KoT card questions for LSJ (because they're officially released today)
Jozxyqk
cards. Presumably, LSJ hasn't answered any of them yet because the set
wasn't officially released yet. But today is the release date...
So, here's what I can remember:
1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card,
will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are
cards that only conditionally cancel other cards?
(I also asked this question in the Promos thread)
2a) Vidal - What is a definitive list of "non-infernal vampire traits" that
he can fake? Beyond Anarch, Black Hand, Seraph, and Inquisitor, it gets
a little bit hazy. As mentioned by James, even Red List is questionable
because allies can have that trait.
2b) I know I promised not to ask this one, but I can't resist.
According to his card text, Vidal can only meet a given requirement once
per game. Does that include cards for which he "naturally" meets the
requirements? (i.e. if he plays Majesty once, he can never play a
presence card again for the rest of the game)
3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her?
Some examples:
a) If Unmasking is in play, do allies get +1 intercept against her?
b) If Fall of the Camarilla is played, does her Prince-ness make her
immune to it, or does its "There is no Camarilla" make her not a Prince?
c) If Recalled to the Founder is in play, can you control Karen and _two_
other Brujah without burning one of them?
...
4) Heroic Might [sup] - Does the 2R strike count as a "strike that requires
Potence", for purposes of Increased Strength? (Precedent: Improvised
Tactics' strike _does_ count)
5) Coterie Tactics - ugh, Coterie Tactics.
a) How does this work against Block Fails cards? "That minion cannot attempt
to block this action again." Does that stop both of the Coterie from
attempting to block again?
b) How does this work against Kiss of Ra?
i) ..if neither of the Coterie has Fortitude?
ii) .. if one of the Coterie has Fortitude and the other doesn't?
c) If 2 anarchs are attempting to block a Fiendish Tongue action with
Coterie Tactics, do they get -1 intercept *each* (for a total of -2), or
just -1 for the block?
...
6) New Madness Network/Ankou/Enkil Cog
This has already been answered to me unofficially, but I'm looking for an
official answer to be posted:
Does the new wording of Madness Network get rid of the point of the minion
phase where you are "finished with your actions"?
(that is, does it get rid of the Empty Vampire with Rutor's Hand loophole?)
That's it for now..
Jozxyqk
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_KeepersofTradition
Some of my questions from the parent post, including ones with "clarifications"
on the page, are still not completely answered.
So I'm hoping LSJ will address them.
I'm also now interested in the full repercussions of the re-definition of
(D) actions...... but I need some time to think about questions that break it.
(Except one: Are Political Actions always undirected? I think the answer is yes)
Jozxyqk
> I'm also now interested in the full repercussions of the re-definition of
> (D) actions...... but I need some time to think about questions that break it.
> (Except one: Are Political Actions always undirected? I think the answer is yes)
OK here's one set of questions about this that might answer most situations other
than the most obscure case-by-case situations:
I control Jaroslav.
My prey controls Moncada.
Jaroslav takes his action to do 1 damage to all my prey's Sabbat vampires.
This action now costs a pool. Correct?
Now assume the above, but Moncada has a Secure Haven.
Jaroslav's action does not hurt Moncada and no longer costs a pool.
Correct?
Also: Can an action now change from Directed to Undirected (or vice versa)
between announcement and resolution?
For example:
I control Jake Washington and Midget.
My prey controls an Underbridge Stray and Stick, who is tapped.
There are no other allies on the table.
Midget attempts the superior Wave of Insanity action.
It is now Directed, because my prey controls an ally.
My prey burns the Underbridge Stray to untap Stick and attempt to block.
Since nobody has any allies except me now, is the action now
Undirected?
Thrall of Arika
discussed there.
On Nov 19, 3:14 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> OK, so here's a collection of a few questions I have come up with about KoT
> cards. Presumably, LSJ hasn't answered any of them yet because the set
> wasn't officially released yet. But today is the release date...
>
> So, here's what I can remember:
>
> 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card,
> will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are
> cards that only conditionally cancel other cards?
> (I also asked this question in the Promos thread)
Two Wrongs doesn't cancel a minion card as it is played. It could do
so later on, once in play, but then it doesn't satisfy the Dark
Influences text. I think if Botched Move's effect happens, then it
would then be cancelled, but a clarification would also be good.
Also, there was the long discussion on what it meant by "The next card
played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is
played" that should perhaps get an official clarification, since there
seemed to be two strong camps for reading it in different ways. Does
"another Methuselah" in this case mean "other than the Methuselah who
played DI2", or simply clarifying the type of cancelling card being
played?
