Valerius + Infamous Insurgent
DeathInABottle
then advance him. Is he still infernal? Still an anarch? Does
Infamous Insurgent still grant him 2 votes and an untap to an anarch?
Valerius Maior, Hell's Fool (ADV)
nec pre AUS DAI DOM THA
Tremere antitribu
Capacity: 7
Group: 4
Advanced, Sabbat. Red List: If Valerius attempts to block, the acting
minion cannot play action modifier or combat cards that require
Chimerstry or Obfuscate. Infernal.
[MERGE] Independent: Valerius becomes non-infernal and non-Red List as
he merges. While merged, his capacity is reduced by 2.
Infamous Insurgent
Cardtype: Master
Unique master. Put this card on a Red List anarch vampire. This
vampire is infernal, Bahari, and gets 2 additional votes. During this
vampire's minion phase, his or her controller may untap a ready anarch
he or she controls.
The Lasombra
>Valerius Maior is an anarch. I play Infamous Insurgent on him. I
>then advance him. Is he still infernal?
No, merge text.
> Still an anarch?
Yes. His sect does not change, going from independent to independent,
so his anarch status does not change.
> Does Infamous Insurgent still grant him 2 votes and an untap to an anarch?
Yes. The card does not require him to be red list, infernal, or
anarch to get the bonus.
DeathInABottle
Thought so. Thanks!
Malone
> >Valerius Maior is an anarch. I play Infamous Insurgent on him. I
> >then advance him. Is he still infernal?
>
> No, merge text.
Merging changes Valerius' default from infernal to not, but the
Infamous Insurgent card is still on him, which says "This vampire is
infernal..." So he's still infernal from a card in play, right?
LSJ
Correct. As he merges, the merging applies a "become non-infernal"
effect to him, which is immediately washed away by the card in play's
"this vampire is infernal" effect.
XZealot
But he is no longer anarch if you merge from base to merged, because
he changes clans. He remains anarch if you merge from advanced to
merged because his clan stays the same.
JH
Actually... If you merge Valerius, who is an Anarch, he stays Anarch,
because merged Valerius is an Independent vampire by card text.
Jeff Poole
Just to clarify something. Valerius only reverts to infernal (due to
Infamous Insurgent) because of his card text clause "as he merges",
correct? If Valerius's card text said "Valerius is non-infernal and
non-Red List while he is merged" which card text would take
precedent? Would the older (first played) card take effect, or the
newer card? Or does library card text always supersede crypt card
text?
Jeff Poole
XZealot
Ya got me on that one.
LSJ
> Just to clarify something. Valerius only reverts to infernal (due to
> Infamous Insurgent) because of his card text clause "as he merges",
> correct?
> If Valerius's card text said "Valerius is non-infernal and
> non-Red List while he is merged" which card text would take
> precedent?
Such text would just be "[MERGED] Non-infernal. Non-Red List."
> Would the older (first played) card take effect, or the
> newer card? Or does library card text always supersede crypt card
> text?
Neither. That's why his text isn't written that way: to avoid this
sort of problem.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3cb1cd10bc5b46df
Jeff Poole
I don't think the Seeds of Corruption discussion is really relevant to
which card text supersedes which.
A more relevant discussion would discuss a Sabbat vampire, with Writ
of Acceptance who then plays Go Anarch. Both cards are in play, on
the vampire, but one needs to take precedent. This is a simple
situation where I assume you would rule the more recently played card
takes precedent. Correct?
Jeff Poole
XZealot
Writ takes precendent.
LSJ
> On Aug 10, 12:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 3:11 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Such text would just be "[MERGED] Non-infernal. Non-Red List."
> > > Would the older (first played) card take effect, or the
> > > newer card? Or does library card text always supersede crypt card
> > > text?
>
> > Neither. That's why his text isn't written that way: to avoid this
> > sort of problem.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3cb1...
>
> I don't think the Seeds of Corruption discussion is really relevant to
> which card text supersedes which.
Quote from that message:
[Val's as-merged text is] essentially "term text" (equivalent to "non-
infernal,
non-Red List", but in a head-off-the-obvious-questions kind of way
End Quote.
The question of which supercedes which is one of the "obvious
questions" being headed off by not using that text.
> A more relevant discussion would discuss a Sabbat vampire, with Writ
> of Acceptance who then plays Go Anarch. Both cards are in play, on
> the vampire, but one needs to take precedent. This is a simple
> situation where I assume you would rule the more recently played card
> takes precedent. Correct?
No. Writ provides a floating sect overlaying the vampire's
"actual" (permanent) sect.
