Tegyrius again
Jozxyqk
question:
Before Anarchs, there was no way to change just your sect, except to
Camarilla [and back], without changing your Clan. Correct me if I am
wrong.
Basic Tegyrius's ability says that All Assamites with Allegiance Counters
are considered to be Camarilla. But doesn't say what happens if they
change sect and are still Assamites.
What happens if an Assamite with an Allegiance Counter Goes Anarch, or
if you play Into the Fire on him?
Does it instantly nullify, since the Allegiance Counter is an "always on"
effect?
LSJ
> Sorry to start a new thread about this, but it's kind of a separate
> question:
>
> Before Anarchs, there was no way to change just your sect, except to
> Camarilla [and back], without changing your Clan. Correct me if I am
> wrong.
>
> Basic Tegyrius's ability says that All Assamites with Allegiance Counters
> are considered to be Camarilla. But doesn't say what happens if they
> change sect and are still Assamites.
Right. Just like a Writ of Acceptance doesn't say what happens if you
change sect. The Writ doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla.
Likewise, the counter doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla (assuming
you're still Assamite).
> What happens if an Assamite with an Allegiance Counter Goes Anarch, or
> if you play Into the Fire on him?
> Does it instantly nullify, since the Allegiance Counter is an "always on"
> effect?
Yes.
These will eventually lead to problems when counters that are "always on"
(and don't burn when you change sect) are introduced to make you
non-Camarilla. They (both the Writ and the allegiance counters) should
probably both be burned if the vampire changes sects.
Anyone see any loopholes with that idea?
I'll put it on the RT list for review.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Jozxyqk
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> Sorry to start a new thread about this, but it's kind of a separate
>> question:
>>
>> Before Anarchs, there was no way to change just your sect, except to
>> Camarilla [and back], without changing your Clan. Correct me if I am
>> wrong.
>>
>> Basic Tegyrius's ability says that All Assamites with Allegiance Counters
>> are considered to be Camarilla. But doesn't say what happens if they
>> change sect and are still Assamites.
> Right. Just like a Writ of Acceptance doesn't say what happens if you
> change sect. The Writ doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla.
> Likewise, the counter doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla (assuming
> you're still Assamite).
>> What happens if an Assamite with an Allegiance Counter Goes Anarch, or
>> if you play Into the Fire on him?
>> Does it instantly nullify, since the Allegiance Counter is an "always on"
>> effect?
> Yes.
> These will eventually lead to problems when counters that are "always on"
> (and don't burn when you change sect) are introduced to make you
> non-Camarilla. They (both the Writ and the allegiance counters) should
> probably both be burned if the vampire changes sects.
I think something along the "Allegiance Counters" idea should be the fix to
the "Indy vampires become Cam" votes, though. Like, each member of Clan X
can choose to gain an A.C. when the referendum passes, and each member of
Clan X that enters play/is created may choose to get an A.C., and you can
add them during your influence phase.
Something that makes the effect optional, and doesn't even affect the
Default Sect of the clan as a global effect.
Even though that takes away some corner-uses of the card (Calling the vote
to prevent your predator from calling Free States Rants or something :) )
It makes it so Sabbat members of independent clans (like Anka) or Anarchs, or
members of Sect Elfpants from a future expansion, won't cause anomalies...
hawk_the_demon
> affect the Default Sect of the clan as a global effect.
if it would be optional, then there should be some cost (tap or burn 1
blood or ...) and I don't agree on the default sect, I think that should
change. it should however not affect those that are not in the default
sect IMO.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Jozxyqk
>> Something that makes the effect optional, and doesn't even
>> affect the Default Sect of the clan as a global effect.
> if it would be optional, then there should be some cost (tap or burn 1
> blood or ...) and I don't agree on the default sect, I think that should
> change. it should however not affect those that are not in the default
> sect IMO.
So how about this:
"Each Methuselah chooses any number of [member of clan]s he or she controls.
If this referendum passes, each chosen vampire gets an Allegiance Counter and
put this card into play.
A [member of clan] with an Allegiance Counter is considered to be Camarilla.