> 2a) Vidal - What is a definitive list of "non-infernal vampire traits" that
> he can fake? Beyond Anarch, Black Hand, Seraph, and Inquisitor, it gets
> a little bit hazy. As mentioned by James, even Red List is questionable
> because allies can have that trait.
>
> 2b) I know I promised not to ask this one, but I can't resist.
> According to his card text, Vidal can only meet a given requirement once
> per game. Does that include cards for which he "naturally" meets the
> requirements? (i.e. if he plays Majesty once, he can never play a
> presence card again for the rest of the game)
His text says "can", so that would mean he doesn't have to use his
ability to satisfy requirements if he can do so in other ways (i.e.
playing Toreador cards, or becoming Anarch and using Anarch cards).
Plus his ability won't let him use Discipline cards of disciplines he
does not possess.
> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her?
> Some examples:
> a) If Unmasking is in play, do allies get +1 intercept against her?
Unmasking affects allies, not Karen.
> b) If Fall of the Camarilla is played, does her Prince-ness make her
> immune to it, or does its "There is no Camarilla" make her not a Prince?
Hmm ... An interesting one. It would seem to me that there being no
more Camarilla means she is no longer a Prince, and thus her ability
cannot protect her to keep her title, since the ability wouldn't
nullify the "There is no Camarilla" global effect in the first place.
> c) If Recalled to the Founder is in play, can you control Karen and _two_
> other Brujah without burning one of them?
This sounds right, much like Secure Haven can protect a minion from
mass effects like you mention above.
> 4) Heroic Might [sup] - Does the 2R strike count as a "strike that requires
> Potence", for purposes of Increased Strength? (Precedent: Improvised
> Tactics' strike _does_ count)
The strike comes from a card requiring Potence, so it would be a
strike that requires Potence.
> 5) Coterie Tactics - ugh, Coterie Tactics.
> a) How does this work against Block Fails cards? "That minion cannot attempt
> to block this action again." Does that stop both of the Coterie from
> attempting to block again?
> b) How does this work against Kiss of Ra?
> i) ..if neither of the Coterie has Fortitude?
> ii) .. if one of the Coterie has Fortitude and the other doesn't?
> c) If 2 anarchs are attempting to block a Fiendish Tongue action with
> Coterie Tactics, do they get -1 intercept *each* (for a total of -2), or
> just -1 for the block?
I like Coterie Tactics, but yes, your examples prove that there will
be a lot of strange interactions. CT states that both minions are
attempting to block, so it would seem that each would have to be
dealth with separately.
For Block Fails, that would seem to prevent one from blocking, and
remove their intercept from the pool of intercept granted by CT. But
then, if the remaining blocking minion still blocks, card text seems
to indicate you would still tap both, and be able to choose the failed
blocker as the actual blocker.
For Kiss of Ra, I think it would be just as the card states. You
couldn't use it if one of the blocking vampires had Fortitude. But if
both didn't, then they'd both burn 2 blood and go to Torpor ... ouch.
Fiendish Tongue et al. CT sums the two intercept values of each
vampire ... so since both are blocking, both get -1 intercept (if
Anarch), and so the overall intercept would get -2. Hmm, perhaps -
intercept will start becoming the new +stealth ...
Chris, Thrall of Arika
John Flournoy
wrote:
And yet, minions without Potence can play the strike (for instance, if
they got the Heroic Might while previously holding a Hand of Conrad or
Eye of Hazimel.)
Accordingly, I'd think the strike would not count as requiring
Potence, since, well, it doesn't require Potence to make the strike.
-John Flournoy
Blooded Sand
It is a potence card. It allows a strike. It is thus a strike allowed
by a potence card. Thus a potence strike.
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card,
> will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are
> cards that only conditionally cancel other cards?
> (I also asked this question in the Promos thread)
And then, 'cause the card actually exists now, when Dark Influences is
in play, does it:
A) Cancel the next card that cancels a card played by another methuselah
regardless of whose card is being cancelled?
B) Cancel the next card that cancels a card played by another methuselah
that targets someone *other* than the person who put the Dark Influence
in play?
Thanks,
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
John Flournoy
Actually, I think Josh has the better explanation already - given the
established precedences (Improvised Tactics counts as requiring
Potence and Ablative Skin counts as requiring Fortitude), it'd
definitely count as a strike requiring Potence.
-John Flournoy
Blooded Sand
How is his explanation any different, logically, from mine? mine is
just smaller steps, one at a time.... And the precedence follows
exactly the same logic too.
John Flournoy
Logically, it's not different; however, it is more credible when
directly tied to a previous ruling (instead of coincidentally
following the same logic as that previous ruling without mentioning
it.)