Go Anarch changes the vampire's underlying actual (permanent) sect.
So the Writ wins, no matter which is played first.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3be228674aacc4b8
Wedge
I don't really understand why Val would remain infernal, but it gives
me a bigger chubby then if he didn't.
Just wondering, if Val was Bahari before Infamous Insurgent is played
does he still get the 2 extra vote and anarch untap?
Jeff Poole
> On Aug 10, 3:38 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 12:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 10, 3:11 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Such text would just be "[MERGED] Non-infernal. Non-Red List."
> > > > Would the older (first played) card take effect, or the
> > > > newer card? Or does library card text always supersede crypt card
> > > > text?
>
> > > Neither. That's why his text isn't written that way: to avoid this
> > > sort of problem.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3cb1...
>
> > I don't think the Seeds of Corruption discussion is really relevant to
> > which card text supersedes which.
>
> Quote from that message:
>
> [Val's as-merged text is] essentially "term text" (equivalent to "non-
> infernal,
> non-Red List", but in a head-off-the-obvious-questions kind of way
>
> End Quote.
>
> The question of which supercedes which is one of the "obvious
> questions" being headed off by not using that text.
Literally the sentence before your quoted text you say "it
doesn't" (in regards to how Seeds and Val interact). So you yourself
in that thread said that Seeds and Val's text do not even interact
with one another, so the relevance to the current thread seems minimal
since neither one is superseding or interacting with the other.
> > A more relevant discussion would discuss a Sabbat vampire, with Writ
> > of Acceptance who then plays Go Anarch. Both cards are in play, on
> > the vampire, but one needs to take precedent. This is a simple
> > situation where I assume you would rule the more recently played card
> > takes precedent. Correct?
>
> No. Writ provides a floating sect overlaying the vampire's
> "actual" (permanent) sect.
> Go Anarch changes the vampire's underlying actual (permanent) sect.
How is Go Anarch different from Writ. You mention underlying sect and
overlaying sect like they're terms people should be familiar with
after reading the rulebook or like they're terms that are common when
discussing a vampire's sect during game play. Both of these cards go
on the vampire and provide a change to the vampire's sect (Rulebook
sect 10.5 says if you become an Anarch you also become Independent).
How one changes an underlying sect and one provides a overlaying sect
is unclear to me. It would be clearer to say they both provide
overlaying sect changes. Presumably, if you remove these cards you
would also lose the benefits of the card (otherwise why would Go
Anarch need to remain on the vampire?). If they both provide the
change only while they are on the vampire then how in effect are they
different (besides the obvious one is equipment and one is an action
card)
>
> So the Writ wins, no matter which is played first.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3be2...
Jeff Poole
XZealot
Go Anarch gets burned from Card Text.
Jeff Poole
I understand that. In the above example, the Sabbat vampire equipped
with Writ, then went Anarch via Go Anarch. Go Anarch would
immediately burn according to LSJ. What is unclear to me, is why Go
Anarch's change is different from Writ's change and why one supersedes
the other.
Jeff Poole
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go Anarch targets the text on the vampire. Writ is intended to work
as "The vampire with this equipment is Sect X". You remove the writ
and the Go Anarch comes back (overriding the original vampire sect on
the crypt card).
Jeff Poole
How is Go Anarch intended not to be the same as Writ, "The vampire
with this card is Sect X"?
Both cards use almost the exact same language. The only difference is
that Go Anarch lacks "with this card" clause in the same sentence as
Writ (although it is there in the first sentence so it can be assumed,
logically, to say "the vampire with this card is considered an
Anarch"). How is it that one target the vampire's card text and the
other doesn't? To me, it is unclear as to how they are mechanically
different (whether it is: they both remove the vampire's card based
sect and provide a new one, or they both provide a new sect that does
not remove the original text, but merely overrides it).
Go Anarch
Type: Action
Requires: non-anarch,non-titled
+1 stealth action. Requires a ready non-titled, non-anarch vampire.
Put this card on the acting vampire and untap this vampire. This
vampire is considered anarch (and independent). If this vampire
changes sects, burn this card.
Writ of Acceptance
Type: Equipment
Equipment.
The vampire with this equipment is considered a Camarilla vampire.
Jeff Poole
Juggernaut1981
Because of this:
Go Anarch...
This vampire is considered anarch. (Effectively re-writing the
original text of the vampire).
Writ of Acceptance
The vampire *with this equipment* is considered a Camarilla vampire.
