Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96
Thomas R Wylie
GENERAL RULINGS
1) All action modifiers for a given action are retained until the action is
completed, even if the action is blocked. For example, Uncontrollable Rage
will provide its bonus even if the action is blocked.
2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, and a
Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a
vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a
Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be
part of the new sect instead of the old one.
Remember that the extra capacity granted by a new Praxis Seizure is inherent
to the title and dependent on the vampire's clan. Losing the title will cause
the capacity to disappear, and changing the Prince's clan to or from the
appropriate clan will cause it to gain or lose that extra capacity.
REVERSALS
None.
ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES
1) Blood Hunt is a directed action.
2) Once Shackles of Enkidu is used, it is controlled by the Methuselah who
controls the vampire who used it; changing the controller of the vampire
changes who controls the Shackles.
3) Change of Target does not untap a blocking minion who was already tapped.
Neither does Obedience or Elder Impersonation.
4) Dreams of the Sphinx only increases your hand size until the end of the
current turn.
5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not
the master phases of other Methuselahs.
CARD RULINGS
1) Change of Target, Obedience, and Elder Impersonation will not untap a
minion who blocked while tapped.
2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's
ability.
3) If Return to Innocence is modified by Day Operation, and the action is
successful, the acting Methuselah chooses whether the acting vampire will go
into torpor before he or she is burned, since both effects would otherwise
happen at the same time.
4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
The Corrupter
On 8 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally,
This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be
princes.
> and a
> Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a
> vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a
> Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be
> part of the new sect instead of the old one.
I don't like how the sect ruling overlooks card text (Non-camarilla).
> 4) Dreams of the Sphinx only increases your hand size until the end of the
> current turn.
Good call.
> 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not
> the master phases of other Methuselahs.
Good for Temptation, but Phobia becomes _far_ too weak. Perhaps this
should be reconsidered...
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?
L. Scott Johnson
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>GENERAL RULINGS
>2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
>lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
>who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, and a
>Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a
>vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a
>Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be
>part of the new sect instead of the old one.
>Remember that the extra capacity granted by a new Praxis Seizure is inherent
>to the title and dependent on the vampire's clan. Losing the title will cause
>the capacity to disappear, and changing the Prince's clan to or from the
>appropriate clan will cause it to gain or lose that extra capacity.
Bad move on the "Card text applies only in certain situations" ruling.
Now we'll never get to the bottom of all of this.
0) You're saying that "Non-Camarilla" is not a function of card text, but
rather, a function of clan. But "Cannot Commit Diablerie" is a function
of card text, not of clan?
1) A Giovanni with a Writ Seizes Praxis (bacoming a Cam Prince). Then loses
the Writ. By the above, he would still be a prince, but this was not
the way you claimed it should work earlier.
2) The clan only applies at certain times (namely, for clan-friendly Praxes,
but not for Justicarship). Does this mean that the clan shift will or
will not affect miscellaneous clan-specific cards (like Aching Beauty,
Love Affair, Malk Derangement, Powerbase: Berlin, et cetera)?
>CARD RULINGS
>2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's
>ability.
You mean "can burn cards that are being played ..." (or are we going back
to the pre-Nov'94 ruling that Sudden Reversal can burn a card in play? :-)
So, if Bindusara Impersonates a Malkavian, and takes a Master-Card action
to place a Haven Uncovered card on her Prey's vampire via a Madness Network
action on her Prey's turn, then her Prey cannot Sudden Reversal that
because it is being done on her own turn, right?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Backing into a fan, the firefly
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | was delighted to no end!
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Thomas R Wylie
The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
>> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
>> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
>> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally,
>This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be
>princes.
There are three options for what happens when a vampire changes sects:
1. She loses all abilities of the old sect.
2. She loses no abilities of the old sect.
3. She loses any abilities from column A, and none from column B.
Losing all abilities creates too much weirdness, and having a laundry list
creates too many headaches. It is therefore best and simplest to say the
vampire loses none of the abilities, regardless of what the backstory might
have to say on the matter.
Nathan Harada
>The Corrupter wrote:
> > On 8 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>
> > 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not
> > the master phases of other Methuselahs.
>
> Good for Temptation, but Phobia becomes _far_ too weak. Perhaps this
> should be reconsidered...
not have anywhere near enough time to accumulate enough counters to do
anything if the Counter-cards only work during your master phase. The
only way to speed up the Temptation effect is if the Setites take actions
to enter combat with the other vampires, who are much more likely to be
_better_ at combat than the Setites.
Phobia is useless. I've already stripped it out of my theft deck because
the one minion affected can only be blocked safely after way too long a wait.
