Two questions (Charming Lobby, allies)
Petri Wessman
1) I'm still not totally clear on Charming Lobby. As far as I
understand it, it chains two actions together (the CL + the
political action, which muct be in your hand when CL is
called).
Now, if someone does not block the CL, can they still try to block
the chained political action? In other words, is it resolved as a
separate action as normal?
Also (related), if someone has a Marijava Ghoul and calls CL, they
naturally get +2 stealth on the CL... but does that also translate
to the political action? (moot question is the PA isn't blockable).
2) Allies who "may play cards ... as a vampire with a capacity of X"
(Talaq etc): when playing cards, are these allies considered to be
vampires in all regards? Are they also considered to be allies? If
an imaginary card had one effect when played by an ally, and
another when played by a vampire, what would happen?
And a spefic question: can Blood Brother Ambush use Amaranth?
Thanks for any anwsers to these...
//Petri
LSJ
> 1) I'm still not totally clear on Charming Lobby. As far as I
> understand it, it chains two actions together (the CL + the
> political action, which muct be in your hand when CL is
> called).
No. It is one action. That action calls the referendum on a PA card
in your hand (playing the card) or as allowed by a card in play. If
the action is blocked, the PA cards (if any) is not played.
> Now, if someone does not block the CL, can they still try to block
> the chained political action? In other words, is it resolved as a
> separate action as normal?
No.
> Also (related), if someone has a Marijava Ghoul and calls CL, they
> naturally get +2 stealth on the CL... but does that also translate
> to the political action? (moot question is the PA isn't blockable).
Moot.
> 2) Allies who "may play cards ... as a vampire with a capacity of X"
> (Talaq etc): when playing cards, are these allies considered to be
> vampires in all regards? Are they also considered to be allies? If
> an imaginary card had one effect when played by an ally, and
> another when played by a vampire, what would happen?
Only as a vampire, for purposes of the card play's effect(s).
> And a spefic question: can Blood Brother Ambush use Amaranth?
No. See online card text.
--
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/
Petri Wessman
vtesrep> Petri Wessman wrote:
>> 1) I'm still not totally clear on Charming Lobby. As far as I
>> understand it, it chains two actions together (the CL + the
>> political action, which muct be in your hand when CL is
>> called).
vtesrep> No. It is one action. That action calls the referendum on a PA card
vtesrep> in your hand (playing the card) or as allowed by a card in play. If
vtesrep> the action is blocked, the PA cards (if any) is not played.
Ok, thanks for the answers. I find I'm still a bit confused after
reading the online errata and texts for this card... partly this may
be because I only have the Jyhad printing, the VTES version may be
clearer.
First off, the WW errata list has this to say:
---
Charming Lobby
* The "next vote you call this turn" is chosen/announced when the
action is declared, and is played/called (by the acting minion)
by the resolution of this action. This action is a political
action. (The "next vote thereafter" is still called as a
separate action, though.) If the Charming Lobby action is
blocked, the Political Action Card (if any) that would have been
played for the initial referendum is not played or
discarded. [RTR 19980623 RTR 19991001] [1] [2]
* A bloodhunt vote does not qualify. [TOM 19950921]
---
The Monger site has the following text for CL:
---
Card Text:
+1 stealth political action. Call a referendum. If the referendum
passes, then the next referendum called thereafter passes
automatically.
SUP: As above, and this vampire gains 2 votes for the first referendum.
Clarifications and Rulings
A bloodhunt vote does not qualify. [TOM 19950921]
---
Now, a few more questions (sorry for being dense :)
Is the Monger text quoted above the correct, up-to-date card text
for this card? If yes, it's more than a bit confusing :)
Also, how exactly does CL work? Is this correct:?
1) Vampire A calls CL, with announcement that it will be used to call
a KRC (for example). This action is a political (CL) action at +1
stealth.
2) If the action is blocked, the CL goes into the ash pile normally
but the KRC stays in your hand.
3) If not blocked, there is a vote (with +2 votes if sup.Presence). If
this vote passes, the KRC passes also.
So what is the advantage of using a CL with inferior Presence, as
opposed to just calling the PA? The fact that it's a Presence
action (and therefore combos with Marijava ghoul), and/or the fact
that if it's blocked you don't lose the PA?
Or does the card work differently from what I've outlined above? In
the errata list, the text '(The "next vote thereafter" is still called
as a separate action, though.)' makes me think I'm still missing
something... are there two referendums?
>> And a spefic question: can Blood Brother Ambush use Amaranth?
vtesrep> No. See online card text.
Ok, I presume that's because of the "only vampires who can commit
diablerie" clause.
//Petri, somewhat confused
LSJ
No. You should use the WW site for "correct, up-to-date" card texts:
+1 stealth ={political action.
[pre] Call a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand
(play that card) or allowed by an effect in play. If the referendum
passes, then the next referendum called by any vampire}= thereafter passes
automatically.
