Back to Independents with titles
The Nosferatu Stuff
vampire (like Aziz) switches to a different clan (by grabbing an allegiance
counter from Tegyrius)
I found this post:
>"Vanda Bushfield" <wy...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> >1. If an independent vampire with votes become a member of the
>>> >Camarilla (Writ of Acceptance, right?) does it lose its votes and/or
>>> >its titled status?
>>>
>>> No. The "title" is not sect-based. The list of sect-based (and
>>> clan-based) titles can be found in the rulebook by those who read usch
>>> things - section 10.
>>
>>What is the 'title' based on for independants then? If not sect or clan?
>
>Card text plus rulebook text. The vampire's name. Nothing. All these
>amount to the same thing.
Fine, so if you become Camarilla you keep your title...but then:
>"Walter Denny" <wde...@telocity.com> wrote:
>>If a camarilla or sabbat vamp had a vote would it be titled also?
>>
>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>news:3B331D96...@white-wolf.com...
>>> Walter Denny wrote:
>>> >
>>> > So are all independents with votes titled?
>>>
>>> With votes printed on their cards, yes. [6.3.4]
>>> --
>>> 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/
>
>Moot, since Camarilla and Sabbat "named" titles exist.
>Any Cam/Sab vampire with a title will use one of those named
>titles. Therefore any Cam/Sab vampire that starts with votes will
>start with a title, and will be titled.
>--
>LSJ
Does that mean that, to be titled, and in the Camarilla sect that you have
to be a primogen/prince/justicar/inner circle.
Or that you get the equivalent to your votes when you join the
camarilla?(aziz is a prince?)
Basically are the camarilla 'named' titles exclusive? Or can you have a
different title, and be in the camarilla?
Also, if you change sects you lose your title...then if you change back you
get it back again.
If you yield your title you lose it...does that follow that if you burn the
vampire contesting the title you also get it back?
(both are events that force you to give up your title, it just seems weird
that you can just pick up being prince after being sabbat for awhile...but
not pick up being prince after someone else was prince for awhile)
Aaron
James Coupe
Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Moot, since Camarilla and Sabbat "named" titles exist.
>>Any Cam/Sab vampire with a title will use one of those named
>>titles. Therefore any Cam/Sab vampire that starts with votes will
>>start with a title, and will be titled.
>>--
>>LSJ
>
>Does that mean that, to be titled, and in the Camarilla sect that you have
>to be a primogen/prince/justicar/inner circle.
No. LSJ is referring to printed vampires - if they want to give a
Camarilla vampire votes, they will give them one of the standard titles.
>Or that you get the equivalent to your votes when you join the
>camarilla?(aziz is a prince?)
No.
>Basically are the camarilla 'named' titles exclusive?
Exclusive to the Camarilla, yes. However, they are not *required* in
the Camarilla.
>Or can you have a
>different title, and be in the camarilla?
You could, but no named titles exist which function in that manner
since, currently, all named titles are tied to sect/clan and you can't
actually use them whilst not part of the relevant sect/clan.
>Also, if you change sects you lose your title...then if you change back you
>get it back again.
You do.
>If you yield your title you lose it
Yes.
>...does that follow that if you burn the
>vampire contesting the title you also get it back?
If you have yielded it, no.
You can't undo the yielding.
Consider two people fighting to be President. Just because the one who
won loses his title, or is burned, it doesn't mean the other person
automatically gets it back - they have to fight another election.
(Of course, that election might be decided by 9 men and women wearing
black mu-mus, but that is neither here nor there.)
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6
faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe
Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>So what you are saying is..uhm if the president defects to China, and we
>don't have a president for 3 months. Then he decides that he didn't
>actually want to live in China forever and comes back...that she should be
>president again?
If no-one else had claimed the presidency, she would still be president.
If someone else had claimed it, she would have yielded immediately.
(Defer to black mu-mus for lengthy court rulings.)