Right now I don't see any reason why it would be used at all, as an action
that would be better spent bleeding or voting. Five turns against a rush
combat deck looks _really_ bad. A decent rush deck should be able to torporize
enough vampires to make Phobia useless by the time it accumulates four counters.
Serpentis strategies are easily countered by opponents who know what
the cards can do, and possess commonly played cards. Blood Doll seriously
slows down Temptation. Heidelberg Castle used correctly prevents your
opponent from taking any actions with a stolen vampire, or slows down the
theft time.
Setites and the Setite cards tend to be extremely weak against certain types
of decks. They really don't deserve to be made even weaker against all decks.
Alec Chang
Hi. This is long. A summary for those who don't want to slog through it is at
the end.
Nathan Harada wrote:
>
> >The Corrupter wrote:
> > > On 8 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
> >
> > > 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not
> > > the master phases of other Methuselahs.
> >
> > Good for Temptation, but Phobia becomes _far_ too weak. Perhaps this
> > should be reconsidered...
>
> It's miserable for both Phobia and Temptation! Setite theft decks do
> not have anywhere near enough time to accumulate enough counters to do
> anything if the Counter-cards only work during your master phase. The
> only way to speed up the Temptation effect is if the Setites take actions
> to enter combat with the other vampires, who are much more likely to be
> _better_ at combat than the Setites.And, as I believe I've mentioned before, Settites are almost useless in combat,
especially w/ phobia being hosed by the above ruling. What the heck; both it and
Temptation clearly stated each master phase, and although that can be annoying,
neither of them struck me as particularly abusive as written.
> Phobia is useless. I've already stripped it out of my theft deck because
> the one minion affected can only be blocked safely after way too long a wait.
> Right now I don't see any reason why it would be used at all, as an action
> that would be better spent bleeding or voting. Five turns against a rush
> combat deck looks _really_ bad. A decent rush deck should be able to torporize
> enough vampires to make Phobia useless by the time it accumulates four counters.
Of course, this is WHY phobia never struck me as abusive...
> Serpentis strategies are easily countered by opponents who know what
> the cards can do, and possess commonly played cards. Blood Doll seriously
> slows down Temptation. Heidelberg Castle used correctly prevents your
> opponent from taking any actions with a stolen vampire, or slows down the
> theft time.And when Temptation is reduced to one counter each of YOUR master phases, these
problems are only aggravated until it becomes almost totally useless.
> Setites and the Setite cards tend to be extremely weak against certain types
> of decks. They really don't deserve to be made even weaker against all decks.Actually, Settites are already weaker and moer vulnerable against almost all
decks as it is. Of four master cards which require Settites; Temple hunting
ground, opium den, Grand Temple of set, and Realm of the black sun; two are cards
which are almost required for the new clans(the huntin ground and stealth card),
and the other two cost pool and can be burned as D actions. And Grand Temple of
Set takes pool from you, and master phase actions, all of which are wasted if a
stealth/bleed or rush deck decides to burn it. Just from that, I would say the
Settites are underpowered(I've bitched about serpentis before; the only really
useful cards in it from my pov were Form of corruption{unreliable, since your
prey needs to gain the edge repeatedly}, and Temptation, which made a start on
keeping settites and serpentis reasonable. Most of the rest, quite frankly, made
it to my wallpaper list). But there's more.
Have you counted how many cards there are out there which hose the
Settites specifically? Let's start from the top; not even counting the generic
non-cam hosers, there's children of osiris(burn blood to untap), Corruption's
purge(burn blood or go to torpor), Akhenaten, The sun pharoh(does 3 aggravated
hand damage vs Settites, and bleeds for 2), Seeds of corruption(Which has double
the effect at normal and 1.5 times the effect at superior; burning more blood),
Murat's special ability, Radeyah's Special, Damaskenos' special, the 6-cap
Tremere's(whose name I've forgotten) special, and then there's the Jackal(both
assamites and Settites, but the assamites can deal w/ the stealth better), and
all the piles of anti non-cam cards; Protect thine own, Cornelius Ottavo's
ability, Closed session(junk, admittedly), etc...