[PRE] As above, and {this vampire gains} 2 votes for the first {referendum}.
(Note, the beaces indicate clarifications, dash-braces indicate rulings,
and equal-sign-braces indicate errata)
> Also, how exactly does CL work? Is this correct:?
>
> 1) Vampire A calls CL, with announcement that it will be used to call
> a KRC (for example). This action is a political (CL) action at +1
> stealth.
Correct.
> 2) If the action is blocked, the CL goes into the ash pile normally
> but the KRC stays in your hand.
Correct.
> 3) If not blocked, there is a vote (with +2 votes if sup.Presence). If
> this vote passes, the KRC passes also.
Not quite. If not blocked, then the terms of the referendum are set
(allocate 4 points among two or more Meths). If the referendum passes,
the effects occur (as described on KRC).
> So what is the advantage of using a CL with inferior Presence, as
> opposed to just calling the PA? The fact that it's a Presence
> action (and therefore combos with Marijava ghoul), and/or the fact
> that if it's blocked you don't lose the PA?
Mostly the fact that if it passes, then the next referendum a
vampire calls will pass automatically.
> Or does the card work differently from what I've outlined above? In
> the errata list, the text '(The "next vote thereafter" is still called
> as a separate action, though.)' makes me think I'm still missing
> something... are there two referendums?
Yes. See the official text.
> >> And a spefic question: can Blood Brother Ambush use Amaranth?
>
> vtesrep> No. See online card text.
>
> Ok, I presume that's because of the "only vampires who can commit
> diablerie" clause.
That would do it, yes.
Petri Wessman
vtesrep> No. You should use the WW site for "correct, up-to-date" card texts:
vtesrep> +1 stealth ={political action.
vtesrep> [pre] Call a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand
vtesrep> (play that card) or allowed by an effect in play. If the referendum
vtesrep> passes, then the next referendum called by any vampire}= thereafter passes
vtesrep> automatically.
vtesrep> [PRE] As above, and {this vampire gains} 2 votes for the first {referendum}.
Ok, my bad, I didn't remembet that the WW site has full card texts
nowadays. Thank you.
This just begs one more question... can you chain CLs together? I
mean:
- Vampire A plays CL + some PA, which passes.
- (same turn) Vampire B plays another CL. If not blocked this passes
automatically, along with the PA that is played along with it.
- (lather, rinse, repeat)
On course, since CL now works for any referendum called by any vampire
(controlled by any player), this could end up helping someone else win
a vote... but it seems that you could set up a nasty
presence-weenie-horde with Marijava Ghouls which would auto-pass votes
at +2 stealth at the rate of N per turn ;)
//Petri
LSJ
> vtesrep> No. You should use the WW site for "correct, up-to-date" card texts:
> nowadays. Thank you.
>
> This just begs one more question... can you chain CLs together? I
Yes.
> mean:
>
> - Vampire A plays CL + some PA, which passes.
> - (same turn) Vampire B plays another CL. If not blocked this passes
> automatically, along with the PA that is played along with it.
> - (lather, rinse, repeat)
>
> On course, since CL now works for any referendum called by any vampire
> (controlled by any player), this could end up helping someone else win
> a vote... but it seems that you could set up a nasty
> presence-weenie-horde with Marijava Ghouls which would auto-pass votes
> at +2 stealth at the rate of N per turn ;)
Sure.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C88B304...@white-wolf.com...
> Petri Wessman wrote:
> > >> And a spefic question: can Blood Brother Ambush use Amaranth?
> >
> > vtesrep> No. See online card text.
> >
> > Ok, I presume that's because of the "only vampires who can commit
> > diablerie" clause.
>
> That would do it, yes.
It's also because Blood Brother Ambush can only play
cards *requiring basic Potence* as a vampire, right?
Since Amaranth requires no discipline, it's (AFAIK)
not currently playable by any ally, even if they could
commit diablerie, since all existing allies who can
play cards "as vampires" only have the ability for
some specific (or, for Shadow Court Satyr, generic)
discipline.
Or is the "only vampires can commit diablerie" rule
stronger than (hypothetical) cardtext that would allow
an ally to play Amaranth "as a vampire"?
Josh
I hypothesizin': bad
LSJ
> > > Ok, I presume that's because of the "only vampires who can commit
> > > diablerie" clause.
> >
> > That would do it, yes.
>
> It's also because Blood Brother Ambush can only play
> cards *requiring basic Potence* as a vampire, right?
Correct.
> Since Amaranth requires no discipline, it's (AFAIK)
> not currently playable by any ally, even if they could
> commit diablerie, since all existing allies who can
> play cards "as vampires" only have the ability for
> some specific (or, for Shadow Court Satyr, generic)
> discipline.
SCS is not limited to (generic) discipline.
