsteiner
> Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
> > Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if
> > situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the
> > torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic.
>
> OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose.
>
> For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie,
> diablerie must be indivisible.
>
> Or is it that in your world, this card never had a tangible
> effect when played on a diablerie?
>
> Gotta look at the big picture if you want to change the rules.
Ok, gotta look at the big picture. I can agree with that, however,
Ritual of the Bitter Rose is an Action Modifier/Combat card played by
the acting minion while Reform Body is a Reaction/Combat card played
by the player faced with losing a minion by either diablerie or not
being able to heal an excessive amount of aggravated damage during
combat.
Ritual becomes usable when an opposing vampire is being burn by either
diablerie or during combat against the acting vampire.
Reform becomes usable when a vampire is being burned and goes to
torpor instead.
Based upon the text, these cards are to be played when a diablerie
action goes unblocked (therefore, considered a successful action) but
prior to the action's completion. Correct?
However, there are cards (as previously mentioned within this thread)
that are usable during any time (aka. Book of Nod, Barrens, etc.) from
previous clarifications made by you. In the middle of a combat, you
can use the Barrens or Book of Nod. Based upon card text, which
overrides the standard defaults within the rules, of the Judgement:
Camarilla Segregation, it states that the card can be burned by any
Methuselah by burning a non-camarilla vampire during her minion phase.
It does not state that this is an action, it simply states it can be
done during the phase, much the same as Book of Nod or Barrens just
state Tap and (cause this effect). If the problem is someone trying
to burn a vampire that successfully diablerized another vampire and
preventing them from then burning the acting vampire to get rid of a
Judgement: Camarilla Segregation prior to the Blood Hunt, then change
the card. Otherwise, you affect other cards that have nothing to do
in this type of situation.
In short, you are now making the rules override the cards. And in
doing so, it should generate new errata that was previously
unnecessary on several cards that have never created a problem in the
past.
Halcyan 2
>that are usable during any time (aka. Book of Nod, Barrens, etc.) from
>previous clarifications made by you. In the middle of a combat, you
>can use the Barrens or Book of Nod. Based upon card text, which
>overrides the standard defaults within the rules, of the Judgement:
>Camarilla Segregation, it states that the card can be burned by any
>Methuselah by burning a non-camarilla vampire during her minion phase.
> It does not state that this is an action, it simply states it can be
>done during the phase, much the same as Book of Nod or Barrens just
>state Tap and (cause this effect). If the problem is someone trying
>to burn a vampire that successfully diablerized another vampire and
>preventing them from then burning the acting vampire to get rid of a
>Judgement: Camarilla Segregation prior to the Blood Hunt, then change
>the card. Otherwise, you affect other cards that have nothing to do
>in this type of situation.
I agree. It was already confusing enough to state how Heidelburg was different
than other effects since it wasn't usable during an action. Now it seems we're
complicating things further by creating yet another group of effects which can
be used under different circumstances.
Halcyan 2
Andrew S. Davidson
>Archaic? What? I don't even know what "current" word usage you are talking
>about. Conversations about the "atomic" bomb (which was anything but
>indivisible) seem pretty archaic. When talking about fission/fusion power,
>these days, one is much more likely to use the term "nuclear" power than
>"atomic", although both have pretty similar primary meanings (e.g. "nuclear
>family"). The term "atomic operation", meaning an operation which occurs in
>one step, is used all the time when talking about computers, which are hardly
>archaic.
It's not appropriate for diablerie or blood hunts as these clearly
consist of several steps. "Uninterruptable" might be better, though
it's a bit of a mouthful.
I don't get why Diablerie should be different though. There was a
Blood Hunt in LA and I was annoyed to find that I couldn't play a
Kindred Coercion during the referendum. This seemed silly to me - an
arbitrary game rule which spoilt the sense of immersion.
Andrew
LSJ
> I don't get why Diablerie should be different though. There was a
> Blood Hunt in LA and I was annoyed to find that I couldn't play a
> Kindred Coercion during the referendum. This seemed silly to me - an
> arbitrary game rule which spoilt the sense of immersion.
Because the diablerie referendum is not a political action.
LSJ
> and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects
> can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear,
Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous
non-referendum effects cannot be.
Frederick Scott
>
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:57:10 GMT, Chris Berger wrote:
>
> >The term "atomic operation", meaning an operation which occurs in
> >one step, is used all the time when talking about computers, which are hardly
> >archaic.
>
> It's not appropriate for diablerie or blood hunts as these clearly
> consist of several steps.