When a [member of clan] enters play, its controller may choose to give it an
Allegiance Counter (which happens before any sect-based effects trigger).
Burn all Allegiance Counters on a [member of clan] if that vampire
changes sects. This referendum may only be called once per game."
Kind of keeps the feel of this being a Treaty where vampires of the given
clan are given *permission* to join the sect, but not forced into it.
So you, the Methuselah, can keep your fingers in the Sabbat or within the
Anarchs with no problems.
But if a particular vampire refuses to join the Camarilla, he'll need a
Writ or something to get in. No messing with the Default Sect (so there's
no questions about whether they change to a "Camarilla Clan" for Al-Ashrad's
ability, or anything like that).
hawk_the_demon
"Each Methuselah chooses any number of [member of clan]s he or she
controls. If this referendum passes, each chosen vampire gets an
Allegiance Counter and put this card into play. A [member of clan] with
clan] enters play, its controller may choose to give it an Allegiance
Counter (which happens before any sect-based effects trigger). Burn all
Allegiance Counters on a [member of clan] if that vampire changes sects.
This referendum may only be called once per game."
not a bad implementation, a total rewrite of the cards though, but I
don't know if it is possible to avoid that anyway. but I just don't
agree with the effects (choices without any drawback, default sect (like
the idea though), non-default sect members), but that's just my opinion.
Jeff Kuta
The new templating, from OOFP and ITF, "If this vampire changes sects,
burn this card" could also be applied to the counters given by
Tegyrius and other effects. It could be added to the Writ of
Acceptance as errata so it will no longer be a continous effect.
I'm almost having a chance of heart on wanting those four political
actions to allow individual vampires to choose whether to go Camarilla
or not, as well as imposing it on vampires entering play in the
future. We do have a default "Become Anarch" action now so if it is
absolutely critical for you to be Independent, you can do so. This
would work well with the votes if they did something like "Place an
Allegiance Counter on any Assamite when it enters play from any
uncontrolled region. This Assamite is considered to be Camarilla. If
this vampire's sect changes, burn this counter."
I am also in disagreement with the current ruling regarding Embraces
and Progeny. I think that logically those should inherit both the clan
and sect affiliations of their sires. Future effects can change them,
but the sire/childe relationship is fundamental to the WoD and this is
an easy way to keep things logically consistent. I intentionally left
the above text for Allegiance Counters--"from any uncontrolled
region"--open to allow for childer to inherit their sire's sects.
Snapcase
> > What happens if an Assamite with an Allegiance Counter Goes Anarch, or
> > if you play Into the Fire on him?
> > Does it instantly nullify, since the Allegiance Counter is an "always on"
> > effect?
>
> Yes.
>
> These will eventually lead to problems when counters that are "always on"
> (and don't burn when you change sect) are introduced to make you
> non-Camarilla. They (both the Writ and the allegiance counters) should
> probably both be burned if the vampire changes sects.
>
> Anyone see any loopholes with that idea?
The problem already exists, doesn't it? What if a vampire gets an
allegience counter and then gets an Anarch counter (from Seattle
Committee)?
No specific loopholes. Another option would be having the most recent
"always on" effect get priority. Dunno if it's more/less intuitive
but at least it wouldn't require errata.
--
-Snapcase
LSJ
>>(and don't burn when you change sect) are introduced to make you
>>non-Camarilla. They (both the Writ and the allegiance counters) should
>>probably both be burned if the vampire changes sects.
>>
>>Anyone see any loopholes with that idea?
>
> The problem already exists, doesn't it?
Not that I'm aware of. Note the "and don't burn when you change sect"
stipulation above.
> What if a vampire gets an
> allegience counter and then gets an Anarch counter (from Seattle
> Committee)?
The anarch counter is burned (card text on Seattle Committee).
Snapcase
says...
> Not that I'm aware of. Note the "and don't burn when you change sect"
> stipulation above.
Good point.
> > What if a vampire gets an
> > allegience counter and then gets an Anarch counter (from Seattle
> > Committee)?