This is the same sort of effect as a vampire with:
Veneficorum Artus Sanguis (with this equipment gains THA)
The Sargon Fragment (with this equipment gains NEC)
Seal of Verdattha (with this equipment gains FOR & DOM)
The vampire with the equipment gains the effect. Remove the equipment
and the effect is removed with it. By implication, the Writ (and any
other card with a similar transient nature) would appear to sit "over"
the vampire's own card text and any effect which changes the vampire
itself.
Go Anarch is intended to work in the same way as the "Become Anarch
Action" (but gives benefits in trade for card-opportunity-costs) and
will work similarly to Anarch Convert, Into the Fire, Out of the
Frypan and by implication Infamous Insurgent. They are intended to
effectively re-write the vampire's text itself.
Thereby, Writ (et al) does not see the Go Anarch Card but instead sees
an Anarch Vampire and while they have the Writ they are CONSIDERED
Camarilla. (It would also be logical to assume that when the Writ is
moved, the modified vampire Sect would re-establish itself, so an
Anarch Convert-Anarch would return to their Indie-Anarch text when
Writ moves).
Jeff Poole
But this is precisely my point, if you replace the word equipment with
card in your previous paragraph you get a situation where Go Anarch is
just as transient as Writ. So the Go Anarch card stays on the vampire
who made the action, and is through /implication/ therefore just as
transient as equipment, retainers, etc in its "sit over" effect. It
is as simple to come to this conclusion as it is with equipment.
>
> Go Anarch is intended to work in the same way as the "Become Anarch
> Action" (but gives benefits in trade for card-opportunity-costs) and
> will work similarly to Anarch Convert, Into the Fire, Out of the
> Frypan and by implication Infamous Insurgent. They are intended to
> effectively re-write the vampire's text itself.
>
But it doesn't work like the examples you've given. It stays in
play. If the designers wanted to (or still want to) they could change
it so the Go Anarch action goes directly to the ash heap and simply
has the same effect as a Into the Fire or one of the examples you've
given.
> Thereby, Writ (et al) does not see the Go Anarch Card but instead sees
> an Anarch Vampire and while they have the Writ they are CONSIDERED
> Camarilla. (It would also be logical to assume that when the Writ is
> moved, the modified vampire Sect would re-establish itself, so an
> Anarch Convert-Anarch would return to their Indie-Anarch text when
> Writ moves).
No, Go Anarch specifically states it goes on the vampire and then goes
on to say that the vampire gains some benefits. It even gives a
clause for burning the card in case the vampire changes sect (a nod to
the situations LSJ referred to earlier that were trying to be avoided;
ie if they get a Writ after they Go Anarch it is burned and there is
no confusion).
The confusion I have, boiled down to its core, is: If a minion has two
cards with mutually exclusive properties, which one "overrides" the
other and how does one determine this "priority" in other situations.
As someone who likes to understand the rules thoroughly, it would be
nice to know where the basis is for these ruling precedents so one can
predict future rulings.
Jeff Poole
Juggernaut1981
The confusion I have, boiled down to its core, is: If a minion has
two
cards with mutually exclusive properties, which one "overrides" the
other and how does one determine this "priority" in other situations.
As someone who likes to understand the rules thoroughly, it would be
nice to know where the basis is for these ruling precedents so one
can
predict future rulings.
Boiled down to a core response:
Immobile Vampire-Changing Effects
Go Anarch, Galaric's Legacy, Seattle Committe, Twilight Camp and
similar immobile sect-changing effects rewrite the text of the crypt
card and are most commonly left in play to denote the change (or
replaced with some form of counter to denote the change of sect).
Master:Disciplines would also be immobile Vampire-Changing Cards
(since there are very very few ways to move them and all of those are
specific examples such as Ethan Locke) that re-write the Vampire.
Barbaro Luchesse's action would also be included in this category.
Movable Effects (predominantly Equipment)
Cards that can be moved replace the text of a vampire, not edit the
text of a vampire. Consequently, Writ of Acceptance modifies the
vampire's text with an alternate (leaving the original text
ineffective but intact). Veneficorum Artum Sanguis (et al) modify,
but do not edit, the core disciplines of the vampire. Because of
their movable nature, they do not edit the core text/properties of the
vampire.
Mobile-Effects that do not effectively edit the original vampire's
text, take precedent over Immobile effects which do effectively
rewrite the original vampire's text.
Jeff Poole
It is easy to see how "Mobile-Effects" override/take precedent/etc
over "Immobile" effects. That is not what is being discussed though.
You see if there exists even one way to move a particular card or
effect that it is then, by the very definition of the word, movable.
