Q: Play cards...
Sten Düring
Can merged Kemintiri play PTO?
Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
Next pair of questions (Fall of the Camarilla not in play):
Can Merged Kemintiri play Blood Hunt on herself?
Can a Primogen with Will of the Council play Blood Hunt
on itself?
My guesses are NO for Mata Hari and the Primogen as they
take on all aspects of being Camarilla and Prince
respectively.
I guess Kemintiri can indeed play Blood Hunt on herself,
but I really don't know about her playing PTO as I can't
find any references to playing cards requiring attributes
no longer in play, but I still guess she can play PTO
based on the assumption that all Camarilla titles are
dormant until such a time when Fall of the Camarilla is no
longer in play (ie all 'native' justicars temporarily no
longer benefits from their titles but Kemintiri simply plays
a card requiring a title)
Sten During
LSJ
> Fall of the Camarilla is in play:
> Can merged Kemintiri play PTO?
> Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
Yes.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc14903903b33066
> Next pair of questions (Fall of the Camarilla not in play):
>
> Can Merged Kemintiri play Blood Hunt on herself?
No.
> Can a Primogen with Will of the Council play Blood Hunt
> on itself?
No.
> My guesses are NO for Mata Hari and the Primogen as they
> take on all aspects of being Camarilla and Prince
> respectively.
Correct reasoning. I think you meant "Kemintiri", however,
since Mata Hari's question involves playing Camarilla
Exemplary as a Camarilla vampire.
> I guess Kemintiri can indeed play Blood Hunt on herself,
No. Blood Hunt she plays as a justicar cannot be played
on her, since she is playing it as a justicar.
> but I really don't know about her playing PTO as I can't
> find any references to playing cards requiring attributes
> no longer in play, but I still guess she can play PTO
> based on the assumption that all Camarilla titles are
> dormant until such a time when Fall of the Camarilla is no
> longer in play (ie all 'native' justicars temporarily no
> longer benefits from their titles but Kemintiri simply plays
> a card requiring a title)
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
Yes.
> Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
>
Yes. She can also target herself with it and benefit from it.
Can Mata Hari play PTO as an Inner Circle Member? (i.e. can she burn
someone of Capacity >5 with it?)
>
> Next pair of questions (Fall of the Camarilla not in play):
>
> Can Merged Kemintiri play Blood Hunt on herself?
>
No. The Blood Hunt would see Keminitri as an (untargetable) Justicar.
> Can a Primogen with Will of the Council play Blood Hunt
> on itself?
>
No. The Blood Hunt would see the Primogen as an (untargetable) Prince.
jnew...@difsol.com
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> > Can merged Kemintiri play PTO?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
> >
>
> Yes. She can also target herself with it and benefit from it.
>
> Can Mata Hari play PTO as an Inner Circle Member? (i.e. can she burn
> someone of Capacity >5 with it?)
No. She can play cards that require sect or clan, not titles.
John
LSJ
> Can Mata Hari play PTO as an Inner Circle Member? (i.e. can she burn
> someone of Capacity >5 with it?)
Mata Hari has no title-impersonating effects.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > someone of Capacity >5 with it?)
>
> No. She can play cards that require sect or clan, not titles.
>
> John
>
Sorry, got my wires crossed.
Sten Düring
> "Sten Düring" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:1109600725.1ba6217186ea4c1ff94446dc3b94de11@teranews...
>
>>Fall of the Camarilla is in play:
>>Can merged Kemintiri play PTO?
>>Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
>
>
> Yes.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc14903903b33066
Hmm. Why can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary with Fall
of the Camarilla in play when no other Camarilla vampire
may do so (ie being subject to the problems of the Camarilla
no longer existing)? Question really is if she plays cards
as ANY OTHER Camarilla vampire currently in play or not.
>
>
>>Next pair of questions (Fall of the Camarilla not in play):
>>
>>Can Merged Kemintiri play Blood Hunt on herself?