The Nosferatu Stuff
> >...does that follow that if you burn the
> >vampire contesting the title you also get it back?
>
> If you have yielded it, no.
>
> You can't undo the yielding.
>
> Consider two people fighting to be President. Just because the one who
> won loses his title, or is burned, it doesn't mean the other person
> automatically gets it back - they have to fight another election.
>
> (Of course, that election might be decided by 9 men and women wearing
> black mu-mus, but that is neither here nor there.)
> --
> James Coupe
So what you are saying is..uhm if the president defects to China, and we
don't have a president for 3 months. Then he decides that he didn't
actually want to live in China forever and comes back...that she should be
president again?
Aaron
Derek Ray
wrote:
>(Of course, that election might be decided by 9 men and women wearing
>black mu-mus, but that is neither here nor there.)
"Supreme Court: ultimate arbiters of justice, or nine old nags in
black muu-muus?"
-- Derek
Maintenance: Keep the balls dry and clean and prevent them from violent collisions.
Disclaimer: We make no claim that use of these balls will improve health.
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>"Supreme Court: ultimate arbiters of justice, or nine old nags in
>black muu-muus?"
We can cross-post to talk.* if you want ;-)
Wes
Would the votes gained by this card grant you a 'title' for all intents and
purposes?
Or just the votes without an actual title?
Cheers,
WES
Derek Ray
wrote:
>In message <vjr0lt8sdetpgigir...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
><lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>>"Supreme Court: ultimate arbiters of justice, or nine old nags in
>>black muu-muus?"
>
>We can cross-post to talk.* if you want ;-)
I'd have thought *.politics.* would have been a lot more appropriate,
myself. =) (that way you get the soc.* mobs as well =)
-- Derek
"be dirty. that will wake me up."
-- name withheld to protect the guilty
James Coupe
writes
>What about Legendary Vampire?
>
>Would the votes gained by this card grant you a 'title' for all intents and
>purposes?
No. [6.3.4] regards Independent vampires and vampires starting with
votes, as listed on card text.
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>>We can cross-post to talk.* if you want ;-)
>
>I'd have thought *.politics.* would have been a lot more appropriate,
>myself.
talk.* is funnier. It should be renamed shout.*
LSJ
>I was trying to find the answer, to what happens if a titled independent
>vampire (like Aziz) switches to a different clan (by grabbing an allegiance
>counter from Tegyrius)
>Fine, so if you become Camarilla you keep your title...but then:
Correct.
>[...]
>Does that mean that, to be titled, and in the Camarilla sect that you have
>to be a primogen/prince/justicar/inner circle.
No, as above.
>Or that you get the equivalent to your votes when you join the
>camarilla?(aziz is a prince?)
No.
>Basically are the camarilla 'named' titles exclusive? Or can you have a
>different title, and be in the camarilla?
The named Camarilla titles are exclusive to the Camarilla. [10.1]
Unnamed titles are not exclusive to any particular clan or sect.
>Also, if you change sects you lose your title...then if you change back you
>get it back again.
"lose the benefit of" and "rgegain the benefit of" yes.
>If you yield your title you lose it...does that follow that if you burn the
>vampire contesting the title you also get it back?
No.
>(both are events that force you to give up your title, it just seems weird
>that you can just pick up being prince after being sabbat for awhile...but
>not pick up being prince after someone else was prince for awhile)
No. One event (being wrong sect) doesn't force you to give up your title.
--
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/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Matt Latham
Lets say Amisa gets a Writ of Acceptance and becomes Prince of Cairo. Does she
have 4 votes or two?
Matt
James Coupe
<sv...@chartermi.net> writes
>Lets say Amisa gets a Writ of Acceptance and becomes Prince of Cairo. Does she
>have 4 votes or two?
Two. [6.3.4]
(They are treated as titles, hence yielded.)
The Nosferatu Stuff
force you to give up your title, it just seems weird
> >that you can just pick up being prince after being sabbat for
awhile...but
> >not pick up being prince after someone else was prince for awhile)
>
> No. One event (being wrong sect) doesn't force you to give up your title.