>
> The anarch counter is burned (card text on Seattle Committee).
Ah. Thought the Anarch counter was considered "always on" too. Does
the allegiance counter have higher priority because there's no inherent
way to burn it?
--
-Snapcase
LSJ
> Ah. Thought the Anarch counter was considered "always on" too. Does
> the allegiance counter have higher priority because there's no inherent
> way to burn it?
No. The anarch counter changes him to indy just fine. And then, since
the allegiance counter changes him to Cam, the indy counter burns before
it has another chance to change him back to indy.
MikeOoiGoogle
> > Sorry to start a new thread about this, but it's kind of a separate
> > question:
> >
> > Before Anarchs, there was no way to change just your sect, except to
> > Camarilla [and back], without changing your Clan. Correct me if I am
> > wrong.
> >
> > Basic Tegyrius's ability says that All Assamites with Allegiance Counters
> > are considered to be Camarilla. But doesn't say what happens if they
> > change sect and are still Assamites.
>
> Right. Just like a Writ of Acceptance doesn't say what happens if you
> change sect. The Writ doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla.
> Likewise, the counter doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla (assuming
> you're still Assamite).
What happens when Tegyrius leaves play? Or receives some tasty Seeds
of Corruption? Do the Allegiance Counters lose definition?
> > What happens if an Assamite with an Allegiance Counter Goes Anarch, or
> > if you play Into the Fire on him?
> > Does it instantly nullify, since the Allegiance Counter is an "always on"
> > effect?
>
> Yes.
>
> These will eventually lead to problems when counters that are "always on"
> (and don't burn when you change sect) are introduced to make you
> non-Camarilla. They (both the Writ and the allegiance counters) should
> probably both be burned if the vampire changes sects.
That ruins my chain-letter deck, which used Temptations to place Writs
on other vampires to make better use of Priestess, but I definitely
understand the need for a ruling.
> Anyone see any loopholes with that idea?
>
> I'll put it on the RT list for review.
And currently there is no way for independent clans to revert back to
independent-non-anarch status after they've been switched via
political actions or trifles, Yes?
There are other problems due to the fact that the various Acceptance
cards do not remain in play to continually grant Camarilla status, nor
do they have an option for removing them and/or their effects in a way
similar to what brought them into being. (Granted these were created
before Sabbat, when there were only 2 sects, and not being Camarilla
was a big pisser.)
-Mike Ooi
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ECA343B...@white-wolf.com>...
>>Jozxyqk wrote:
>>>Basic Tegyrius's ability says that All Assamites with Allegiance Counters
>>>are considered to be Camarilla. But doesn't say what happens if they
>>>change sect and are still Assamites.
>>
>>Right. Just like a Writ of Acceptance doesn't say what happens if you
>>change sect. The Writ doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla.
>>Likewise, the counter doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla (assuming
>>you're still Assamite).
>
> What happens when Tegyrius leaves play? Or receives some tasty Seeds
> of Corruption? Do the Allegiance Counters lose definition?
Yes.
> And currently there is no way for independent clans to revert back to
> independent-non-anarch status after they've been switched via
> political actions or trifles, Yes?
via Trifles: Clan Impersonate a non-Indy clan and then burn it.
reyda
> MikeOoiGoogle wrote:
>> What happens when Tegyrius leaves play? Or receives some tasty
>> Seeds of Corruption? Do the Allegiance Counters lose definition?
>
> Yes.
i think you made a mistake here : the counters still marks that those
camarilla assamite even if tegyrius leaves play by
some-ruling-somewhere-on-google.
Sten During
MikeOoiGoogle wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:<3ECA343B...@white-wolf.com>...
>>Jozxyqk wrote:
>>>Basic Tegyrius's ability says that All Assamites with Allegiance
Counters
>>>are considered to be Camarilla. But doesn't say what happens if they
>>>change sect and are still Assamites.
>>
>>Right. Just like a Writ of Acceptance doesn't say what happens if you
>>change sect. The Writ doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla.