>
>
> No.
Why not? "She can play cards that require..." Doesn't say anything
about "play cards as a..."
The two pairs of questions targets the difference between "do X as an Y"
and "do X requiring Y".
>
>
>>Can a Primogen with Will of the Council play Blood Hunt
>>on itself?
>
>
> No.
>
>
>>My guesses are NO for Mata Hari and the Primogen as they
>>take on all aspects of being Camarilla and Prince
>>respectively.
>
>
> Correct reasoning. I think you meant "Kemintiri", however,
> since Mata Hari's question involves playing Camarilla
> Exemplary as a Camarilla vampire.
No, I meant Mata Hari and Primogen (with Will of the Council).
The primogen cannot target itself with a Blood Hunt because
it takes on all aspects of being a prince thus making itself
an illegal target.
Mata Hari tries playing Camarilla Exemplary as a Camarilla
vampire in a situation where the Camarilla no longer exists,
so I guess my question should really have been if she plays
cards as ANY OTHER Sect/Clan -member in play or if she can
actually play a card as being of a Sect/Clan even if an effect
disabling all other members from said Sect/Clan from playing
the same card.
>
>
>>I guess Kemintiri can indeed play Blood Hunt on herself,
>
>
> No. Blood Hunt she plays as a justicar cannot be played
> on her, since she is playing it as a justicar.
See question above. Card-text says "require" and not "as a".
Kemintiri is not alone. Matteus, Flesh Sculptor !Toreador also
has the ability to play cards that require an attribute without
including the "as if he/she was..."
I don't know if there are more of these, but at least there are
two vampires able to play cards that require Y without the added
extra "as if Y", and we have at least two vampires (Mata Hari and
Tatiana Stepanova, Alastor) playing cards that require Y as if Y
and one card (Will of the Council) enabling any Primogen to play
cards that require Y as if Y.
There is a sematic difference between those two groups, but I don't
know if it's supposed to be a semantic difference (ie, if I can do
X that require Y then I MUST do X that require Y as if I was Y no
matter if such text exists or not).
I hope I haven't been too unclear :)
Sten During
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > "Sten Düring" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:1109600725.1ba6217186ea4c1ff94446dc3b94de11@teranews...
> >
> >>Fall of the Camarilla is in play:
> >>Can merged Kemintiri play PTO?
> >>Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
> >
> > Yes.
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc14903903b33066
>
> Hmm. Why can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary with Fall
> of the Camarilla in play when no other Camarilla vampire
> may do so
Every Camarilla vampire may do so.
The problem is that there are no other Camarilla vampires.
All vampires, being not Camarilla, therefore fail to meet
the requirements of the card.
Mata Hari's special enables her to meet the requirement,
however. Any vampire who meets the requirement can play
the card.
> (ie being subject to the problems of the Camarilla
> no longer existing)? Question really is if she plays cards
> as ANY OTHER Camarilla vampire currently in play or not.
No, that's not the question.
But the answer is, yes, she plays it like any other Camarilla
vampire would.
> >>Next pair of questions (Fall of the Camarilla not in play):
> >>
> >>Can Merged Kemintiri play Blood Hunt on herself?
> >
> > No.
>
> Why not? "She can play cards that require..." Doesn't say anything
> about "play cards as a..."
That is implicit.
Otherwise, she could not play them.
> The two pairs of questions targets the difference between "do X as an Y"
> and "do X requiring Y".
The difference is zero.
> Mata Hari tries playing Camarilla Exemplary as a Camarilla
> vampire in a situation where the Camarilla no longer exists,
> so I guess my question should really have been if she plays
> cards as ANY OTHER Sect/Clan -member in play or if she can
> actually play a card as being of a Sect/Clan even if an effect
> disabling all other members from said Sect/Clan from playing
> the same card.
She plays it as any other sect/clan member.
In this case, as a Camarilla.