To be frank, the Settites do not deserve the treatment that they have
been getting. They have more specific hosers than any other clan in the game(The
assamites have what could be construed as three; the Toreador have the same), and
although they aren't quite as harsh as the malkavian hosers, except for
Akhenaten, who completely totals Settite decks, they are REALLY excessive. I may
even have missed some of the hosers, since there are so many. Serpentis before
the rulings on Temptation and Phobia struck me as an unfocused, underpowered
displine for the Settites; with average to useless combat cards and okay combat
prep, it's theft ability was the only thing that made me see it as worth playing
w/ in a settite deck(political, bleed, just not combat; that requires piles of
out of clan vampires). As it stands now, I feel that either one plays with
Temptation and Phobia as written, or consigns the idea of a non-combat settite
deck which uses serpentis to the dustbin. I mean, what's left? Form of the
serpent? Lure of the serpent, which is a far mastery w/out the stealth? I can't
think of ANYTHING to do w/ the remaining serpentis cards in a focused, non-combat
settite deck. And I've come up w/ some pretty wild ideas in my time(Ventrue
combat. It worked. Kind of).
I've ranted for a while already, but I'm going on for a bit more. First;
cards which hose specific strategies through directly affecting all cards of a
certain type or allowing negative effects to be focused on only cards of that
type or amplifying unpleasantness(i.e., all the hosers I named above) should not
be needed in a truly balanced game. There's nothing wrong with having a few of
them, for people who can't deal with other strategies effectively, but there
should never be such a volume of them, or any which overwhelmingly throw the
game(AI. 'nuff said).
Second; Reasons for hosers. Supposing that there was a reason for all the cards
which make Settites unhappy, what would it be? That as a clan, either they or
their powers are overpowered or unbalanced to the point where other cards need to
crush them to balance the game? Maybe so; proceeding from that assumption, which
cards as written would be unpleasant enough to make people care? Why, those
theft cards; Temptation, for temporary 'borrowing' of larger vamps, Corruption,
for the allies and weenies, Form of Corruption(make sure your prey gains the
edge), and Grand Temple of Set... for those foolish enough not to burn it.
Presence and obfuscate do well together, but not nearly as well as
dominate/obfuscate. Perhaps the people at WotC were trying to make up for the
malkavians by making sure that any other clan w/ stealth and bleed got hosed.
However, Presence is worse than dominate for S&B for a number of reasons:
1) Actions, not action modifiers. Your prey will be able to see the bleed coming
a mile away, and invest intercept when it counts. This does make a huge
difference.
2)No inherent stealth or 'this vampire cannot block' in presence. Dominate has
bonding and seduction. Presence has marijava ghoul(takes an action and two blood
to get), which helps, and Majesty. But this is S&B, not untap bleed.
3) The settites are not Toreador. This seems intuitive, but it means that they
pay blood for aire of elation to get...a threats? I've stopped playing with
threats in all of my bleed decks; the same principle applies here, except that
tbere are no other presence bleed modifiers, so one is stuck.
In summation the above has stated that the Settites have too many hosers; an over
generalized clan displine w/ only a few useful cards for them BEFORE it was
hamstrung by the ruling; a okay Stealth and bleed capacity which nonetheless
fails to make up to the malkavian standard; pitiful combat ability, and a theft
ability which takes far, far too long, and is much too risky, unless Temptation
is played as written, not as ruled. I find it absurd that WotC finds it
necessary to first include all those cards just to cause pain to Settite decks,
makes the clan's primary discipline unfocused, with about half wallpaper and half
good cards, and THEN feels that those few good cards need to be reduced in power
from middling high to the wastepaper bin which most other Serpentis cards are
consigned to(at least for settite decks).
What gives? Should I go out and burn all of my settites and serpentis cards as
totally useless and unplayable?(I'm not serious, of course. But sometimes I
wonder whether the people supporting V:tES at WotC have heard of game balance
recently.)
Anyone who feels that the above is totally wrong: feel free to have your opinion.
Just don't let me know; right now I'm in a tizzy and apt to become less coherent
and polite than even the above may show me as.
Alec Chang
The Corrupter
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote:
[From the end of his article]
> Anyone who feels that the [below] is totally wrong: feel free to have
> your opinion. Just don't let me know; right now I'm in a tizzy and
> apt to become less coherent and polite than even the above may show me as.
Well, I'm likely to let you know my opinion anyway... :) In general,
while I feel the recent (mis)ruliing was a disservice to the FoS, it can
be reruled. If not, I'm not sure I agree with much of your assessment.
[Re: FoS and their being weak.]
> Have you counted how many cards there are out there which hose the
> Settites specifically?
Few players play with a hoser in their deck. Strategy hosers are
occasianally seen, but clan hosers are rarely seen.
> Let's start from the top; not even counting
> the generic non-cam hosers, there's children of osiris(burn blood to
> untap),
Easily removed with Stealth. Majesty escapes those who are blocked.
> Corruption's purge(burn blood or go to torpor),
A vote not likely to be in many vote decks, against a deck with presence
and inborn votes.