Also, yours talks about 'allowed by a potence card' which is a little
imprecise language; there's an admittedly nitpicky difference between
'allowed by potence' and 'requires potence', but the latter is the
wording the card/rules use and your wording isn't.
But that difference is that 'this strike requires potence' is exactly
what Increased Strength is looking for; 'this strike is allowed by
Potence' is not so explicitly identical.
-John Flournoy
Blooded Sand
Okay, if you want to nitpick, fine. What i truly said was the
following at most basic level:
1 Card requires Pot
2 Card allows a strike
3 Strike is Pot strike.
But English is not Logic. It's a conversational language. So when you
break it into little chunks, it gets messy. IF X allows Y, and Y
cannot happen without X, then Y requires X. Make sense?
Yes I could have happily quoted previous ruling. But that means I
would not have to actually think it out for myself then, would I?
John Flournoy
Here's the super nitpicky, "this certainly beats working" reply:
I guess the real answer is "your explanation skips logic steps for the
sake of making them smaller";
The key difference is that your shortened version assumes that 'just
because a strike is allowed by a card that required a discipline in
the past to play, it therefore counts as requiring it to use the
strike now, even if you are not able to meet that requirement now'
which does not necessarily logically follow without the previous
ruling from LSJ about that case.
yours -could- follow these steps (to be logically complete):
1) It (Heroic Might) is a Potence card.
2) It allows a strike.
3) It is not actively being played.
4) LSJ has established that cards not actively being played still
count as 'requiring' the discipline when used (ref. Improvised Tactics
and Ablative Skin)
5) Per 1) and 2), it is thus a strike allowed by Potence.
6) "allowed by Potence" is the same as 'requiring Potence'.
7) per 4) and 6), it counts as 'a strike requiring Potence'.
8) Since Increased Strength triggers on 'a strike requiring potence',
it triggers on Heroic Might's strike.
QED.
And obviously steps 6 and 7 drop out if you don't use 'allowed by
potence'.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
It does, except that it is possible for Y to happen without X
currently existing - as noted before, I can absolutely make Heroic
Strike cards with a disciplineless Anarch Convert. In which case Y is
arguably happening without X.
Which is why the ruling of 'it still counts because it required Y in
the past' matters.
> Yes I could have happily quoted previous ruling. But that means I
> would not have to actually think it out for myself then, would I?
Nothing wrong with thinking it out - I am -certainly- not suggesting
you shouldn't have thought through and posted the explanation you did.
(Especially since we frequently find cases where previous rulings
either no longer make sense or create new problems.)
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
irrelevant text in our reply chain. Apologies.
-John Flournoy
LSJ
> I can't view the checklist page currently, so I am not sure what is
> discussed there.
>
> On Nov 19, 3:14 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>> 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card,
>> will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are
>> cards that only conditionally cancel other cards?
>> (I also asked this question in the Promos thread)
>
> Two Wrongs doesn't cancel a minion card as it is played. It could do
> so later on, once in play, but then it doesn't satisfy the Dark
> Influences text.
Correct.
> I think if Botched Move's effect happens, then it
> would then be cancelled, but a clarification would also be good.
Botched Move has to begin resolving before it is determined whether it will
cancel a card or not, which comes after it could be canceled by Dark Influences.
> Also, there was the long discussion on what it meant by "The next card
> played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is
> played" that should perhaps get an official clarification, since there
> seemed to be two strong camps for reading it in different ways. Does
> "another Methuselah" in this case mean "other than the Methuselah who
> played DI2", or simply clarifying the type of cancelling card being
> played?
It is a description of the type of canceling card being played -- a card someone
plays that cancels a card played by someone else. A card a Methuselah plays to
cancel another card she played is not affected.
>> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her?
>> Some examples:
>> a) If Unmasking is in play, do allies get +1 intercept against her?
>
> Unmasking affects allies, not Karen.
Correct.
>> b) If Fall of the Camarilla is played, does her Prince-ness make her
>> immune to it, or does its "There is no Camarilla" make her not a Prince?
>
> Hmm ... An interesting one. It would seem to me that there being no
> more Camarilla means she is no longer a Prince, and thus her ability
> cannot protect her to keep her title, since the ability wouldn't
> nullify the "There is no Camarilla" global effect in the first place.
She is immune to it (and remains a Camarilla Prince) as long as she remains a
Prince. If she loses the Prince title, she loses the immunity and immediately
becomes Independent.
>> c) If Recalled to the Founder is in play, can you control Karen and _two_
>> other Brujah without burning one of them?
>
> This sounds right, much like Secure Haven can protect a minion from
> mass effects like you mention above.
