sect allegiance/anarchness when playing cards "as a vampire"?[LSJ]
Wolflord
Found lots of related stuff, but not the actual answer (If I missed it,
apologies in advance) to these questions:
When/while an ally plays a card "as a vampire", to which sect does
(s)he belong?
Example: imagine Bima with Serpentis.
Can or can Bima not play eg. Reformation?
Techincally, it's a card requiring the basic versin of the discipline
on Bima, so from Bima's point of view I'd say "yes, it's a card
requiring a the correct disciplien, so accoriding to Bima's card text,
it's ok"
On the other hand, from Reformation's point of view, I'd imagine this
checks the requirement of being an anarch as well, before deciding
whether or not the acting minion can play it..
(then again, at that point in time I'd say Bima isn't even considered a
vampire for purposes of playing this card yet,as at that point in time
he's not playing the card yet)
My money's on "no, Bima cannot play it, as the Anarch-requirement for
Reformation is not met", but ..hell, you get the point..
Thanks for removing my doubts, and probably desillusioning me, while
smasing all my hopes of making a funky deck idea stick, with which I
was so obviously hoping to make the EC in Italy tremble this year
;-))
/jo
James Coupe
Wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> writes:
>Hey guys,
>
>Found lots of related stuff, but not the actual answer (If I missed it,
>apologies in advance) to these questions:
>
>When/while an ally plays a card "as a vampire", to which sect does
>(s)he belong?
Being treated as a vampire but having no clan, they're treated as a
vampire with no clan would be - that is, they'd be Independent.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d0eafb
b943b2a52d>
>Example: imagine Bima with Serpentis.
>
>Can or can Bima not play eg. Reformation?
>Techincally, it's a card requiring the basic versin of the discipline
>on Bima, so from Bima's point of view I'd say "yes, it's a card
>requiring a the correct disciplien, so accoriding to Bima's card text,
>it's ok"
Yes, he/she/it can play it as though she had Serpentis. However, that
doesn't allow her to override needing to be an Anarch. Since she
doesn't meet that, she can't play it.
"You can play this as if you had...." type texts (see also Inscription,
for example) allow you to meet that one particular requirement. They
absolutely don't override all other requirements.
e.g. <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2
f87828bc0539736>
LSJ, responding to Jozxyqk:
*****
> Can a non-Anarch use Diversion if it is inscribed onto him?
No. The vampire must meet all of the other requirements of the card.
He is only liberated from the Thaumaturgy requirement (and the cost).
*****
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> Wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> writes:
> >When/while an ally plays a card "as a vampire", to which sect does
> >(s)he belong?
>
> Being treated as a vampire but having no clan, they're treated as a
> vampire with no clan would be - that is, they'd be Independent.
Correct.
> >Example: imagine Bima with Serpentis.
> >
> >Can or can Bima not play eg. Reformation?
> >Techincally, it's a card requiring the basic versin of the discipline
> >on Bima, so from Bima's point of view I'd say "yes, it's a card
> >requiring a the correct disciplien, so accoriding to Bima's card text,
> >it's ok"
>
> Yes, he/she/it can play it as though she had Serpentis. However, that
> doesn't allow her to override needing to be an Anarch. Since she
> doesn't meet that, she can't play it.
>
> "You can play this as if you had...." type texts (see also Inscription,
> for example) allow you to meet that one particular requirement. They
> absolutely don't override all other requirements.
Correct.
Wolflord
> Wolflord <jo.herroe...@sca.com> writes:
> >When/while an ally plays a card "as a vampire", to which sect does
> >(s)he belong?
> Being treated as a vampire but having no clan, they're treated as a
> vampire with no clan would be - that is, they'd be Independent.
Correct
thankx, that covers what I wanted to know.
Though in this way, Caitiff start looking suspicious again, what with
the having no clan, but being Camarilla and all
:-))
just joking
/jo
James Coupe
Wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> Being treated as a vampire but having no clan, they're treated as a
>> vampire with no clan would be - that is, they'd be Independent.
>
>Correct
>
>thankx, that covers what I wanted to know.
>Though in this way, Caitiff start looking suspicious again, what with
>the having no clan, but being Camarilla and all
As usual, where there's a specific exception to the general rule, the
specific exception takes precedence.
A vampire who has no clan /and whose sect isn't specified either/ will
be Independent. A Caitiff has no clan, but their sect is specified by
the rules.