> --
> LSJ
huh? You don't give it up. What are you talking about? You keep the
title..but just don't get the votes for it? What if someone else becomes
prince while you are belonging to a different sect? Do you auto yield?
Does that mean, since you are still a prince that you can play second
tradition? Or how can you have the title, but not have it? Seems that you
can only either be a prince, or not be a prince. I see how you can be a
prince without votes, but it makes no sense that you can be a prince in no
way(cannot play traditions) but can "regain the benefit" of being a prince
later?
Aaron
James Coupe
Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>So, if you don't actually give up your title when you change sect...wait
>huh?
You don't. It goes inactive until you return to the correct sect/clan.
> You don't give it up. What are you talking about? You keep the
>title..but just don't get the votes for it?
The title is kept, but is dormant and unusable whilst a member of an
inappropriate sect/clan.
> What if someone else becomes
>prince while you are belonging to a different sect? Do you auto yield?
Yes. [10]
>Does that mean, since you are still a prince that you can play second
>tradition?
No. [10]
>Or how can you have the title, but not have it? Seems that you
>can only either be a prince, or not be a prince.
You are not a prince (since you lose all benefit [10]), but will return
to being one upon when you convert back.
> I see how you can be a
>prince without votes, but it makes no sense that you can be a prince in no
>way(cannot play traditions) but can "regain the benefit" of being a prince
>later?
I fail to see how following the rules as written under [10] makes no
sense. :(
BernieTime
It makes little sense for Independent vampires with votes to be considered
as titled, without actually having a title.
Had they been printed with some generic title (suzerain, sovereign, Lord,
etc..)
which does not have its number of votes set in stone (like a Prince) life
would be a lot easier.
Well, fact of the matter is they weren't. And now we have a counter-
intuitive notation in the Rulebook. Folks it's a lot easier to adjust
the rulebook, than to errata all the independent cards adding "Titles".
Noal did a good job lambasting this earlier, and I agree with his
assessment 100%.
Bernie
The Nosferatu Stuff
>
associated with the likes of me...I seem to have some reputation for coming
up with stuff from off the deep end! ;)
Sorry guys, some things just make no sense, no matter how hard I try to
figure them out....see that thread about pulling out your throat to make
mini-me. Another is a thing like titles. I mean seriously check out the
facts about this title stuff:
1. If you are a vampire printed: "Prince" you are titled.
2. If you are a vampire printed: "2 votes" you are titled.
3. If you are a vampire and you take an action that gives you 2 votes, you
are not titled.
4. If you are a vampire, and you take an action that makes you a prince, you
are titled.
If you've ever seen sesame street you'll know that one of these things
doesn't belong here...cause one of these things just isn't the same! And
its this wierdo 'titled'(applying to any vampire with inherent votes)
'Titled' (pre-defined sect specific titled, ie prince) stuff floating
around.
What do you think would cause problems, if the independents were not titled?
Are people that afraid Augustus will run off, join the camarilla and become
prince of Venice giving him 4 whole votes!(not unlike the camarilla inner
circle members)
Maybe someone would be able to pass a free states rant that doesn't have a
presence vote deck?
Hmm...when I switch Amisa to become a sabbat I would have to start worrying
about all those damn "Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission" cards people are
packing.
Aaron
Halcyan 2
>>huh?
>
>You don't. It goes inactive until you return to the correct sect/clan.
If Sir Walter Nash (Prince of Chicago) becomes Deranged (into !Malk) he loses
his title. Now what if he Investitures to become a Priscus? And what happens if
he then moves the Derange and becomes Camarilla again? Does he sort of get
"two" titles? Prince while Camarilla and Priscus while Sabbat? And since he
"loses" one of them and "gains" the other when he changes sects, he only
technically has one title?