You'd have to burn one of them (since you control three). But you may choose
Suadela and have her ignore the effect. Or, if it suited your Grand Scheme, you
could choose one of the other two.
>> 4) Heroic Might [sup] - Does the 2R strike count as a "strike that requires
>> Potence", for purposes of Increased Strength? (Precedent: Improvised
>> Tactics' strike _does_ count)
>
> The strike comes from a card requiring Potence, so it would be a
> strike that requires Potence.
Correct.
LSJ
Jozxyqk
> [some answers that were helpful]
Thanks Scott, but why did you skip question #2?
The "FAQ" about Vidal doesn't really answer my question.
Which of the following requirements count as "non-infernal vampire traits"?
titled/Specific Title
non-Sterile
anarch
non-anarch
"with capacity above/below X"
black hand
inquisitor
"with a Kerrie"
seraph
"of the same Circle as..."
flight
"who can commit diablerie"
"with no blood"
"with 3 or more Aye/Orun"
non-Red List
Red List
"with True Faith"
"a vampire who has been chosen for a contract on..."
And what about 2b? Is it safe to assume that Vidal can play as many
Scorns of Adonis in a game as he wants?
> >> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her?
> >> Some examples:
Another example:
Is this a correct interpretation:
Torpid Blood - Her actions in torpor do not cost an extra blood.
It does not cost her an extra blood to rescue an older vampire.
It does not cost a younger vampire an extra blood to rescue her.
And for #5, re: Coterie Tactics, I'm still unclear on Kiss of Ra.
"Only usable when a vampire who does not have Fortitude attempts to block this acting minion."
If Coterie Tactics is being used, and one of the blockers has Fortitude, and the other doesn't,
then are the requirements still satisfied?
I would assume that in that case, yes it is playable and it affects only the one without Fortitude.
But if neither one of the blockers has Fortitude, do you choose one to be affected? or both?
(also looking forward to reading your response on my "New (D) action definition" questions
which might have gotten lost in the pile of Blooded-Sand-vs-Carneggy-overquoting-fight)
Thanks.
witness1
> I would assume that in that case, yes it is playable and it affects only the one without Fortitude.
> But if neither one of the blockers has Fortitude, do you choose one to be affected? or both?
From the preview page: "Any "block fails" effect played on one of the
minions will cause the block to fail, but the effect (usually
involving "cannot attempt to block again" and possibly more severe
effects as well) is applied only to one of the blockers (chosen by the
Methuselah playing the effect)."
Gut feeling says this carries over to Kiss of Ra and other effects
besides "block fails" effect (i.e., only one of the blockers is
affected, chosen by the methuselah playing Kiss).
More generally, effects that apply to "the blocking minion" should
probably be read as applying to "a blocking minion" where Coterie
tactics is involved.
-witness1
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> It is a description of the type of canceling card being played -- a card
> someone
> plays that cancels a card played by someone else. A card a Methuselah plays
> to
> cancel another card she played is not affected.
Yaa for sanity!
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> [some answers that were helpful]
>
> Thanks Scott, but why did you skip question #2?
> The "FAQ" about Vidal doesn't really answer my question.
>
> Which of the following requirements count as "non-infernal vampire traits"?
>
> titled/Specific Title
> non-Sterile
> anarch
> non-anarch
> "with capacity above/below X"
> black hand
> inquisitor
> "with a Kerrie"
> seraph
> "of the same Circle as..."
> flight
> "who can commit diablerie"
> "with no blood"
> "with 3 or more Aye/Orun"
> non-Red List
> Red List
> "with True Faith"
> "a vampire who has been chosen for a contract on..."
Most of those are answered in the checklist page.
"Traits are basically the bold terms found at the top of card text to give it
some kind of label. Clan and uniqueness are also traits."
But for the record:
A trait is a term used in card text (usually in bold at the top, not within the
prose) to give it some kind of label. It may have some rulebook-defined meaning
or effect, like "blood cursed" or "sterile", or it may not be defined by the
rules, like "ammo" or "seraph". It doesn't include capacity (a number) or
Disciplines, but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and
so on. Basically anything that Seeds of Corruption doesn't count.
It also includes unique, even though vampires omit that trait from their texts
(since they are unique by default).
Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g. anarch)
requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each
game. +1 bleed.
As far as Vidal is concerned, "non-<trait>" is also a trait (including other
forms like "untitled" or "with no title").