Discipline cards can be stolen Absorb the Mind), counters can be moved
from one card to another (Goth Band), cards can be moved (Shadow of
Taint, which can even steal Go Anarch!!!) and I'm sure you could
search for even more instances where cards you deem "Immobile" can be
moved. So, I think the distinction you're trying to make is between
cards that create a change in game state (ie, sect, clan, infernal/non-
infernal, strength, bleed, etc) and then are discarded (thus they
cannot be moved) and between cards that remain in play and create a
replacement of a game state (but can be moved).
So, to use your terminology, if a minion has two cards that provide
mutually exclusive "Mobile-Effects" then how would you determine which
one overrides/takes precedent/etc over the other?
Jeff Poole
Juggernaut1981
The definition of the "mobile effects" and "immobile effects" as they
relate to vampires should be obvious. And they are not definitions
adopted specifically by LSJ.
Is there a simple method, like a default action, that allows the
effect to move? If Yes, then Mobile. If No, then Immobile.
This is a specific definition of the words Mobile and Immobile in the
same way that the word Bleed has a specific meaning within VTES.
I concede that Ethan Locke, Absorb the Mind and a number of SPECIFIC
CASES break the general situation that Master:Discipline cards remain
in one location. The fact is that there is no way for a generic
minion to gain a Master: Discipline from another minion WITHOUT
specific card text (on the minion or by a library card). That does
not mean that they are effectively Immobile (equivalent to an Anarch
Counter on a minion or a Nakhtoreb Counter or a Barbaro Luchesse
Counter). Goth Band breaks a specific rule about counters in a
specific scenario (i.e. a limited special case covered by the Golden
Rule).
When there are many Mobile-Effects operating on a vampire it would
then be sensible to either: apply them in chronological order OR apply
them in whichever way the Methuselah deems them to be most
beneficial. I suspect that LSJ would lean on the side of
Chronological Order (i.e. if you had an equipment that makes you
Anarch and then got the Writ of Acceptance, you would be Camarilla).
Jeff Poole
> Jeff,
> The definition of the "mobile effects" and "immobile effects" as they
> relate to vampires should be obvious. And they are not definitions
> adopted specifically by LSJ.
>
> Is there a simple method, like a default action, that allows the
> effect to move? If Yes, then Mobile. If No, then Immobile.
> This is a specific definition of the words Mobile and Immobile in the
> same way that the word Bleed has a specific meaning within VTES.
So a default action in the rules provides sufficient enough difference
to delineate the different cards that can be moved. Easy enough
(although I thought, "there exists a way to move the card" was simple
enough).
>
> I concede that Ethan Locke, Absorb the Mind and a number of SPECIFIC
> CASES break the general situation that Master:Discipline cards remain
> in one location. The fact is that there is no way for a generic
> minion to gain a Master: Discipline from another minion WITHOUT
> specific card text (on the minion or by a library card). That does
> not mean that they are effectively Immobile (equivalent to an Anarch
> Counter on a minion or a Nakhtoreb Counter or a Barbaro Luchesse
> Counter). Goth Band breaks a specific rule about counters in a
> specific scenario (i.e. a limited special case covered by the Golden
> Rule).
>
> When there are many Mobile-Effects operating on a vampire it would
> then be sensible to either: apply them in chronological order OR apply
> them in whichever way the Methuselah deems them to be most
> beneficial. I suspect that LSJ would lean on the side of
> Chronological Order (i.e. if you had an equipment that makes you
> Anarch and then got the Writ of Acceptance, you would be Camarilla).
The last paragraph gets down to the core question I asked. Two
mutually exclusive card texts are on a minion (whether they're both
equipment, retainers or just cards is irrelevant), which takes
priority? You say chronological order (and I totally agree) but
according to LSJ's last post, neither takes precedent as no situation
can exist in the VtES universe where you might see two mutually
exclusive game terms of the same type (ie, actions, retainers,
equipment, etc).
Jeff Poole
LSJ
"Floating" (temporary change) of clan/sect/whatever (things that
require you to remember the underlying clan/sect/whatever, since that
underlying clan/sect/whatever will be back in force once the temporary
effect is ended) are not mutually exclusive effects -- they stack. And
yes, the more recent ones are "stacked" on top of the older ones, so
the more recent ones have priority. Examples: Writ of Acceptance and
Clan Impersonation.
In contrast to non-floating ones that irrevocably replace the base
(permanent) clan/sect/whatever with a new clan/sect/whatever.
Examples: Go Anarch and Out of the Frying Pan.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3be228674aacc4b8
These cards, if they stay in play, also (by necessity) have text
either to implement their change as an effect-of-play (rather than an
effect of being in play), like Valerius, or to remove themselves when
they are overridden (like Go Anarch).