Also, what happens if the Deranged Sir Walter plays a Crusade: Chicago, thus
contesting the title with himself? During the next untap phase, he is forced to
yield the Prince title, and I suppose he has to pay a blood to keep the
Archbishop title?
And finally, from the rulebook:
"If more than one vampire in play claims the same title, then the title is
contested. While the title is being contested, the vampires involved in the
contest are treated as if they have no title, but they remain controlled and
may act and block as normal."
What happens if a vampire who is contesting a title (thus he/she has "no
title") gains another title while doing so? So Sir Walter and Lachlan are
contesting Chicago and Of Noble Blood is played on Sir Walter.
Halcyan 2
The Lasombra
news:20010715022047...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> If Sir Walter Nash (Prince of Chicago) becomes Deranged (into !Malk) he
loses
> his title.
No.
The benefits of the title are unavailable to him, he does not "lose" the
title.
"If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect
inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his
clan or sect changes appropriately. " Section [10] of the rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec10
> Now what if he Investitures to become a Priscus?
He permanently loses all previous titles and gains a Priscus title.
"No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title. If a
vampire with a title gains another, he loses the first title, even if the
new title would be a demotion. If a vampire with a contested title (see
Contested Titles, sec. 4.2) gains a title, he immediately yields the
contested title. " Section [6.3.4] of the rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_3_4
> And what happens if he then moves the Derange and becomes Camarilla again?
The benefits of being a Priscus become unavailable to him, and he has NO
Camarilla title. [6.4.3]
> Does he sort of get "two" titles?
NO. [6.4.3]
> Prince while Camarilla and Priscus while Sabbat?
No. [6.4.3]
> And since he "loses" one of them and "gains" the other when he changes
sects, he only
> technically has one title?
Wrong. See above. [6.4.3]
> Also, what happens if the Deranged Sir Walter plays a Crusade: Chicago,
thus
> contesting the title with himself?
He gains the Archbishop title and permanently loses the Prince title.
[6.4.3]
> During the next untap phase, he is forced to yield the Prince title, and I
suppose
> he has to pay a blood to keep the Archbishop title?
Wrong. [6.4.3]
> And finally, from the rulebook:
>
> "If more than one vampire in play claims the same title, then the title is
> contested. While the title is being contested, the vampires involved in
the
> contest are treated as if they have no title, but they remain controlled
and
> may act and block as normal."
>
> What happens if a vampire who is contesting a title (thus he/she has "no
> title") gains another title while doing so? So Sir Walter and Lachlan are
> contesting Chicago and Of Noble Blood is played on Sir Walter.
See section [6.4.3] of the rulebook.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_3_4
"If a vampire with a contested title (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2) gains
a title, he immediately yields the contested title."
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
LSJ
>figure them out....see that thread about pulling out your throat to make
>mini-me. Another is a thing like titles. I mean seriously check out the
>facts about this title stuff:
>1. If you are a vampire printed: "Prince" you are titled.
>2. If you are a vampire printed: "2 votes" you are titled.
If you are an /Independent/ with a title, then the title will
be printed as a simple vote number rather than a perculiar
title to that clan that makes [6.3.3] absurdly long.
>3. If you are a vampire and you take an action that gives you 2 votes, you
>are not titled.
... unless you were titled before.
>4. If you are a vampire, and you take an action that makes you a prince, you
>are titled.
>
>If you've ever seen sesame street you'll know that one of these things
>doesn't belong here...cause one of these things just isn't the same! And
>its this wierdo 'titled'(applying to any vampire with inherent votes)
>'Titled' (pre-defined sect specific titled, ie prince) stuff floating
>around.
The idea is to repesent the following as simply as possible:
Amisa. Overseer.
Ambrogino. Captain.
Augustus. Grandfather.
Aziz. Dammar.
Ezmerelda. Queen.
Kephamos. High Priest.
Nehsi. Boyar.
Regina. Right Hand.
Sutekh. Dark God.
Thetmes. Caliph.