For Vidal in particular, note that the following are not traits (listed here for
Googling; these should be obvious from the above and/or from innate obviousness):
(un)tapped
(not) ready
younger/older
above/below certain capacity
contested
empty
with some amount/range of blood
with some card (like Aye, Kerrie, or True Faith)
same clan/sect/age/circle
can(not) commit diablerie
has(n't) commited diaberlie
(non-)acting
attempting to block
is bleeding/hunting
bled/hunted/acted/blocked (un)successfully
moved to the ready region since your last turn
controlled by another/the same Methuselah
And he cannot meet non-vampire traits (like "Mortal" or "Ghoul" or "Ammo" or creed).
Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that
Vidal can meet (not exhaustive):
Baron
Liaison
Caitiff
Inquisitor
Seraph
non-Camarilla
non-Red List
> And what about 2b? Is it safe to assume that Vidal can play as many
> Scorns of Adonis in a game as he wants?
Crazy safe to assume.
>>>> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her?
>>>> Some examples:
>
> Another example:
> Is this a correct interpretation:
> Torpid Blood - Her actions in torpor do not cost an extra blood.
Correct. She's immune. Card text.
> It does not cost her an extra blood to rescue an older vampire.
Correct. She's immune. Card text.
> It does not cost a younger vampire an extra blood to rescue her.
No. That younger vampire is not immune to the effects.
> And for #5, re: Coterie Tactics, I'm still unclear on Kiss of Ra.
From the checklist page:
"Any "block fails" effect played on one of the minions will cause the block to
fail, but the effect (usually involving "cannot attempt to block again" and
possibly more severe effects as well) is applied only to one of the blockers
(chosen by the Methuselah playing the effect)."
> "Only usable when a vampire who does not have Fortitude attempts to block this acting minion."
>
> If Coterie Tactics is being used, and one of the blockers has Fortitude, and the other doesn't,
> then are the requirements still satisfied?
> I would assume that in that case, yes it is playable and it affects only the one without Fortitude.
> But if neither one of the blockers has Fortitude, do you choose one to be affected? or both?
>
> (also looking forward to reading your response on my "New (D) action definition" questions
> which might have gotten lost in the pile of Blooded-Sand-vs-Carneggy-overquoting-fight)
May want to start new topics for new topics.
Pullen
Q: What the hell does Transient mean on Waiting Game and White Nights
Massacre.
White Nights Massacre
Type: Event
Transient.
During your next discard phase, you must burn this card, and you may
either burn a vampire in torpor or, by tapping a ready werewolf ally
you control or discarding a White Nights Massacre from your hand, burn
all vampires in torpor.
Rarity: KoT:R
Waiting Game
Type: Event
Transient.
Put this card in play with 10 counters. Whenever a non-anarch vampire
takes an action, burn a counter from this card. Burn this card when it
has no counters. During your untap phase, each anarch burns 1 blood or
becomes Camarilla, and each ally burns 1 life.
Rarity: KoT:R
John Flournoy
Nothing, yet. It's just a keyword. Much like "Government" or "Inconnu"
on event cards mean nothing yet.
-John Flournoy
Jozxyqk
> [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits]
Thank you!
> but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and
> so on.
Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't.
> Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that
> Vidal can meet (not exhaustive):
> Baron
> Liaison
(...and presumably other titles)
> non-Red List
So "Red List" counts as a non-infernal VAMPIRE trait, even though Ossian
is Red List?
(This is relevant if Vidal wants to play Rebirth, so not a complete hypothetical)
> > (also looking forward to reading your response on my "New (D) action definition" questions
> > which might have gotten lost in the pile of Blooded-Sand-vs-Carneggy-overquoting-fight)
> May want to start new topics for new topics.
OK, I will...
Merlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm. I was hoping that "Transient" meant that they were events that
could be played more than once per game. Otherwise stocking up on
extra copies of White Nights Massacre is sort of ridiculous. I guess
we'll have to wait and see?
-Merlin
Blooded Sand
> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits]
>
> Thank you!
>
> > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and
> > so on.
>
> Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't.
Chris Berger
He doesn't need to use his ability to meet traits that he actually
has, so his ability text is irrelevant if he is playing Flight cards
using the Flight that he does have. I think that's pretty clear.
Thrall of Arika
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an
indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the
game as do other events. So unless a definition comes to change that,
it looks like they're just once per game, as other events are. You'll
still likely want a few White Nights Massacres, since you need one in
play, and can use a copy to set off the bigger effect, rather than
playing with werewolves.
Otherwise, it would seem they could become quite abusive. Put WNM in
play, next turn Frontal Assault and knock a bunch of your prey's
vampires into torpor and burn them all, already seems very powerful.
To be able to keep doing in multiple times a game seems much too
strong to me.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
John Flournoy
wrote:
Or equally bad, use over and over with a Baltimore Purge deck that
recruits Ossian...