> Akhenaten, The sun pharoh(does 3 aggravated hand damage vs Settites,
> and bleeds for 2),
Costs 4 pool and an action to get out. Costs an action to use his Burn a
Setite power, in combat with a clan that can make all aggravated normal.
Decent, but not awful.
> Seeds of corruption(Which has double the effect at normal and 1.5
> times the effect at superior; burning more blood)
The only really excellent FoS hoser, this will likely occupy a particular
FoS for 3 actions, if they are the only one removing it. Seeing as FoS
can steal weenies, have stealth themselves, and can majesty away,
removing this card really isn't too difficult, even against Tremere
intercept (majesty escape, mummify if they are using Fast Reactions).
>, Murat's special ability,
Weak.
> Radeyah's Special,
A good one (enter combat with Setites). That put's the count at 3.
> Damaskenos' special,
Weak and unlikely.
> the 6-cap Tremere's(whose name I've forgotten) special,
Elisabetta Romano's +1 bleed vs. Setite's is a common 0 pt. ability.
> and then there's the
> Jackal(both assamites and Settites, but the assamites can deal w/ the
> stealth better),
Jackal is mediocre. Few decks would include it.
> and all the piles of anti non-cam cards; Protect
> thine own, Cornelius Ottavo's ability, Closed session(junk,
> admittedly), etc...
> To be frank, the Settites do not deserve the treatment that they have
> been getting. They have more specific hosers than any other clan in
> the game(The assamites have what could be construed as three; the
> Toreador have the same), and although they aren't quite as harsh as
> the malkavian hosers, except for Akhenaten, who completely totals
> Settite decks, they are REALLY excessive. I may even have missed some
> of the hosers, since there are so many.
The hosers are not really that big of a deal. 3 of them are worth
thinking about. The rest are difficult to include in decks. I don't
feel their hosers are excessive.
> Serpentis before the rulings
> on Temptation and Phobia struck me as an unfocused, underpowered
> displine for the Settites; with average to useless combat cards and okay
> combat prep, it's theft ability was the only thing that made me see it
> as worth playing w/ in a settite deck(political, bleed, just not
> combat; that requires piles of out of clan vampires). As it stands
> now, I feel that either one plays with Temptation and Phobia as
> written, or consigns the idea of a non-combat settite deck which uses
> serpentis to the dustbin. I mean, what's left?
[snipped quips on cards]
> I've ranted for a while already, but I'm going on for a bit more.
> First;
> cards which hose specific strategies through directly affecting all
> cards of a certain type or allowing negative effects to be focused on
> only cards of that type or amplifying unpleasantness(i.e., all the
> hosers I named above) should not be needed in a truly balanced game.
> There's nothing wrong with having a few of them, for people who can't
> deal with other strategies effectively, but there should never be such
> a volume of them, or any which overwhelmingly throw the game(AI.
> 'nuff said).
Definately agreed.
> Second; Reasons for hosers. Supposing that there was a reason for all
> the cards which make Settites unhappy, what would it be? That as a
> clan, either they or their powers are overpowered or unbalanced to the
> point where other cards need to crush them to balance the game? Maybe
> so; proceeding from that assumption, which cards as written would be
> unpleasant enough to make people care? Why, those theft cards;
> Temptation, for temporary 'borrowing' of larger vamps, Corruption, for
> the allies and weenies, Form of Corruption(make sure your prey gains the
> edge), and Grand Temple of Set... for those foolish enough not to burn it.
Yes, but very few of the cards that hurt Setites are effective. Those
that are are typically quite dealable in a Setite deck.
> Presence and obfuscate do well together, but not nearly as well as
> dominate/obfuscate.
I disagree. See below.
> Perhaps the people at WotC were trying to make up
> for the malkavians by making sure that any other clan w/ stealth and
> bleed got hosed. However, Presence is worse than dominate for S&B for
> a number of reasons:
> 1) Actions, not action modifiers. Your prey will be able to see the
> bleed coming a mile away, and invest intercept when it counts. This
> does make a huge difference.
Agreed. But if they attempt to block, they know a majesty could be
waiting for them. With Golden Tenets, that means a possible evil vote or
stealing card. For non-GT, add in another bleed as well.
> 2)No inherent stealth or 'this vampire cannot block' in presence.
> Dominate has bonding and seduction. Presence has marijava ghoul(takes
> an action and two blood to get), which helps, and Majesty. But this
> is S&B, not untap bleed.
Just because there is one flavor of S&B doesn't mean there isn't
another. Followers of Set aren't Malks. Sure, they can't Seduce or
Bond, but they can Majesty. Since they have stealth, they can try again
(in non-GT) or do something else at stealth.