So both Go Anarch's replace base sect effect and Writ's add a
temporary sect to the stack effect apply (regardless of which is
played first), with the result that the Writ's sect is layered over Go
Anarch's, so the vampire is Camarilla. Which means that the Go Anarch
is immediately burned by its own card text; the Anarch status is lost
[10.5], but the base sect doesn't actually change (the Go Anarch had
overwritten it with "Independent" and there's nothing to overwrite it
with something else now) -- it remains Independent (still covered by
the "Camarilla" layer provided by Writ). So if the Writ is later
removed, the vampire will be Independent (but will not gain back the
Anarch status).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9aa6c5627f47e270
James Coupe
>In contrast to non-floating ones that irrevocably replace the base
>(permanent) clan/sect/whatever with a new clan/sect/whatever.
>Examples: Go Anarch and Out of the Frying Pan.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3be228674aacc4b8
>
>These cards, if they stay in play, also (by necessity) have text
>either to implement their change as an effect-of-play (rather than an
>effect of being in play), like Valerius, or to remove themselves when
>they are overridden (like Go Anarch).
What happens if I play Cleansing Ritual on a Go Anarch card? Or a
Galaric's Legacy?
Per this thread, it appears that the vampire would still be Independent
and Anarch, but that seems very counter intuitive. Galaric's Legacy
says the vampire with this card is considered X. Cleansing Ritual
removes the card, so no effect is still making the vampire X, but
apparently an effect persists that was only present because of the card
(by card text) despite the absence of the card.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >In contrast to non-floating ones that irrevocably replace the base
> >(permanent) clan/sect/whatever with a new clan/sect/whatever.
> >Examples: Go Anarch and Out of the Frying Pan.
>
>
> >These cards, if they stay in play, also (by necessity) have text
> >either to implement their change as an effect-of-play (rather than an
> >effect of being in play), like Valerius, or to remove themselves when
> >they are overridden (like Go Anarch).
>
> What happens if I play Cleansing Ritual on a Go Anarch card? Or a
> Galaric's Legacy?
>
> Per this thread, it appears that the vampire would still be Independent
> and Anarch, but that seems very counter intuitive.
It's true, although not sure about the "per this thread" bit, though,
since there is quite a difference between "anarch" and sect. All
vampires have a sect.
> Galaric's Legacy
> says the vampire with this card is considered X. Cleansing Ritual
> removes the card, so no effect is still making the vampire X, but
> apparently an effect persists that was only present because of the card
> (by card text) despite the absence of the card.
Correct.
Jeff Poole
> On Aug 11, 7:41 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > >In contrast to non-floating ones that irrevocably replace the base
> > >(permanent) clan/sect/whatever with a new clan/sect/whatever.
> > >Examples: Go Anarch and Out of the Frying Pan.
See I would think that a non-floating effect would be one that MUST be
remembered because the card that put it into effect is no longer in
play and is in the ash heap or removed from the game. Out of the
Frying Pan fits this permanent change that must be remembered since
there is no card in play to remind a player that the effect is in
play. Thus is irrevocably changes the game state and cannot be
changed by "removing the card from play". In fact the burn clause on
Galaric's Legacy and Go Anarch support the idea that the change of
sect and anarch status is solely due to the card being in play. If
that was not the case, why bother keeping the card in play in the
first place?
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3be2...
>
> > >These cards, if they stay in play, also (by necessity) have text
> > >either to implement their change as an effect-of-play (rather than an
> > >effect of being in play), like Valerius, or to remove themselves when
> > >they are overridden (like Go Anarch).
>
> > What happens if I play Cleansing Ritual on a Go Anarch card? Or a
> > Galaric's Legacy?
>
> > Per this thread, it appears that the vampire would still be Independent
> > and Anarch, but that seems very counter intuitive.
>
> It's true, although not sure about the "per this thread" bit, though,
> since there is quite a difference between "anarch" and sect. All
> vampires have a sect.
>
Per this thread's discussion, as I understand it, it seems that some
cards that stay in play provide a floating effect and some cards that
stay in play provide a permanent underlying change. The confusion is
what cards provide which sort of effect.
> > Galaric's Legacy
> > says the vampire with this card is considered X. Cleansing Ritual
> > removes the card, so no effect is still making the vampire X, but
> > apparently an effect persists that was only present because of the card
> > (by card text) despite the absence of the card.
>
> Correct.