>>Likewise, the counter doesn't care - it'll still make you Camarilla
(assuming
>>you're still Assamite).
>
> What happens when Tegyrius leaves play? Or receives some tasty Seeds
> of Corruption? Do the Allegiance Counters lose definition?
Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
????????
"If Tegyrius is ready, any Assamite may take a +1 stealth action
to gain an allegiance counter. Any Assamite with an allegiance
counter is considered a Camarilla vampire."
Above is separated into two sentences. Tegyrius has to be ready
in order to allow an Assamite to take the action to gain an
allegiance counter. It doesn't say that he has to be ready in
order for for such a counter to continue giving the effect aquired
by gaining said counter.
Sten During
--
Calvia TerraTel AB http://www.terratel.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@terratel.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 71
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
CurtAdams
>These will eventually lead to problems when
>counters that are "always on"
>(and don't burn when you change sect) are
>introduced to make you
>non-Camarilla. They (both the Writ and
>the allegiance counters) should
>probably both be burned if the vampire
>changes sects.
>Anyone see any loopholes with that idea?
No. It seems obvious that something that
*represents* a sect change should go poof
when the vampire changes sect again. Having
the counters *cause* the change is just
a shortcut. The Writ could go either way
(especially in view of it being transferable)
but nothing wrong with it burning, either.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>LSJ wrote:
>> MikeOoiGoogle wrote:
>
>>> What happens when Tegyrius leaves play? Or receives some tasty
>>> Seeds of Corruption? Do the Allegiance Counters lose definition?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>i think you made a mistake here
Or a reversal.
Specifically:
"> But the only thing that defines what the counter does is the card text.
Yes. And that definition still holds."
[LSJ 2001-06-15]
">Only he has the text that makes Assamites
> with Allegiance counters Camarilla, if he leaves play those counters would
> be meaningless, right?
No."
[LSJ 2001-06-15]
have both just been reversed.
By extension:
"
> Are you saying then, that if Theron leaves play, the vampires he has converted
> to !Malk turn back to their previous clan?
No.
"
[LSJ 2001-06-15]
has just been reversed also.
Also by extension, other cards referenced in the thread (Subject: Tegyrius,
Vizier) - particularly, Vampiric Disease and Sabbat Threat - are now
essentially unplayable.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
LSJ
> "If Tegyrius is ready, any Assamite may take a +1 stealth action
> to gain an allegiance counter. Any Assamite with an allegiance
> counter is considered a Camarilla vampire."
>
>
> Above is separated into two sentences. Tegyrius has to be ready
> in order to allow an Assamite to take the action to gain an
> allegiance counter. It doesn't say that he has to be ready in
> order for for such a counter to continue giving the effect aquired
> by gaining said counter.
What give the allegiance counter its power?
LSJ
> i think you made a mistake here : the counters still marks that those
> camarilla assamite even if tegyrius leaves play by
> some-ruling-somewhere-on-google.
That link doesn't work for me. :-)
Got a real citation?
LSJ
Ah, yes. The Vampiric Disease foundation.
Sorry, my mistake. No reversal. The allegiance counters are still "in force" even if
Tegyrius leaves play.
Thanks for the citations.
Flux
> James Coupe wrote:
>
>> In message <3ecc068a$0$18840$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, reyda
>> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> LSJ wrote:
>> Also by extension, other cards referenced in the thread (Subject:
>> Tegyrius,
>> Vizier) - particularly, Vampiric Disease and Sabbat Threat - are now
>> essentially unplayable.
>
>
> Ah, yes. The Vampiric Disease foundation.
> Sorry, my mistake. No reversal. The allegiance counters are still "in
> force" even if
> Tegyrius leaves play.
Ah.
I had a minor question regarding Seattle Comitee: why is the text regarding
the continuing effect of the counters not simply reminder text, considering
this previous ruling?
Looks like you just forgot the ruling. :)
Flux
LSJ
> I had a minor question regarding Seattle Comitee: why is the text
> regarding the continuing effect of the counters not simply reminder
> text, considering this previous ruling?
> Looks like you just forgot the ruling. :)
Huh?