> 3) The settites are not Toreador. This seems intuitive, but it means
> that they pay blood for aire of elation to get...a threats? I've
> stopped playing with threats in all of my bleed decks; the same
> principle applies here, except that tbere are no other presence bleed
> modifiers, so one is stuck.
Despite a one-blood cost, just the threat of another 2 pool loss is
enough for most people to be afraid to just let it through. Just as you
say Setites are not Toreador, remember, they are not Malkavian either.
They cannot bleed for as much as a Malk, but they can gain back pool at
an alarming rate (gaining, if stealthing through, some 2 to 3 pool a turn
from bleeds alone).
> In summation the above has stated that the Settites have too many
> hosers; an over generalized clan displine w/ only a few useful cards
> for them BEFORE it was hamstrung by the ruling; a okay Stealth and
> bleed capacity which nonetheless fails to make up to the malkavian
> standard;
They are not Malks. This comparison is equivalent to saying "Brujah do
not live up to the easy torporing ability of the Gangrel". Apples and
Oranges, Brujah and Gangrel, Followers of Set and Malkavians. They
aren't the same thing.
> pitiful combat ability, and a theft ability which takes far,
> far too long, and is much too risky, unless Temptation is played as
> written, not as ruled. I find it absurd that WotC finds it necessary
> to first include all those cards just to cause pain to Settite decks,
> makes the clan's primary discipline unfocused, with about half
> wallpaper and half good cards, and THEN feels that those few good
> cards need to be reduced in power from middling high to the wastepaper
> bin which most other Serpentis cards are consigned to(at least for
> settite decks).
After rethinking, I agree that Temptation is fine as written, but I
disagree with your overall assessment of Serpentis. Only Eyes of the
Serpent (and now Phobia) seem trashy.
> What gives? Should I go out and burn all of my settites and serpentis
> cards as totally useless and unplayable?(I'm not serious, of course.
> But sometimes I wonder whether the people supporting V:tES at WotC
> have heard of game balance recently.)
I think they did a fine job, and with the exception of this recent ruling
on Phobia (I could live with Temptation, though I do not think it would
be to powerful if it was every phase) find their treatment of Game
Balance relatively fair.
DOUGDWISE
Alec,
I agree that the FoS don't really seem to be very scary. That may just be
because I haven't seen them used well though. Serpentis looks like kind
of a weak Animalism to me: a discipline that tries to have a little of
lots of stuff without doing anything very well. I certainly don't think
that the cards as rled are going to be able to do much for the clan. By
the time they build up enough power to be useful the FoS may very well be
dead. They should probably forget about using Serpentis much and put
their Obfuscate and Presence to work. As Corrupter said, the use of
enhanced bleeds at stealth that allow pool gain may be pretty effective.
I think that might be the way I'd try to work them. But then I never play
S&B decks unless I'm helping somebody test their deck. (That's probably
why AI doesn't bother me. ;-] )
Hope the Rules team reverses this one so we can see how a theft deck will
affect the environment. As it stands now I don't think they will be
viable. Good luck with FoS.
Doug Dunaway
[ An artistically inept Torreador]
Everett Littles
You couldn't have been more dead on in your analysis of the Setites and
specifically Serpentis. The Setites did get hosed. If you look in the
Dark Ages book and any other book that shows the levels of Serpentis you
can see that the Setites got robbed. Tongue of the Asp for example.
Steal 2 blood? Sure that's ok but in Storyteller that thing does
aggravated damage, something that the Setites could really use. And what
about this garbage about Heart of Darkness being able to be burned as a D
action? That should be a permanent effect card. And where is that on
skill they have? Breath of Baslisk (or however you spell it), that is a
pretty wicked skill in the storyteller game that just never made it to
V:Tes. But in the mean time until they fix Serpentis and make it
worthwhile you can always try what I did and substitute Serpentis with
Dominate. It seems like it works ok, at leats better than Serpentis.
Everett Littles Cal Poly SLO Business MIS
http://www.calpoly.edu/~elittles/park.html
Clan Ravnos Home Page
Alec Chang
Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>
> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
> >> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
> >> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
> >> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally,
> >This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be
> >princes.
>
> There are three options for what happens when a vampire changes sects:
>
> 1. She loses all abilities of the old sect.
> 2. She loses no abilities of the old sect.
> 3. She loses any abilities from column A, and none from column B.
>
> Losing all abilities creates too much weirdness, and having a laundry list
> creates too many headaches. It is therefore best and simplest to say the
> vampire loses none of the abilities, regardless of what the backstory might
> have to say on the matter.
I hate to bring up hypothetical issues, these might determine the
viability of a Non-cam vote deck.