Likewise, would playing Cleansing Ritual on a vampire you control with
Writ of Acceptance leave that vampire Camarilla? Galaric's Legacy and
Writ of Acceptance have the exact same text regarding the vampire with
the card being considered X sect. Yet you say that removing the card
Galaric's Legacy would leave the vampire Independent and Anarch.
Galaric's Legacy
Type: Master
Master. Trifle.
Put this card on a ready non-titled, non-anarch vampire you control.
The vampire with this card is considered anarch (and independent). If
this vampire changes sects, burn this card.
Writ of Acceptance
Type: Equipment
Equipment.
The vampire with this equipment is considered a Camarilla vampire.
Likewise, if I play Cleansing Ritual on a vampire with a Praxis
Seizure does that vampire retain his title or does it fall away with
the loss of the card?
Praxis Seizure: Amsterdam
Type: Political Action
Requires: camarilla
Requires a Camarilla vampire. Title.
If this referendum is successful, put this card on the acting vampire
to represent the unique Camarilla title of Prince of Amsterdam. This
could lead to a contested title.
LSJ
> In fact the burn clause on
> Galaric's Legacy and Go Anarch support the idea that the change of
> sect and anarch status is solely due to the card being in play. If
> that was not the case, why bother keeping the card in play in the
> first place?
Because it seemed that players found it more intuitive to leave cards
in play as reminders.
> Likewise, would playing Cleansing Ritual on a vampire you control with
> Writ of Acceptance leave that vampire Camarilla?
No. It would remove that layer (temporary sect), exposing whatever
layer was next topmost.
> Likewise, if I play Cleansing Ritual on a vampire with a Praxis
> Seizure does that vampire retain his title or does it fall away with
> the loss of the card?
The Praxis is a Title card ("Title" keyword); the title and the card
are linked. The fate of one is the fate of the other.
Jeff Poole
> On Aug 12, 2:54 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact the burn clause on
> > Galaric's Legacy and Go Anarch support the idea that the change of
> > sect and anarch status is solely due to the card being in play. If
> > that was not the case, why bother keeping the card in play in the
> > first place?
>
> Because it seemed that players found it more intuitive to leave cards
> in play as reminders.
But not all cards require this intuitive approach. Many cards simply
modify a game state and then are discarded and the players are left to
remember on there own.
>
> > Likewise, would playing Cleansing Ritual on a vampire you control with
> > Writ of Acceptance leave that vampire Camarilla?
>
> No. It would remove that layer (temporary sect), exposing whatever
> layer was next topmost.
>
> > Likewise, if I play Cleansing Ritual on a vampire with a Praxis
> > Seizure does that vampire retain his title or does it fall away with
> > the loss of the card?
>
> The Praxis is a Title card ("Title" keyword); the title and the card
> are linked. The fate of one is the fate of the other.
So what is the criteria for certain library cards being "temporary"
and others being "permanent"? It would be nice to know how you
differentiate the two, in case a similar situation comes up while
someone is judging a tournament, or in casual play where one cannot
simply ask on the news group.
Jeff Poole
LSJ
> So what is the criteria for certain library cards being "temporary"
> and others being "permanent"? It would be nice to know how you
> differentiate the two, in case a similar situation comes up while
> someone is judging a tournament, or in casual play where one cannot
> simply ask on the news group.
Go Anarch implies its function by removing itself when sect changes.
Which others are causing confusion?
Jeff Poole
It's not a question about specific cards. The whole point is to
understand how the rules are implemented. Every person who plays this
game should be able to answer these sorts of questions without having
to ask a question on a Google forum. The rules for understanding how
cards interact with one another should be clear in the official
rulebook.
So, it seems, your criteria for whether a card carries a "temporary"
change or a "permanent" change is whether it has some sort of clause
allowing for its removal?
Jeff Poole
LSJ
No, not "some sort", but a very specific sort: that is, if the thing
the card sets is changed, remove the card. The sort of thing that
makes the card work like Title cards. (Titles also do not layer.)
salem
Leaving Anarchness aside for the moment, it does seem odd that both Go
Anarch and Writ of Acceptance change a vampire's sect using the same wording
template, yet when one card is removed the underylying sect reverts to it's
previous sect, and when the other card is removed the sect does not revert.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Blooded Sand
Same as Mata Hari. Writ states this vampire.If it stated this
nosferatu, and was on a toreador, it would not function.
Go anarch says the vampire is anarch. Changing sect makes the vampire
NOT anarch, AND burns the card. They are separate effects. Writ is
not.
Writ of Acceptance
Type: Equipment
Equipment.
The vampire with this equipment is considered a Camarilla vampire.