Ur-Shulgi. Shepherd.
And extending 6.3.3 to say:
Boyar has two votes.
Caliph has two votes.
Captain has one vote.
Dammar has two votes.
Dark God has two votes.
Grandfather has two votes.
High Priest has two votes.
Overseer has two votes.
Queen has two votes.
Right Hand has two votes.
Shepherd has two votes.
LSJ
>as titled, without actually having a title.
They do "actually" have titles. It's just that all the varied titles are
enumerated in the rulebook, so the vampires are just printed with the
number of votes their particular title bestows.
>Had they been printed with some generic title (suzerain, sovereign, Lord,
>etc..)
>which does not have its number of votes set in stone (like a Prince) life
>would be a lot easier.
Fitting all the independents to one "generic" title isn't an option, since
they do not belong to the same power structure as one another.
Raille
The Nosferatu Stuff wrote:
> 3. If you are a vampire and you take an action that gives you 2 votes, you
> are not titled.
A little clarification on this LSJ.
Does this mean that a vampire without any title that gains Legendary
Vampire Status, does not meet the requuirments of being titled?
Raille
James Coupe
writes
>>Had they been printed with some generic title (suzerain, sovereign, Lord,
>>etc..)
>>which does not have its number of votes set in stone (like a Prince) life
>>would be a lot easier.
>
>Fitting all the independents to one "generic" title isn't an option, since
>they do not belong to the same power structure as one another.
The closest we could reach is something as follows:
Random Giovanni
8 cap
DOM NEC PRE pot vic
Titled Vampire (2 votes)
This is, effectively, what the cards currently say, of course.
Jack Crow
<roans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I was trying to find the answer, to what happens if a titled independent
>vampire (like Aziz) switches to a different clan (by grabbing an allegiance
>counter from Tegyrius)
The reason that this confuses me, is that there is either a
contradiction or a lack of clarity in the rulebook...
"If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect
inappropriate for his title, *** he loses the benefit of the title
until his clan or sect changes appropriately.*** " Section [10] of
the rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec10
*** No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title.***
If a vampire with a title gains another, he loses the first title,
even if the new title would be a demotion. If a vampire with a
contested title (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2) gains a title, he
immediately yields the contested title. " Section [6.3.4] of the
rules:
*** No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title.***
should probably say:
*** No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title
appropriate to it's sect. Titles that do not apply to a vampire's
current sect become inactive and cannot be used for votes or to
satisfy card texts. ***
This last *** comment sums up the rules as I understand them.
An independent should lose (inactive) it's votes/title when it joins a
sect?
The Nosferatu Stuff
Okay, so you don't want to have to add a zillion new titled...or even come
up with a generic one. I guess that is okay. I can just remember that if
you have votes you are titled. But I can't figure out...why if a card adds
votes it doesn't make you titled.
Calling praxis seizure give you 2 votes and a named title.
Coming into play and gaining legendary vampire don't make you titled..but
only because there isn't a named titled attached to it. But you now have
the 2 votes, the same as if you had just brought out your independent that
has "2 Votes" printed on the card. Then it's confusing to figure out who
has votes, but is titled, who's votes are untitled, and who has titled, and
untitled votes.
Seems to me that being in the camarilla and sabbat, with stations giving you
influence over other kindred makes for a logical method of determining why
you should have votes. Being a "Dammar"(what is that?) or a "Right Hand"
seems that it could only give you control over other kindred not of your
clan, if it was just your notoriety as a vampire..you'd be legendary so to
speak. And that all those titled fit into a legendary(famous) category.
Being a Dark God probably won't make you high on anyone's political scale,
but if you something they will probably listen because you are well known as
being a bad mo'fo.