Seattle Committee is properly worded.
Many cards have otherwise redundant text in the interest of clarity,
if that's what you're getting at.
Flux
> Flux wrote:
>
>> I had a minor question regarding Seattle Comitee: why is the text
>> regarding the continuing effect of the counters not simply reminder
>> text, considering this previous ruling?
>> Looks like you just forgot the ruling. :)
>
>
> Huh?
> Seattle Committee is properly worded.
>
> Many cards have otherwise redundant text in the interest of clarity,
> if that's what you're getting at.
Yes, but redundant text is usually marked as reminder (with parenthesis),
and in this case it was not. Which made me wonder if the previous ruling
would be reversed, and SC's text was designed this way so that its effect
would remain the same in that case.
Flux
LSJ
> Yes, but redundant text is usually marked as reminder (with
> parenthesis), and in this case it was not.
It is sometimes marked with parenthesis. It is frequently not
so marked.
> Which made me wonder if the
> previous ruling would be reversed, and SC's text was designed this way
> so that its effect would remain the same in that case.
Redundancy with rulings (as opposed to with rulebook text) has a better
chance of being non-marked, yes.
salem
>Ah.
>I had a minor question regarding Seattle Comitee: why is the text regarding
>the continuing effect of the counters not simply reminder text, considering
>this previous ruling?
>Looks like you just forgot the ruling. :)
while we're on seattle committee,
is it supposed to have a bit of 'put this card in play' text somewhere
on it?
because, in the rulebook, under 1.6.2. Master Cards, section 4. Other
master cards.
'These master cards are discarded when they are played unless the card
says to put it into play or to play it on some other card.'
Seattle Committee has neither of these things on it. and it isn't a
location, out-of-turn or discipline card. :)
(For Scrote: yes, i have read the rulebook.....now :)
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
LSJ
> while we're on seattle committee,
>
> is it supposed to have a bit of 'put this card in play' text somewhere
> on it?
Yes. Thanks for the catch.
Joshua Duffin
> Snapcase wrote:
> > Ah. Thought the Anarch counter was considered "always on" too. Does
> > the allegiance counter have higher priority because there's no inherent
> > way to burn it?
>
> No. The anarch counter changes him to indy just fine. And then, since
> the allegiance counter changes him to Cam, the indy counter burns before
> it has another chance to change him back to indy.
So, if the proposed idea "all always-on sect-changing effects get
burned if you change sect again" comes to pass, then Going Anarch
from having a Tegyrius allegiance counter would result in the
allegiance counter being burned and the Anarch counter "sticking",
right?
Seems fine to me.
Josh
loops unholed
James Coupe
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>So, if the proposed idea "all always-on sect-changing effects get
>burned if you change sect again" comes to pass, then Going Anarch
>from having a Tegyrius allegiance counter would result in the
>allegiance counter being burned and the Anarch counter "sticking",
>right?
>
>Seems fine to me.
A standing rule of "You may only have one sect changing effect on you;
if you gain another, ignore all the previous ones (burn them if they are
on this vampire)" seems relatively fine.
What it does prevent/interfere with, however, is the future introduction
of a card like:
Some Random Action
Some cost
Action
Requires a ready, non-anarch, non-titled vampire
Put this card on the acting vampire; this vampire is now an anarch
(burn...) and has +1 bleed
That is, if you introduce cards which sect change and provide a
substantive effect, also, what happens?
(The obvious answer is: you don't introduce them.)
LSJ
> What it does prevent/interfere with, however, is the future introduction
> of a card like:
>
> Some Random Action
> Some cost
> Action
> Requires a ready, non-anarch, non-titled vampire
> Put this card on the acting vampire; this vampire is now an anarch
> (burn...) and has +1 bleed
>
> That is, if you introduce cards which sect change and provide a
> substantive effect, also, what happens?
>
> (The obvious answer is: you don't introduce them.)
Oops. Too late. See Redline.
Of course, Redline already takes into account its own burning if sect
is changed, so that doesn't preclude the rule you suggest.