> Or is the "only vampires can commit diablerie" rule
> stronger than (hypothetical) cardtext that would allow
> an ally to play Amaranth "as a vampire"?
There is a ruling restricting allies from committing
diablerie. RTR 30-JUN-1997:
13) Only vampires may commit diablerie. Effects that would allow something
other than a vampire to commit diablerie are ignored. For example, Amaranth
is useless if played on a Shadow Court Satyr.
Joshua Duffin
> SCS is not limited to (generic) discipline.
Doh, misread it. I was thinking the "if the card
requires a discipline, SCS plays it as a vampire with
capacity of 1" applied to all cards SCS could play,
not just ones that require a discipline. Right you
are. (unsurprisingly. ;-)
> There is a ruling restricting allies from committing
> diablerie. RTR 30-JUN-1997:
>
> 13) Only vampires may commit diablerie. Effects that would allow something
> other than a vampire to commit diablerie are ignored. For example,
Amaranth
> is useless if played on a Shadow Court Satyr.
If only I had checked first...
Another stupid SCS question: Can you put on him a card
that's a combat card at superior but not at inferior
(eg Swallowed by the Night) - uselessly, of course -
even though he can only play the basic level of cards
that require disciplines?
(And, is this guy more trouble than he's worth, or is
it just me? :-)
Josh
stupid satyr anyway
LSJ
> Another stupid SCS question: Can you put on him a card
> that's a combat card at superior but not at inferior
> (eg Swallowed by the Night) - uselessly, of course -
> even though he can only play the basic level of cards
> that require disciplines?
Sure.
X_Zealot
> > diablerie. RTR 30-JUN-1997:
> >
> > 13) Only vampires may commit diablerie. Effects that would allow
something
> > other than a vampire to commit diablerie are ignored. For example,
> Amaranth
> > is useless if played on a Shadow Court Satyr.
>
What if you put a Ritual of the Bitter Rose on a Shadow Court Satyr, then by
some amazing coincidence the Shadow Court Satyr was able to burn a vampire
in combat with blood on him (let's say he garrotted a vampire that was using
Kraken's Kiss with a lucky blow while his controller had a mass reality in
play), would your vampires gain all the blood of that vampire including the
SCS or just all your vampires?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
> What if you put a Ritual of the Bitter Rose on a Shadow Court Satyr, then by
> some amazing coincidence the Shadow Court Satyr was able to burn a vampire
> in combat with blood on him (let's say he garrotted a vampire that was using
> Kraken's Kiss with a lucky blow while his controller had a mass reality in
> play), would your vampires gain all the blood of that vampire including the
> SCS or just all your vampires?
All your vampires. The term, used on a card that the SCS is using "as a
vampire" includes the SCS. The ability would give him blood, so give him
life instead.
Nystulc
>X_Zealot wrote:
>> What if you put a Ritual of the Bitter Rose on a Shadow Court Satyr, then
>by
>> some amazing coincidence the Shadow Court Satyr was able to burn a vampire
>> in combat with blood on him (let's say he garrotted a vampire that was
>using
>> Kraken's Kiss with a lucky blow while his controller had a mass reality in
>> play), would your vampires gain all the blood of that vampire including the
>> SCS or just all your vampires?
>
>All your vampires. The term, used on a card that the SCS is using "as a
>vampire" includes the SCS. The ability would give him blood, so give him
>life instead.
But...
The clause that allows him to play cards as a vampire only applies to cards
that require disciplines. Right?
Ritual of Bitter Rose does not require a discipline. Therefore, when all
vampires gain blood, SCS is not treated as a vampire for this purpose and does
not share in this benefit.
The clause about giving him life if he would get blood still applies, whether
he is being treated as a vampire or no. However, it seems that this RoBR would
not give him blood (because he is not a vampire), and therefore, would not give
him life either.
Or have I missed something?
-- John B. Whelan
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> >X_Zealot wrote:
> >> What if you put a Ritual of the Bitter Rose on a Shadow Court Satyr, then
> >by
> >> some amazing coincidence the Shadow Court Satyr was able to burn a vampire
> >> in combat with blood on him (let's say he garrotted a vampire that was
> >using
> >> Kraken's Kiss with a lucky blow while his controller had a mass reality in
> >> play), would your vampires gain all the blood of that vampire including the
> >> SCS or just all your vampires?
> >
> >All your vampires. The term, used on a card that the SCS is using "as a
> >vampire" includes the SCS. The ability would give him blood, so give him
> >life instead.
>
> But...
>
> The clause that allows him to play cards as a vampire only applies to cards
> that require disciplines. Right?
Oh yeah. Quite right. Consider the ruling a theory then.
> Ritual of Bitter Rose does not require a discipline. Therefore, when all
> vampires gain blood, SCS is not treated as a vampire for this purpose and does
> not share in this benefit.
Right. In fact, RotBR cannot be used by the SCS, since it refers to "this vampire".