Suppose a Non camarilla vampire uses a clan impersonation to become
camarilla, say, a ventrue. Then that ex-non cam vampire plays a praxis
seizure, becoming a prince. Then it takes the action to burn the clan
impersonation. Does it lose the title? Under the current ruling, my
first reaction would be no. In a Change of sect, the vampire loses no
abilities of the old sect.
Now, what happens w/ writ of acceptance? Suppose Hadrian Garick got a
writ, then called himself prince of Seattle. Then a heidelburg castle is
used to transfer the writ to another settite, who then calls themselves
prince of, say, monaco. Does Hadrian still retain his title, since he is
no longer camarilla?
And although I never expect to see this happen in a game, what happens
when a non-camarilla impersonates a camarilla clan, say ventrue, and
becomes justicar, then returns to their original clan? Do they lose the
title? Under the current ruling, I would say not.
All of this is just speculation right now, but if that's the way things
stand, making non-camarilla politics decks looks a lot easier than it
used to be.
Alec Chang
WyldStar
Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>
> GENERAL RULINGS
>
> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
> Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a
> vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a
> Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be
> part of the new sect instead of the old one.
>
> Remember that the extra capacity granted by a new Praxis Seizure is inherent
> to the title and dependent on the vampire's clan. Losing the title will cause
> the capacity to disappear, and changing the Prince's clan to or from the
> appropriate clan will cause it to gain or lose that extra capacity.
>
Hmmm... I'm not sure how this ruling floats with me.. but I don't see it
making a difference in most games...
> 4) Dreams of the Sphinx only increases your hand size until the end of the
> current turn.
>
Thank God for this ruiling.. :) It still makes the card powerful, but not
too powerful....
> 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not
> the master phases of other Methuselahs.
Eeek... like the Setites needed to get any weaker... (sigh)
>
> 3) If Return to Innocence is modified by Day Operation, and the action is
> successful, the acting Methuselah chooses whether the acting vampire will go
> into torpor before he or she is burned, since both effects would otherwise
> happen at the same time.
>
Ugh... I don't know whether I should cheer for this ruling or not.. i already
makes a way-too-powerful combo even worse with Fame....
> 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
>
ACK! Now THAT sucks.. :)
WyldStar
The Corrupter
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote:
> Thomas R Wylie wrote:
[Re: GENERAL RULINGS]
[Clan impersonation/losing sect or clan results]
> Hmmm... I'm not sure how this ruling floats with me.. but I don't see it
> making a difference in most games...
I don't like how it ignores card text. This only serves to increase
confusion. Easier to go by card text, in the long run.
[snip]
> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
> ACK! Now THAT sucks.. :)
I agree. Since B2W is not a strike, there is no reason it should care
about range unless it specifically mentions it in card text. Does
Drawing Out the Beast care? Do other, similar cards care?
George Tran
I completely agree. I thought I was doing something different when I
made my settite deck with all those really cool new cards. With phobia
being next to useless, compounded by the fact that tempation and Form of
corruption being extremely rare, my deck became nothing more than a S&B
with the added ability to M:CE. As a matter of principle, I don't do
S&B. I aggravates me to no end that the Grand Temple of Set can be
burned as a (D) action. You've just spent 2 pool and need to transfer
blood to the temple only to have it burnt. This makes for a useless
master card and a great way to bleed youself indirectly.
Given all the limitations outlined by Alec Chang, I thoroughly agree
that the Settites have been deal a raw deal. I would like to suggest
the following changes to better balance the game:
1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action.
2) Make the number of corruption cards needed to take control of a
vampire equal its current blood (like temptation) as opposed to the
capacity.
3) Make phobia add a counter for every Methusela's master as opposed to
the controlling Methusela's.
Cheers
George
The Corrupter
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, George Tran wrote:
> Given all the limitations outlined by Alec Chang, I thoroughly agree
> that the Settites have been deal a raw deal. I would like to suggest
> the following changes to better balance the game:
While I agree that they are weakened by the latest ruling, I hardly think
they are to badly put out.
> 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action.
Probably better is to reduce the cost to 0 or to take over a vampire
when you equal their current blood. In any case, it is stil a useful weenie
grabber.
> 2) Make the number of corruption cards needed to take control of a
> vampire equal its current blood (like temptation) as opposed to the
> capacity.
FAR too powerful. Corruption is not meant to be a method of permanently
stealing powerful vampires easily. Use it in bulk, with Whispers of the
Dead, throw in Carlotta, or consign yourself to more weenies.
> 3) Make phobia add a counter for every Methusela's master as opposed to
> the controlling Methusela's.