> Chris, Thrall of Arika
-John Flournoy
Thrall of Arika
> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits]
>
> Thank you!
Yes, very much appreciated.
> > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and
> > so on.
>
> Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't.
>
> > Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that
> > Vidal can meet (not exhaustive):
> > Baron
> > Liaison
>
> (...and presumably other titles)
>
> > non-Red List
>
> So "Red List" counts as a non-infernal VAMPIRE trait, even though Ossian
> is Red List?
> (This is relevant if Vidal wants to play Rebirth, so not a complete hypothetical)
Red List is a trait a Vampire can have. The fact that something else
can have the trait doesn't preclude that it's a trait for vampires as
well.
Personally, I don't agree that the lack of a trait is a trait in
itself, but I can go with the flow for ease of card play.
It will be interesting to see if decks can make effective use of this
ability for more than a couple of cards.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Chris Berger
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:15 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
> > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits]
>
> > Thank you!
>
> Yes, very much appreciated.
>
>
>
> > > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and
> > > so on.
>
> > Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't.
>
> > > Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that
> > > Vidal can meet (not exhaustive):
> > > Baron
> > > Liaison
>
> > (...and presumably other titles)
>
>
> ability for more than a couple of cards.
>
Should be interesting to at least throw in a Rebirth and a Crusader
Sword into most any deck with at least 2 copies of Vidal. Other good
one offs, maybe: Church of the Order of St. Blaise, Powerbase:
Tshwane, Chameleon, umm... can't think of too many others off the top
of my head, although of course certain cards will be good in
particular decks...
Thrall of Arika
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rebirth works, but his ability wouldn't allow use of the Crusader
Sword. Vidal's ability is to allow you to play cards with such
requirements. It won't give him the trait to use the card later on
(even if it did, it would be once only). And that's the thing, a lot
of the Clan/sect cards really only work for the clan/sect itself.
Sure, he could equip a Sword of Judgement, but then couldn't use it.
Could put down Palla Grande, but then unless you were playing with !
Toreador, it's not much use (and if you were, you wouldn't need his
ability in the first place).
I don't see the Church played much in regular Sabbat decks, so I don't
see it being all that strong for a deck with Vidal. PB: Tswane is a
powerful one, I like that idea.
The thought that struck me when i was looking through cards with
requirements was a breed deck. He'd be able to play 4 Creation Rites
and 2 Third Traditions, as well as various Becomings/Embraces. He also
looks good for an ally deck, where you could play various clan allies.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Chris Berger
wrote:
>
> Rebirth works, but his ability wouldn't allow use of the Crusader
> Sword. Vidal's ability is to allow you to play cards with such
> requirements. It won't give him the trait to use the card later on
> (even if it did, it would be once only).
>
Woulda been sweet though... =)
> The thought that struck me when i was looking through cards with
> requirements was a breed deck. He'd be able to play 4 Creation Rites
> and 2 Third Traditions, as well as various Becomings/Embraces. He also
> looks good for an ally deck, where you could play various clan allies.
>
Yeah, also the usual good Mata Hari cards, like Ventrue Headquarters,
City Gangrel Connections, Tabriz Assembly, Waste Management, etc...
Frederick Scott
news:9396b804-e363-40a1...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:00 am, Merlin <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Hmmm. I was hoping that "Transient" meant that they were events that
> > could be played more than once per game. Otherwise stocking up on
> > extra copies of White Nights Massacre is sort of ridiculous. I guess
> > we'll have to wait and see?
>
> indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the
> game as do other events.
Why would you assume "Transient" means any such thing? Did they put
a new rule about that in the new rulebook? If not, then it's just a
trait, meaning nothing outside of other cards which would reference
that trait, if any.
Fred
Thrall of Arika
> On Nov 20, 1:13 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rebirth works, but his ability wouldn't allow use of the Crusader
> > Sword. Vidal's ability is to allow you to play cards with such
> > requirements. It won't give him the trait to use the card later on
> > (even if it did, it would be once only).
>
> Yeah, you're 100% correct. *facepalm*
> Woulda been sweet though... =)
Sorry to disappoint. :(
Well, could be a bit more expensive ... but you can Tswane out a
Kali's Fang, perhaps .. or a Femur of Toomler.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Chris Berger
> "Thrall of Arika" <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote in messagenews:9396b804-e363-40a1...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
and the general gist of it is that the card goes away kinda quick
(just like Black Hand has a meaning to it - that you're part of an
elite group of Sabbat, more or less - just no rule text).
Personally, I believe that Transient was meant to have rules text.