If being a bad mo'fo counts as a titled. Then if Cameron(poor little 3 cap
lasombra) takes a Political Struggle attack and burns Sutek, that he would
be considered a badder mo'fo and derive his influence from the same place
the Dark God got his, people are scared of him.(plus it would make things
uniform, you have votes you are titled with or without a 'named title')
Aaron
James Coupe
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>*** No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title
>appropriate to it's sect. Titles that do not apply to a vampire's
>current sect become inactive and cannot be used for votes or to
>satisfy card texts. ***
Incorrect.
A vampire cannot have more than one title *full-stop*. They cannot have
a title for when they're Camarilla and a title for when they're Sabbat.
They have one, that's all.
When they have changed clan/sect, their previous title may be unusable
but they still have it. When they gain a title appropriate to that
other sect/clan, they lose the previous one. When their inactive title
is contested, they yield immediately. [A reading of section 10]
Examples:
My copy of Lucian clan impersonates to Assamite. Since he is now
Independent and not a member of Clan Malkavian, he cannot use his
Malkavian Justicar title. It becomes inactive. Later, he burns the
Clan Impersonation and the title re-activates.
My copy of Lazverinus is Deranged. Since he has not changed sect
inappropriately, he is still Archbishop. (Archbishop is tied to sect,
not clan.)
My copy of Gitane St Clair Clan Impersonates to !Gangrel. Her Primogen
title becomes inactive. During her time has !Gangrel, she calls a vote
of Crusade: Random, becoming the Archbishop of Random. Her Primogen
title is immediately discarded. [10., last sentence before 10.1] If
she returns to being Gangrel, her diocese becomes inactive until she
changes sect appropriately (i.e. back to Sabbat)
My copy of Sheldon Clan Impersonates to !Ventrue. His Justicar title
becomes inactive. A Nosferatu deck on the table quickly passes a
Nosferatu Justicar vote (it had been holding it in hand for a little
vote power, because the table was fairly finely balanced, say). It
elects its copy of Tusk to be Nosferatu Justicar. The vote passes, Tusk
is elected. Sheldon immediately yields his inactive title. [10., as
above.] Even when Sheldon returns to being a Nosferatu, he does not
reclaim the title.
My copy of Amisa Clan Impersonates to Brujah. Her title is *not* tied
to either sect or clan, merely card text. (There are no rules to state
otherwise.) Hence, she is a titled, Camarilla Brujah vampire with 2
votes - but she is not a prince, Primogen, Justicar or inner circle
member. If a card said "Only usable by a titled vampire" she'd still
count as one. During her time as a Brujah, a vote of Brujah Justicar is
called upon her. She gratefully accepts the honour, and yields her
previous title (as any vampire with a title does when they receive a new
title). [10.] When she returns to being Follower of Set, she does not
regain her 2 vote title (which was yielded), and her Brujah Justicar
title becomes inactive, as any clan/sect-based title does when you
change inappropriately.
>An independent should lose (inactive) it's votes/title when it joins a
>sect?
An independent vampire's votes are based on its card text giving it a
title, as per the rules. [Final paragraph of 6.3.3, Penultimate
paragraph of 6.3.4] However, nothing ties these to sect or clan. They
are simply generic titles.
That's merely a statement of the rules, and citing the rules is not an
argument for not changing them.
However, the independent clans already find politics significantly more
difficult than other clans. They do not have access to title granting
votes. They do not have access to Closed Session or Private Audience,
excluding other sects from voting. I would suggest, therefore, that
their ability, as per the current rules, to keep their title
irrespective of sect is not abusive, unbalancing or significantly
over-powered. As such, a rules change seems unwarranted, and the rules
book is perfectly clear on the present matter.
The examples above, combined with 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 should clear up any
problems people have. I hope.
James Coupe
Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>But I can't figure out...why if a card adds
>votes it doesn't make you titled.
Because the rules only state that unnamed votes given by card text on
vampires grant titles. It states nothing about library cards. [6.3.3]
[6.3.4]
6.3.4: "Some independent vampires may start with votes, as listed on
card text. Treat these vampires as if they had titles of their own."