Here we agree. Phobia and temptation (which after I think about it needs
it) should work as card text suggests.
Malcolm McCallum
If Settites got such a raw deal, how come I tend to win with them? How=20
come people panic when they find Settites as their predator? I don't play=
=20
them as serious S&B. I play them as corrupters or voters and they work=20
both ways. Sure they aren't able to sweep every table, but if they were,=20
I wouldn't play with them.
Hose cards. Our group (especially me) play with alot of clan hose cards.=20
They are particulariy useful for discouraging people from bringing=20
predictable decks to the table. If nobody was afraid of Settites, nobody=20
would put the Settite hosers in their decks. One of the aspects that I=20
like about V:TES is that it is not a one-shot game. Previous games=20
greatly affect the way one builds a deck and plays a game. Build yourself=
=20
a Settite deck and throw it in just when when your prey is expecting your=
=20
Gangrel.=20
The Settites may not be as 'good' as Gangrel or Malkavian, =C4ut perhaps=20
that is their strength. ;)
Vernon Putman
My, but you doo ramble, don't you?
The reason for all the hosers is simple.
Role-playing.
EVERYONE hates the Followers of Set.
Therefore, everyone goes out of their way, when the Followers of
Set are around, to try to get rid of them.
--
-- Nyarlathotep : The Crawling Chaos
L. Scott Johnson
The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote:
>> Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
>
>> ACK! Now THAT sucks.. :)
>I agree. Since B2W is not a strike, there is no reason it should care
>about range unless it specifically mentions it in card text. Does
>Drawing Out the Beast care? Do other, similar cards care?
Looks like Crew SNAFU (WotC) has been working overtime on this one.
Use the ruling, and simply play blood to water before range is
chosen (since the second round /starts/ at close, and Blood to Water
is usable any time before strike resolution).
Or just ignore the ruling, use common sense, and get the same results.
Thomas R Wylie
>> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at
range as printed. Sorry for the confusion.
Nathan Harada
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, George Tran wrote:
>
> > Given all the limitations outlined by Alec Chang, I thoroughly agree
> > the following changes to better balance the game:
>
> While I agree that they are weakened by the latest ruling, I hardly think
> they are to badly put out.
>
> > 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action.
> Probably better is to reduce the cost to 0 or to take over a vampire
> when you equal their current blood. In any case, it is stil a useful
> weenie grabber.
vampire...if your prey hasn't burned it by then, causing you to lose pool.
The Grand Temple of Set is a card powerful enough to require only one
of three possible fixes.
Of these, the unburnable as an D action is best, since the GToS
costs pool. I don't think that any other master: unique location you pay
pool for is burnable as a D action, except for Pere Lachaise. It forces your
prey to rely on Arson, Bombs, and Rampages, (My Malks always had Arsons, my
Nosfer and Brujah Rampages.) and it gives the Setites a fighting chance to
steal a good vampire.
Reducing the cost to 0 is another good fix, but it's still slow, and
with the GToS burnable, most, if not all, of your minions will have to remain
untapped in order to protect it. And as stated before, Setites don't protect
very well.
Making the GToS able to take the vampire when the pool on the card
equals the vampire's current blood is, for the reasons affecting Corruption,
making the GToS too powerful. Spending 3 pool to take a vampire with 1
blood of any capacity is possible.
> > 2) Make the number of corruption cards needed to take control of a
> > vampire equal its current blood (like temptation) as opposed to the
> > capacity.
> FAR too powerful. Corruption is not meant to be a method of permanently
> stealing powerful vampires easily. Use it in bulk, with Whispers of the
> Dead, throw in Carlotta, or consign yourself to more weenies.
> > 3) Make phobia add a counter for every Methusela's master as opposed to
> > the controlling Methusela's.
> Here we agree. Phobia and temptation (which after I think about it needs
> it) should work as card text suggests.
of the Serpent? Making it S:CE all minions at superior makes it of general
use, instead of a hand clogger that _might_ be useful if your prey or predator
brings out a Renegade Garou, or Akhenaton, or a Muddled Vampire Hunter. And
it's better to steal one of those allies than to S:CE.
DOUGDWISE
Malcolm,
Thanks for the information about the FoS decks. I am one of those who
didn't see them being very useful ( but admitted I may not have seen them
used well.) I hope they are successful and will invigorate the
environment.
Would you be willing to post your Settite decks to the newsgroup or e-mail
them to me? I'm curious to see your approach and might try one myself.
Do you play Temptation and Phobia as written or with the RTR errata?
Thanks for the addition to the discussion.
Doug Dunaway
( An Artistically Inept Torreador)
L. Scott Johnson
Nathan Harada <an64...@anon.penet.fi> writes:
>The Corrupter wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, George Tran wrote:
>> > 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action.