With the rulebook being misprinted, that rules text may be dropped
completely, or it may wait until the next set, or it might be errata'd
in.
Obviously, it's not guaranteed that it *is* supposed to mean
something. It could just be a trait. Two things imply that might not
be true:
1 - There is no card in the set that refers to the trait other than
the two cards that have it. It could be waiting there to be referred
to by a future card (frex, it wouldn't have been that strange to have
had a Cold Iron weapon printed in Final Nights, and not have it effect
anything until Bloodlines), but I can't think of many instances where
that has happened. Usually a trait is referred to either by text in
the rulebook or by at least one card in a current or prior set by the
time it is printed.
2 - The word sounds more like a game effect than flavor text. I don't
recall if any cards effect Government or Inconnu events, so those
might be a counterpoint to the first point above, but it is obvious
that Government and Inconnu actually mean something in the World of
Darkness. Transient, unless it's talking about a homeless man,
doesn't have much meaning other than the possibility that it means
something in game terms...
That's not exactly conclusive evidence. But it does *seem* like it
should do something. We may find out soon enough, or... we may never
know. If it was supposed to mean, say, that the event could be played
multiple times, WW may have just changed their minds, because the two
transient events that we have look like they could be super strong if
you could play multiples. (Although, I'm not 100% convinced it would
be broken... maybe, maybe not.)
LSJ
> On Nov 20, 5:00 am, Merlin <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 12:42 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nothing, yet. It's just a keyword. Much like "Government" or "Inconnu"
>>> on event cards mean nothing yet.
>>> -John Flournoy- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Hmmm. I was hoping that "Transient" meant that they were events that
>> could be played more than once per game. Otherwise stocking up on
>> extra copies of White Nights Massacre is sort of ridiculous. I guess
>> we'll have to wait and see?
>>
> indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the
> game as do other events.
Correct. It generates no effect or exception itself. It's just a label, like
Gehenna.
Thrall of Arika
> On Nov 20, 1:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "Thrall of Arika" <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote in messagenews:9396b804-e363-40a1...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > > indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the
> > > game as do other events.
>
> > Why would you assume "Transient" means any such thing? Did they put
> > a new rule about that in the new rulebook? If not, then it's just a
> > trait, meaning nothing outside of other cards which would reference
> > that trait, if any.
True, but trait names are usually chosen to indicate something about
that trait. Transient basically means 'passing through', i.e., that
the card won't be around for long. If the key word was just something
to tag on, it could have easily been something like Dog, or Blue, if
there was to be no implied meaning behind it.
Much like Poacher's Hunting Ground has the key word "Derivative", not
only to ensure that Poacher's didn't gain from itself being in play,
but having a key word which implies that it or its effects derive from
something else (in this case, other non-derivative hunting grounds).
> He was saying that maybe Transient is just a trait with no rule text,
> and the general gist of it is that the card goes away kinda quick
> (just like Black Hand has a meaning to it - that you're part of an
> elite group of Sabbat, more or less - just no rule text).
>
> Personally, I believe that Transient was meant to have rules text.
> With the rulebook being misprinted, that rules text may be dropped
> completely, or it may wait until the next set, or it might be errata'd
> in.
Certainly possible, that perhaps an intitial thought was to have
Transients playable multiple times in a game. But as cards developed,
the idea was dropped, but the name kept as a key word identifier.
> Obviously, it's not guaranteed that it *is* supposed to mean
> something. It could just be a trait. Two things imply that might not
> be true:
> 1 - There is no card in the set that refers to the trait other than
> the two cards that have it. It could be waiting there to be referred
> to by a future card (frex, it wouldn't have been that strange to have
> had a Cold Iron weapon printed in Final Nights, and not have it effect
> anything until Bloodlines), but I can't think of many instances where
> that has happened. Usually a trait is referred to either by text in
> the rulebook or by at least one card in a current or prior set by the
> time it is printed.
I think it's more a case that key words are now, to use a pun, key to
how card interactions work, and we've all caught on to that now.
Nothing may come of it, but it's possible that a future card may
interact with Transient events. Now, instead of having to go back and
retroactively define cards (like what happened with Electronic
Equipment), the Transients are already in place to be referred to if
ever needed.
> 2 - The word sounds more like a game effect than flavor text. I don't
> recall if any cards effect Government or Inconnu events, so those
> might be a counterpoint to the first point above, but it is obvious
> that Government and Inconnu actually mean something in the World of
> Darkness. Transient, unless it's talking about a homeless man,
> doesn't have much meaning other than the possibility that it means
> something in game terms...