There is no card text or rules text stating that adding votes to a
vampire later makes them titled. (e.g. with Legendary Vampire)
Frederick Scott
>
> In message <3B58...@MailAndNews.com>, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com>
> writes
> >>Had they been printed with some generic title (suzerain, sovereign, Lord,
> >>etc..) which does not have its number of votes set in stone (like a Prince)
> >>life would be a lot easier.
> >
> >Fitting all the independents to one "generic" title isn't an option, since
> >they do not belong to the same power structure as one another.
>
> The closest we could reach is something as follows:
>
> Random Giovanni
> 8 cap
> DOM NEC PRE pot vic
> Titled Vampire (2 votes)
>
> This is, effectively, what the cards currently say, of course.
True. But that would have helped a lot, so people don't have to wonder about
which cards are truly titles and which just grant votes.
Fred
James Coupe
<fre...@netcom.com> writes
>True. But that would have helped a lot, so people don't have to wonder about
>which cards are truly titles and which just grant votes.
If a vampire has a number of votes listed on their card text, they have
a title. [6.3.3] [6.3.4] If a vampire has a named title on their card
text, they have a title. [6.3.3]
Beyond that, you need specific card text on a library card to grant a
title.
Jack Crow
wrote:
>In message <3b519f9f...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
><no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>*** No matter what sect, a vampire cannot have more than one title
>>appropriate to it's sect. Titles that do not apply to a vampire's
>>current sect become inactive and cannot be used for votes or to
>>satisfy card texts. ***
>
>Incorrect.
>
>A vampire cannot have more than one title *full-stop*. They cannot have
>a title for when they're Camarilla and a title for when they're Sabbat.
>They have one, that's all.
>
>When they have changed clan/sect, their previous title may be unusable
>but they still have it. When they gain a title appropriate to that
>other sect/clan, they lose the previous one. When their inactive title
>is contested, they yield immediately. [A reading of section 10]
>
Revised statement of fact:
A vampire cannot have more than one title.. Titles that do not apply
to a vampire's current sect become 'inactive' and cannot be used for
votes or to satisfy card texts. The title of the Vampire's previous
sect still exists, but if contested, must be yielded immediately.
James Coupe
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>Revised statement of fact:
>
>A vampire cannot have more than one title.. Titles that do not apply
>to a vampire's current sect become 'inactive' and cannot be used for
>votes or to satisfy card texts. The title of the Vampire's previous
>sect still exists, but if contested, must be yielded immediately.
If the vampire returns to an appropriate clan or sect, the title will
re-activated, assuming it has not been lost.
Jozxyqk
> A vampire cannot have more than one title.. Titles that do not apply
> to a vampire's current sect become 'inactive' and cannot be used for
> votes or to satisfy card texts. The title of the Vampire's previous
> sect still exists, but if contested, must be yielded immediately.
So if an Archbishop Clan-Impersonates to a Camarilla clan, can you still
call Excommunication on him (to ensure he never gets the title back) ?
James Coupe
<jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes
>So if an Archbishop Clan-Impersonates to a Camarilla clan, can you still
>call Excommunication on him (to ensure he never gets the title back) ?
No. The title is inactive for all "benefits".
(This is the same sort of benefit whereby something that's bad for you,
in the end, isn't classified as a restriction for Seeds of Corruption.)
LSJ
>James Coupe wrote:
>>LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> writes
>> >Fitting all the independents to one "generic" title isn't an option, since
>> >they do not belong to the same power structure as one another.
>>
>> The closest we could reach is something as follows:
>>
>> Random Giovanni
>> 8 cap
>> DOM NEC PRE pot vic
>> Titled Vampire (2 votes)
>>
>> This is, effectively, what the cards currently say, of course.
>
>which cards are truly titles and which just grant votes.
People don't have to wonder about it now, either, since the rules are
explicit on the point.
Title? -> titled.
Votes printed on the Independent vampire's card? -> titled.