"Atomic" is perfect considering the idea Scott is trying to communicate: that
the several steps constitute a single action which, by its nature, cannot be
broken down further. You might disagree with the validity of the statement
but the meaning he's using the word to convey is crystal clear.
Fred
Joshua Duffin
> For a precedent, try using nigger in its proper word form in a public
> forum. Its just don't fit.
>
> Atomic falls into this niche.
Well, I think there's a difference between a word that's
offensive and a word that's just not used in some particular
way very often.
> Maybe we could use the word indivisible?
But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good
substitute, if five characters longer. :-)
Josh
with liberty and justice for all
Joshua Duffin
> CurtAdams wrote:
> > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects
> > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear,
>
> Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous
> non-referendum effects cannot be.
This is different from "normal" referenda, though, right? Can
we get it in the next edition of the rulebook? I agree with not
wanting to be able to burn a diablerizing vampire for Judgement:
Camarilla Segregation in the middle of a Blood Hunt, and that
disallowing that means disallowing things like Fragment of the
Book of Nod, but it'd be nice if the rulebook spelled this out.
:-)
Josh
surprisingly fond of changing the rulebook
Joshua Duffin
"Ramsteiner" <michael...@ramstein.af.mil> wrote in message
news:9c15fdd3.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Ritual becomes usable when an opposing vampire is being burn by either
> diablerie or during combat against the acting vampire.
> Reform becomes usable when a vampire is being burned and goes to
> torpor instead.
>
> Based upon the text, these cards are to be played when a diablerie
> action goes unblocked (therefore, considered a successful action) but
> prior to the action's completion. Correct?
As I understand it, Ritual of the Bitter Rose is played *after*
the diablerie (the whole indivisible thing) goes off, because
it's only usable on a "successful" diablerie and needs to know
how much blood was on the vampire before it got diablerized;
Reform Body is played *before* the (indivisible) diablerie is
resolved, because it prevents any of the diablerie from happening:
the burning, the moving of blood, the moving of equipment, the
Blood Hunt vote.
So RotBR is played in a similar time-phase to Freak Drive (ie
"after" but "within" the action); Reform Body earlier.
> In short, you are now making the rules override the cards. And in
> doing so, it should generate new errata that was previously
> unnecessary on several cards that have never created a problem in the
> past.
True, but it's at least weird and possibly bad to be able to
burn a vampire for Judgment: Camarilla Segregation in the
middle of a Blood Hunt referendum - probably at least as weird
as not being able to use "anytime" effects at all during Blood
Hunt referenda, even though they are generally usable during
"normal" referenda.
And this ruling can probably be replaced by a rule at the next
printing of the rulebook.
Josh
taking the easy way out
LSJ
>
> But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good
> substitute, if five characters longer. :-)
I've been using indivisible ever since someone took issue
with the a-word.
CurtAdams
> But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good
> substitute, if five characters longer. :-)
Indivisible is the archaic word to me; I don't hear it outside
of the Pledge of Allegiance and it vaguely makes me want
to take off my hat and recite. "Atomic" is all over my
books on computers, and refers to exactly what LSJ uses
it for; a requirement that several actions be processed
in sequence without interruption.
CurtAdams
>CurtAdams wrote:
>> and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects
>> can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear,
>Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous
>non-referendum effects cannot be.
As some previous posts have discussed, there's no clear
dividing line between vote-stuff and non-referendum effects.
And technically, if I can do it during a referendum, is it
a non-referendum effect? Also, there's no current printed
rule defining an atomic referendum as having these effects.
I just don't see any point in rules contortions to prevent
some doomed vampire from marching off to sate a
rampaging Antediluvian's hunger. In the sim-sense, he
*would* be able to do it. In the game sense, it's not common
and actually I don't see why it's a problem anyway; I saw
a haven uncovered-famed vampire get burnt to sate an
Antediluvian; that guy was just about as doomed.
LSJ
>
> vte...@white-wolf.com writes:
>
> >CurtAdams wrote:
> >> and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects
> >> can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear,
>
> >Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous
> >non-referendum effects cannot be.
>
> As some previous posts have discussed, there's no clear
> dividing line between vote-stuff and non-referendum effects.
> And technically, if I can do it during a referendum, is it
> a non-referendum effect? Also, there's no current printed
> rule defining an atomic referendum as having these effects.
Referendum effect: "vote stuff"
Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum.