Go Anarch
Type: Action
Requires: non-anarch,non-titled
+1 stealth action. Requires a ready non-titled, non-anarch vampire.
Put this card on the acting vampire and untap this vampire. This
vampire is considered anarch (and independent). If this vampire
salem
I'm not talking about the self-burn clause of Go Anarch. I'm talking about
when someone else burns the card using some effect.
Say Frederick the Weak has Writ on him. He's Cam. Someone burns his writ. He
falls back to Sabbat.
Say Vasili, the Traitor of Don Cruez has a Go Anarch on him. He's
independent. Someone burns his Go Anarch. He stays independent.
I am just having trouble seeing how the near identical card text of Writ and
Go Anarch (with regards to their sect effects) operate differently in this
situation.
Blooded Sand
Writ states that the vampire with the equipment is Camarilla. Thus no
eccie, no Cam sect.
Go anarch states this vamp is anarch. If it changes sect, 2 effects
occur, one being the loss of anarch status, the other being the
burning of the card. Separate effects. Burning the card itself through
any other means does not affect the anarch status as the card does not
state the vampire with this card is anarch.
Clearer?
James Coupe
>Go anarch states this vamp is anarch. If it changes sect, 2 effects
>occur, one being the loss of anarch status, the other being the
>burning of the card. Separate effects. Burning the card itself through
>any other means does not affect the anarch status as the card does not
>state the vampire with this card is anarch.
Incorrect.
On cards that go into play, "this vampire" means "the vampire with this
card". [LSJ 20040803] Specifically, this is over a year after the
release of Anarchs and thus the wording of Go Anarch and Galaric's
Legacy are clearly covered by this.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6e9c9c2d9ca500e7
That is, in effect, Go Anarch *does* say "The vampire with this card."
Blooded Sand
> Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Go anarch states this vamp is anarch. If it changes sect, 2 effects
> >occur, one being the loss of anarch status, the other being the
> >burning of the card. Separate effects. Burning the card itself through
> >any other means does not affect the anarch status as the card does not
> >state the vampire with this card is anarch.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> On cards that go into play, "this vampire" means "the vampire with this
> card". [LSJ 20040803] Specifically, this is over a year after the
> release of Anarchs and thus the wording of Go Anarch and Galaric's
> Legacy are clearly covered by this.
>
>
> That is, in effect, Go Anarch *does* say "The vampire with this card."
>
> --
> James Coupe
> PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
> EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
> 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Huh. Learn something new every day. First time i ever heard that. So
yeah, im stumped then, why is there a difference between them?
Jeff Poole
Apparently the distinction between the two cards is (LSJ Quote from
above):
"No, not "some sort", but a very specific sort: that is, if the thing
the card sets is changed, remove the card. The sort of thing that
makes the card work like Title cards. (Titles also do not layer.) "
The reference to Titles refers to rulebook section 11 under Special
Terms. It states "Title: A Title card is a placeholder for a title.
If the title is yielded or lost, the card is burned. If the title is
unique, contests are paid with vampire blood, as normal for titles."
thus making it similar to Galaric's Legacy and Go Anarch. If, for
instance, Writ had a clause telling you to burn it if the vampire with
the card changed sects, then it would provide this "underlying
modification" to the vampire's sect and could be moved around your
vampires to provide permanent changes to sect.
I don't necessarily agree with how this is ruled (as I see the card
being on the vampire as SO much more important than its lack or
inclusion of a burn clause), but it is a ruling that can be understood
and implemented easily enough if a situation arises that was not
covered by this conversation.
Thanks for the clarity LSJ.
Jeff Poole
salem
[Writ of Acceptance, Go Anarch]
> Apparently the distinction between the two cards is (LSJ Quote from
> above):
>
> "No, not "some sort", but a very specific sort: that is, if the thing
> the card sets is changed, remove the card. The sort of thing that
> makes the card work like Title cards. (Titles also do not layer.) "
>
> The reference to Titles refers to rulebook section 11 under Special
> Terms. It states "Title: A Title card is a placeholder for a title.
> If the title is yielded or lost, the card is burned. If the title is
> unique, contests are paid with vampire blood, as normal for titles."
> thus making it similar to Galaric's Legacy and Go Anarch. If, for
> instance, Writ had a clause telling you to burn it if the vampire with
> the card changed sects, then it would provide this "underlying
> modification" to the vampire's sect and could be moved around your
> vampires to provide permanent changes to sect.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with how this is ruled (as I see the card
> being on the vampire as SO much more important than its lack or
> inclusion of a burn clause), but it is a ruling that can be understood
> and implemented easily enough if a situation arises that was not
> covered by this conversation.