LSJ
>> Revised statement of fact:
>
>> A vampire cannot have more than one title.. Titles that do not apply
>> to a vampire's current sect become 'inactive' and cannot be used for
>> votes or to satisfy card texts. The title of the Vampire's previous
>> sect still exists, but if contested, must be yielded immediately.
>
>call Excommunication on him (to ensure he never gets the title back) ?
No. Similarly, if Anson gets Deranged, you can hit him with a Blood Hunt
action, since he no longer counts as a Prince.
Frederick Scott
>
> fre...@netcom.com wrote:
> >James Coupe wrote:
> >> The closest we could reach is something as follows:
> >>
> >> Random Giovanni
> >> 8 cap
> >> DOM NEC PRE pot vic
> >> Titled Vampire (2 votes)
> >>
> >> This is, effectively, what the cards currently say, of course.
> >
> >True. But that would have helped a lot, so people don't have to wonder about
> >which cards are truly titles and which just grant votes.
>
> People don't have to wonder about it now, either, since the rules are
> explicit on the point.
Unfortunately, the one doesn't infer the other. It's true in a technical sense.
But it's difficult to bring up in one's memory (at least for some of us) if the
rule hasn't been used in a couple months. Votes on independent vampires confer
a title? What about votes on Camarilla vampires? Sabbat vampires? Other cards,
connected with Camarilla, Sabbat, Independent, or none of the above. They all
look like the same thing to us: just a number of votes. I'm trying to get you to
see that requiring people to go to the rules to support seemingly arbitrary
distinctions such as this are bad.
All right. I'm grousing about something that can't be changed in terms of already
printed cards. But it enhances a game a great deal in my eyes when the aesthetics
help obviate the need to go flipping through the rules after a (let's face it)
mindless distinction like this. And I disagree that doing so is like printing
relatively needless reminder text, such as the number of votes a Prince has on each
Prince's card in the game.
(The game might well be better if all votes conferred on all types of were considered
to confer a title, thus bypassing the problem entirely. But there's probably VtM
backstory considerations that make this undesirable. Not to mention that it might
change the game rather drastically in certain ways.)
Fred
James Coupe
<fre...@netcom.com> writes
>Unfortunately, the one doesn't infer the other. It's true in a
>technical sense.
>But it's difficult to bring up in one's memory (at least for some of us) if the
>rule hasn't been used in a couple months.
The same could, of course, be said for many rules. A lot of people have
problems with how Blood Hunts work, for instance.
>Votes on independent vampires confer
>a title?
Correct. [6.3.4]
>What about votes on Camarilla vampires?
Moot. (There are none.)
>Sabbat vampires?
Moot.
>Other cards,
>connected with Camarilla, Sabbat, Independent, or none of the above. They all
>look like the same thing to us: just a number of votes.
A number of votes on a vampire card, or a specific title on a vampire
card, are a title. That's it.
Anything from the library has to bring its own card text to do what it
wants.
Jack Crow
wrote:
>In message <3b52233f....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
><no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>Revised statement of fact:
>>
>>A vampire cannot have more than one title.. Titles that do not apply
>>to a vampire's current sect become 'inactive' and cannot be used for
>>votes or to satisfy card texts. The title of the Vampire's previous
>>sect still exists, but if contested, must be yielded immediately.
>If the vampire receives a new title, the inactive one is lost entirely.
>If the vampire returns to an appropriate clan or sect, the title will
>re-activated, assuming it has not been lost.
>
Since a vampire cannot have more than one title, it is a given that
inactive titles are lost if a sect-based title is gained. If the
vampire joins a new sect, the old sect-based title is the only
"inactive" title.
James Coupe
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>Since a vampire cannot have more than one title, it is a given that
>inactive titles are lost if a sect
or clan
>-based title is gained.
It may be a "given". However, it's a "given" from reading the rulebook
- yet it clearly isn't a "given" for many.
IME, when constructing paradigms for explanations, it is often useful to
be more thorough than that which you are trying to explain.