> I just don't see any point in rules contortions to prevent
> some doomed vampire from marching off to sate a
> rampaging Antediluvian's hunger. In the sim-sense, he
> *would* be able to do it. In the game sense, it's not common
> and actually I don't see why it's a problem anyway; I saw
> a haven uncovered-famed vampire get burnt to sate an
> Antediluvian; that guy was just about as doomed.
The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course.
They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn
is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter
Rose, Reform Body, etc.).
As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow
(instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white.
Halcyan 2
>Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum.
But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid
would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during
a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?"
As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's
don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use
Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a
vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes.
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn
>is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter
>Rose, Reform Body, etc.).
>As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow
>(instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white.
>
Well, why don't we separate step 5 then? You said that it's "black and white",
I assume that's because that's what the rulebook says.
But either way we look at it, we're going to need to change the rulebook.
Either we're going to be changing diablerie steps (and cordoning off the Blood
Hunt) or we'll need to change the specifics on the Blood Hunt (so it's *not*
"just like any other [referendum]").
I really don't see why changing the rulebook by moving the Blood Hunt is any
worse than changing the rulebook in the way you currently are doing/have done.
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>>
>> But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good
>> substitute, if five characters longer. :-)
>
>I've been using indivisible ever since someone took issue
>with the a-word.
Well, *I'd* like to take issue with the i-word (indivisibile). Atomic sounds SO
much classier... =P
Halcyan 2
LSJ
>
> >Referendum effect: "vote stuff"
> >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum.
>
> But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid
> would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during
> a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?"
Of course.
> As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's
> don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use
Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't.
> Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a
> vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes.
Neither of them deal with vote stuff.
Your library is not vote stuff. Stealing vampires is not vote stuff.
LSJ
>
> >The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course.
> >They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn
> >is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter
> >Rose, Reform Body, etc.).
> >As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow
> >(instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white.
> >
>
> Well, why don't we separate step 5 then? You said that it's "black and white",
> I assume that's because that's what the rulebook says.
Becuase that would be errata. For what amounts to corner-case concerns.
> But either way we look at it, we're going to need to change the rulebook.
> Either we're going to be changing diablerie steps (and cordoning off the Blood
> Hunt) or we'll need to change the specifics on the Blood Hunt (so it's *not*
> "just like any other [referendum]").
>
> I really don't see why changing the rulebook by moving the Blood Hunt is any
> worse than changing the rulebook in the way you currently are doing/have done.
The currently rulings attempt to follow the rulebook, not change it.
Halcyan 2
>white",
>> I assume that's because that's what the rulebook says.
>
>Becuase that would be errata. For what amounts to corner-case concerns.
But if, when the Camarilla set comes out, the new rulebook simply separates the
Blood Hunt from the diablerie, this wouldn't be errata, right? Just a case of
"most-recently-printed" type card text (i.e. Acquired Ventrue Assets, Ruins of
Villars Abbey, etc.). Right? Hint, hint...
Halcyan 2
LSJ
Sure.
The new printing of the rulebook may change things, of course.
Note that separating the Blood Hunt too far from the diablerie would
be problematic, as noted previously.
CurtAdams
>Referendum effect: "vote stuff"
>Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum.
If you piddle with a voting vampire, is that a referendum
effect? What if you piddle with a piddler? What about
deals - certainly show up a lot in the referenda I see.
>The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course.
>They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn
>is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter
>Rose, Reform Body, etc.).
The indivisible ruling doesn't require changing the nature
of the components. If I do something during a referendum,
the referendum isn't divided - a referendum is a period
during which effects happen.
Chris Berger
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8kf53$sv0jp$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
> And this ruling can probably be replaced by a rule at the next
> printing of the rulebook.
>
an exception, and unneccessary.
Also, I still don't think it's been answered whether or not you can burn the
counters off a Temptation during a Blood Hunt. Can you do it only if the
Tempted vampire has votes? AFAIK, you can use any effect that gains you votes,
as long as it isn't otherwise prohibited. So, I can burn counters and take
control of Rake, but not Dimple? What if I have a Political Structure in play
and my Temptation is on Cameron? Then, can I use the Temptation?
What about other effects of this nature?
Chris Berger
> CurtAdams wrote:
>
> > I just don't see any point in rules contortions to prevent
> > some doomed vampire from marching off to sate a
> > rampaging Antediluvian's hunger. In the sim-sense, he
> > *would* be able to do it. In the game sense, it's not common
> > and actually I don't see why it's a problem anyway; I saw
> > a haven uncovered-famed vampire get burnt to sate an
> > Antediluvian; that guy was just about as doomed.
>
> The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course.
> They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn
> is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter
> Rose, Reform Body, etc.).