>
> Thanks for the clarity LSJ.
>
So the thing that makes the underlying sect not change when the card is
removed is the additional text that states if the sect IS changed, to remove
the card?
So, if 'A' is sect change, and 'B' is removal of card...
For Writ:
A => B is false
B => A is true
For Go Anarch:
A => B is true
B => A is false
So the explicit text on Go Anarch that sets A => B to true is what
implicitly sets B => A to false.
It'd probably be easier if they were both A <=> B, but I guess that would
require some text changes/rulings.
Jeff Poole
I tend to agree with you Salem. I think it would be clearer (and the
most likely conclusion most players would come to) if it was just if
you have a card that changes a game state through the "the minion with
this card" text, then you get the change while you have the card, once
you loose it, you loose the change. Then, the burn clause on Go
Anarch and Galaric's Legacy would simply burn once the vampire changes
sects due to card text, not some, underlying rule that needs to be
looked up on the google group. If there was no burn clause inherent
then the card that was last played would take precedent. This seems,
to me, to be the most intuitive way to read the cards as written and
how they are actually played.
If it was this way, then if you moved a Go Anarch card from one
vampire to another then the first would loose his independent and
anarch status (reverting to his sect before the card) and the new
vampire would gain these qualities. As it is ruled now, if you move
the Go Anarch card, both vampires would be Independent and Anarch,
The first example seems a lot clearer and easier to understand. The
vampire with the card gets the benefits.
Jeff Poole
Stone
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
9475b2bb-6c9b-4884...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "Floating" (temporary change) of clan/sect/whatever (things that
> require you to remember the underlying clan/sect/whatever, since that
> underlying clan/sect/whatever will be back in force once the temporary
> effect is ended) are not mutually exclusive effects -- they stack. And
> yes, the more recent ones are "stacked" on top of the older ones, so
> the more recent ones have priority. Examples: Writ of Acceptance and
> Clan Impersonation.
But in the case of WoA vs CI, the Writ still makes a vamp Camarilla,
independently of whether CI is played before or after the Writ, according to
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3be228674aacc4b8?hl=fr%E9%99%B5f4483730a73
so there is no question of priority for those two, is there ?
if a vampire Malkavian plays CI (Lasombra), he becomes Sabbat. Then he gets
the Writ and becomes a Lasombra Camarilla.
if the same vampire gets the Writ first, then plays CI (Lasombra), he is
still Lasombra Camarilla. Correct ?
Another question since this thread confused me : a vampire with the Writ
gets an Anarch counter via Seattle Committee or Anarch Secession. What
happens to his sect and to the counter?
Stone
Name: Anarch Secession
[KMW:R]
Cardtype: Action
+1 stealth action. Requires a ready, non-anarch, titled vampire.
Put an anarch counter on this acting vampire. This vampire becomes anarch
(and Independent). If he or she had a city title, {put this card on him or
her as a title card to represent the title of baron of the same city}.
Minions without titles cannot block this action. Burn the anarch counter if
this vampire changes sects.
Artist: David Day
Name: Writ of Acceptance
[AH:C2, Tenth:B]
Cardtype: Equipment
Equipment.
The vampire with this equipment is considered a Camarilla vampire.
Artist: Steve Casper
Name: Seattle Committee
[Anarchs:R2]
Cardtype: Master
Unique master.
={Put this card in play.}= During your master phase, you may tap this card
to put an anarch counter on a ready non-titled, non-anarch vampire you
control. A vampire with an anarch counter is considered anarch (and
independent) even if this card leaves play. If a vampire with an anarch
counter changes sects, burn the counter.
Artist: Steve Ellis
LSJ
> But in the case of WoA vs CI, the Writ still makes a vamp Camarilla,
> so there is no question of priority for those two, is there ?
> if a vampire Malkavian plays CI (Lasombra), he becomes Sabbat. Then he gets
> the Writ and becomes a Lasombra Camarilla.
> if the same vampire gets the Writ first, then plays CI (Lasombra), he is
> still Lasombra Camarilla. Correct ?
Correct. Lasombra (CI) and Camarilla (Writ). The two are not in
competition.
> Another question since this thread confused me : a vampire with the Writ
> gets an Anarch counter via Seattle Committee or Anarch Secession. What
> happens to his sect and to the counter?
His sect is Camarilla (Writ) and the counter burns (SC/AS text).
> Name: Anarch Secession
> Burn the anarch counter if
> this vampire changes sects.
>
> Name: Seattle Committee