Nothing directly interacts with Government or Inconnu cards, but some
future card may. And they currently allow for events to be
differentiated from Gehenna ones.
> That's not exactly conclusive evidence. But it does *seem* like it
> should do something. We may find out soon enough, or... we may never
> know. If it was supposed to mean, say, that the event could be played
> multiple times, WW may have just changed their minds, because the two
> transient events that we have look like they could be super strong if
> you could play multiples. (Although, I'm not 100% convinced it would
> be broken... maybe, maybe not.)
I don't know, the Baltimore Purge/White Nights seems far too strong if
it could happen multiple times in a game (worse still with Enkil Cog).
It could be worse than any Protect Thine Own brokenness.
Waiting Game I'm seeing as less strong in this case, but could end up
being so in the right, albeit unlikely, set up of mostly ally/anarch
opponents.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Chris Berger
wrote:
convinced that it's broken", which is pretty much the weakest formed
conjecture of "I don't think it's broken". I would be willing to
admit that it might be broken. And the simple fact that it looks
possibly broken could be a good enough reason for it not happening.
Obviously, it's all conjecture whether or not it was ever a
possibility that Transient could mean "playable multiple times per
game". It may have meant "is burned during your next discard phase,"
although that would be redundant for White Nights. Or maybe it was
supposed to interact with a card or cards that got left out of the set
either due to choice or printing error. Or, obviously, maybe it was
never supposed to mean anything at all - just a trait like Government
that doesn't do anything now but might in the future. I dunno - was
just guessing, for no better reason than I'm excited to get my cards
at ~6:30 tonight and bored at work today.
> Waiting Game I'm seeing as less strong in this case, but could end up
> being so in the right, albeit unlikely, set up of mostly ally/anarch
> opponents.
>
I dunno, Waiting Game looks pretty nasty to me. Since TR, there seem
to be a ton of anarch decks. I'm planning on packing it in every non-
anarch deck for a while. At only once per game, it probably won't be
as crippling as it could be otherwise, but does make a good excuse for
packing Seattle Committee in lieu of or in addition to Twilight Camp.
Frederick Scott
news:FQjVk.7536$x%.844@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Eh? "Correct" that it generates no effect or exception itself - or also
about the other part the previous poster suggested: that these events,
unlike other events, are removed from the controlled area and placed in the
ash heap immediately after play?
Fred
LSJ
Correct that it generates no effect itself *and* also the part that the previous
poster suggested: that the label is a descriptive one, applied to events which
by their own effect do not remain in play for the entirety of the remainder of
the game, but rather are ended (by their own accords) prior to the end of the game.
Chris Berger
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an
> >> indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the
> >> game as do other events.
>
> > Correct. It generates no effect or exception itself. It's just a label, like Gehenna.
>
> Eh? "Correct" that it generates no effect or exception itself - or also
> about the other part the previous poster suggested: that these events,
> unlike other events, are removed from the controlled area and placed in the
> ash heap immediately after play?
>
Merlin
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
Does this mean that cards like FBI Special Affairs Division should be
errated to have the "Transient" label?
Card Text:
Government.
When an ally is burned in combat with an acting vampire, put a counter
on this card, and that acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable damage
(after combat ends). Burn this card when it has 4 counters.
-Merlin
Chris Berger
>
> Does this mean that cards like FBI Special Affairs Division should be
> errated to have the "Transient" label?
>
> Card Text:
>
> Government.
>
> When an ally is burned in combat with an acting vampire, put a counter
> on this card, and that acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable damage
> (after combat ends). Burn this card when it has 4 counters.
>
Considering that Transient as a keyword doesn't *do* anything, that
seems highly unlikely.
Frederick Scott
news:11bec6d0-fa3f-415f...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
I suppose that's not what he meant. LSJ suggested an interpretation of his words
that clarified his intent but it wasn't at obvious from his wording alone that he
meant it that way. His wording, "...it seems to just be an indicator that the card
doesn't remain in play for the rest of the game as do other events...", can easily
be interpreted to mean that he thought the keyword 'Transient' *causes* the card to
not remain in play ("...as do other events"). It helps a lot to know the wording
of the events marked 'Transient', which I didn't.
Fred
LSJ
> On Nov 20, 9:23 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Correct that it generates no effect itself *and* also the part that the previous
>> poster suggested: that the label is a descriptive one, applied to events which
>> by their own effect do not remain in play for the entirety of the remainder of
>> the game, but rather are ended (by their own accords) prior to the end of the game.
>
> Does this mean that cards like FBI Special Affairs Division should be
> errated to have the "Transient" label?
No. See also melee or gun or electronic.