>> Probably better is to reduce the cost to 0 or to take over a vampire
>> when you equal their current blood. In any case, it is stil a useful
>> weenie grabber.
>costs pool. I don't think that any other master: unique location you pay
>pool for is burnable as a D action, except for Pere Lachaise. It forces your
>prey to rely on Arson, Bombs, and Rampages, (My Malks always had Arsons, my
>Nosfer and Brujah Rampages.) and it gives the Setites a fighting chance to
>steal a good vampire.
Master: Unique Location; N Pool; Burn/steal with a (D) action are commonplace
in Dark Sovereigns: Forest of Shadows, Ravnos Cache, Powerbase: Berlin,
Wasserschloss Anif, Oxford University, Powerbase: Rome.
Most of these are wallpaper, and would be balanced (IMHO) by removing the
Burn option or the Pool Cost.
The Corrupter
On 9 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
> >> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to
> >> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince
> >> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally,
> >This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be
> >princes.
> There are three options for what happens when a vampire changes sects:
> 1. She loses all abilities of the old sect.
> 2. She loses no abilities of the old sect.
> 3. She loses any abilities from column A, and none from column B.
> Losing all abilities creates too much weirdness,
Examples?
I can't think of any particular weirdness.
> and having a laundry list
> creates too many headaches.
How is a new laundry list created We already have the old Non-Camarilla
laundry list.
> It is therefore best and simplest to say the
> vampire loses none of the abilities, regardless of what the backstory might
> have to say on the matter.
From a Jyhad game standpoint (as opposed to a V:tM standpoint), it still
makes less sense. A non-Camarilla member can't be prince. But if they
become Camarilla they can be a prince. But if they lose their Camarilla
status, then they can still be a prince.
Isn't it just easier to say:
If you are non-Camarilla, these are your restrictions, rather than the
hullaballu above?
Making vampire clan=vampire sect is also confusing. Saqqaf decides to
impersonate a Nosferatu (clan impersonation) becomes Nossie Justicar, and
then ends the impersonation, remaining Nosferatu Justicar?
Now we have a non-Camarilla vampire (according to card text and card
state) being a Justicar of a clan they don't belong to.
Easier to work with card text. Saqqaf is non-Camarilla, and will be
treated as such until a card explicitly overrides that. X Justicar is a
position only holdable by X (Camarilla) clan. While of that clan, you
qualify as Justicar. While not, you temporarily do not.
Perhaps this ruling need to be rethought.
L. Scott Johnson
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>>> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
>This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at
>range as printed. Sorry for the confusion.
But you can still use it before the Maneuver step of the second round,
since that is certainly before strikes, and every round begins at close
range. Just like Weather Control doesn't mention (or care) about range,
because it is done at a time before range becomes meaningful.
The errata/ruling/whatever is useless.
The Corrupter
On 14 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
> >> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
> This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at
> range as printed. Sorry for the confusion.
You've just added to mine...
B2W, What does it now do? The ruling said that it is not usable at
range. Now you say that that ruling is errata to the card and it
obviously works at range.
What?
Nicole Roy
The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote:
: On 14 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
:
: > >> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range.
:
: > This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at
: > range as printed. Sorry for the confusion.
: You've just added to mine...
: B2W, What does it now do? The ruling said that it is not usable at
: range. Now you say that that ruling is errata to the card and it
: obviously works at range.
: What?
I believe Tom is saying this: As written, it is perfectly acceptable to
use tha card at range. The above statement, which was called a ruling, is
more properly called errata, the difference being that rulings interpret
what is said on the card whereas errata add new information to make the
card work 'properly' (in the eyes of the Rules Team).
Since that point, LSJ has pointed out that even if it _is_ errata, it
isn't _enough_ errata to make the card work the way they apparently want
it to. Since BtW isn't a strike, it can be played at any time during a
combat round - including immediately as the round starts, before anyone
has played maneuvers and combat is (evenif only temporarily) at close
range.
That clear things up?
Still using Nicole's account...
Shane H.W. Travis | Alone, adj.:
ro...@duke.usask.ca | In bad company.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
L. Scott Johnson
Oh yeah, one more pending item from The Age of Tom:
The ruling on Bindusara vs. Suden Reversal is too broadly written:
Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96
Date: 1996/07/09
>CARD RULINGS
>2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's
>ability.
You mean "can burn cards that are being played ..." (or are we going back
to the pre-Nov'94 ruling that Sudden Reversal can burn a card in play? :-)
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | In theory there is no difference
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | between theory and practice.