> As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow
> (instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white.
>
the "indivisible" ruling. If you feel that the indivisible ruling is somehow
this wonderfully important thing, and that allowing effects during a Blood Hunt
is also important, then why are you complicating matters by allowing certain
effects during a Blood Hunt? If you allowing interruptions during a certain
phase of the diablerie, why do you need to create exceptions instead of just
all effects during that phase? If the contortions are not meant to prevent
that sort of thing, then I fail to see why you want to contort at all.
LSJ
>
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a8kf53$sv0jp$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > And this ruling can probably be replaced by a rule at the next
> > printing of the rulebook.
> >
> It can, but the rule that replaces it will be an ugly wart, an exception within
> an exception, and unneccessary.
If you assume that the current unweildy rule/ruling set is to be preserved
by the next printing of the rulebook, then maybe.
> Also, I still don't think it's been answered whether or not you can burn the
> counters off a Temptation during a Blood Hunt. Can you do it only if the
It was. [LSJ 13:54 05-APR-2002]
No.
> Tempted vampire has votes? AFAIK, you can use any effect that gains you votes,
> as long as it isn't otherwise prohibited. So, I can burn counters and take
> control of Rake, but not Dimple? What if I have a Political Structure in play
> and my Temptation is on Cameron? Then, can I use the Temptation?
>
> What about other effects of this nature?
Here's a quick test: is the effect only applicable to a referendum?
Y: it can be used in a blood hunt
N: it cannot be used in a blood hunt
LSJ
Rules text, as stated.
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> CurtAdams wrote:
> > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects
> > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear,
>
> Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous
> non-referendum effects cannot be.
I liked the quick test:
Here's a quick test: is the effect only applicable to a referendum?
Y: it can be used in a blood hunt
N: it cannot be used in a blood hunt
That sums things up nicely. I like nice.
Raille
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> >
> > >Referendum effect: "vote stuff"
> > >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum.
> >
> > But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid
> > would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during
> > a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?"
>
> Of course.
>
> > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's
> > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use
>
> Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't.
>
> > Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a
> > vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes.
>
> Neither of them deal with vote stuff.
> Your library is not vote stuff. Stealing vampires is not vote stuff.
>
So does this mean that in a Normal political action, Temptation counters
can not be burned to get control of a minion that has votes, or could
other wise effect the referendum?
It would seem that burning temptation counters can deal with vote stuff
and should be allowed, unless other card text over rides that effect.
Raille
Raille
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> Raille wrote:
> >
> > Frederick Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > Raille wrote:
> > > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic
> > > > is just So not Vtes.)
> > >
> > > Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the
> > > ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate
> > > with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible",
> > > not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb").
> >
> > I understand, however, while LSJ is using the word in a proper form, the
> > archaic nature belittles the current word usage.
>
> Now you're confusing me. How did you decide using the "indivisible" meaning of
> the word "atomic" was an archaic form? It's been a few years since I got my
> degree in Mathematics, but I'm not _that_ old. And the professors who used it
> that way were definitely alive at the time. I know. I'm sure I saw them
> breathing.
>
> Fred
Her is part of the reason why:
Websters New World dictionary 1987, 1. Of an atom or atoms, 2. of or
using atomic energy or atomic bombs, 3. tiny.
There is no 4. None describe atomic as indivisible.
Websters 9th New Collegiate 1986 1. of, relating to, or concerned with
atoms, atomic energy or atomic bombs. 2. Minute. 3. atomic in the
state of seperate atoms.
Nothing here about indivisible either.
The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language 1988
only 1 definition. or, relating to, or charactered by atoms.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary 1960 1. of or pert. to atoms, atomic
energy or atomic bombs. 2. Very minute, tiny 3. Seperated in to
atoms.
All I can figure is that the proffessers may have been well preserved.
I do not have an Oxfords dictionary and so cannot check any further
reference.
However in any case, atomic meaning indivisible is whoafully out of
place. They split the atom, several times! So lets use some word that
means what is says and stick to indivisible.
Raille
Raille
CurtAdams wrote:
>
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good
> > substitute, if five characters longer. :-)
>
> Indivisible is the archaic word to me; I don't hear it outside
> of the Pledge of Allegiance and it vaguely makes me want
> to take off my hat and recite. "Atomic" is all over my
> books on computers, and refers to exactly what LSJ uses
> it for; a requirement that several actions be processed
> in sequence without interruption.
>
I think the word they (book writers) were looking for was/is
Sequential. They got lazy and stopped looking in the "A" section.