> >>I guess Kemintiri can indeed play Blood Hunt on herself,
> >
> > No. Blood Hunt she plays as a justicar cannot be played
> > on her, since she is playing it as a justicar.
>
> See question above. Card-text says "require" and not "as a".
One cannot play a card that requires a justicar save that
one plays it as a justicar. That's what requires means.
> Kemintiri is not alone. Matteus, Flesh Sculptor !Toreador also
> has the ability to play cards that require an attribute without
> including the "as if he/she was..."
It is included implicitly, otherwise the card could not be played.
> I don't know if there are more of these, but at least there are
> two vampires able to play cards that require Y without the added
> extra "as if Y", and we have at least two vampires (Mata Hari and
> Tatiana Stepanova, Alastor) playing cards that require Y as if Y
> and one card (Will of the Council) enabling any Primogen to play
> cards that require Y as if Y.
>
> There is a sematic difference between those two groups, but I don't
> know if it's supposed to be a semantic difference (ie, if I can do
> X that require Y then I MUST do X that require Y as if I was Y no
> matter if such text exists or not).
The only difference is that, for the ones whose card space allows
it, the implicit "as a" is made explicit.
Daneel
> "Sten Düring" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
> news:1109605772.55532b353f35d027c9512ab34f302874@teranews...
>> LSJ wrote:
>> > "Sten Düring" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
>> news:1109600725.1ba6217186ea4c1ff94446dc3b94de11@teranews...
>> >
>> >>Fall of the Camarilla is in play:
>> >>Can merged Kemintiri play PTO?
>> >>Can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc14903903b33066
>>
>> Hmm. Why can Mata Hari play Camarilla Exemplary with Fall
>> of the Camarilla in play when no other Camarilla vampire
>> may do so
>
> Every Camarilla vampire may do so.
> The problem is that there are no other Camarilla vampires.
> All vampires, being not Camarilla, therefore fail to meet
> the requirements of the card.
> Mata Hari's special enables her to meet the requirement,
> however. Any vampire who meets the requirement can play
> the card.
I think I just might've understood what Sten was getting at. Fall
of the Camarilla says: "... There is no Camarilla. ..." Meaning,
if there is no Camarilla, then how come any vampire can do
anything as a Camarilla vampire? Or better yet, how come something
tied to that sect can still be done?
The issue is that IMHO you wanted the text to have a punch at the
"Any Camarilla vampire is considered Independent instead." sentence.
However, IF those sentences are to mean slightly different things, it
is possible to interpret them like this:
There is no Camarilla. = The institute of the Camarilla is dismantled.
Cards or effects tied to that sect are unusable, as the sect is gone.
Camarilla Exemplary cannot be called, because there is no Camarilla.
Any Camarilla vampire is considered Independent instead. = As it says.
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> I think I just might've understood what Sten was getting at. Fall
> of the Camarilla says: "... There is no Camarilla. ..." Meaning,
> if there is no Camarilla, then how come any vampire can do
> anything as a Camarilla vampire? Or better yet, how come something
> tied to that sect can still be done?
"How come" is "card text".
> The issue is that IMHO you wanted the text to have a punch at the
> "Any Camarilla vampire is considered Independent instead." sentence.
But Fall doesn't see her as a Camarilla, since she isn't
playing Fall. Fall sees her as Independent. Fall has no effect
on Independent vampires.
> However, IF those sentences are to mean slightly different things, it
> is possible to interpret them like this:
>
> There is no Camarilla. = The institute of the Camarilla is dismantled.
> Cards or effects tied to that sect are unusable, as the sect is gone.
> Camarilla Exemplary cannot be called, because there is no Camarilla.
True enough. Then add "Mata can play cards that require Camarilla
as a Camarilla" and you're back in the game.
> Any Camarilla vampire is considered Independent instead. = As it says.
Yes. And Mata is Independent (and not affected by the "Any Camarilla"
component of the card that is not a card she is playing as
a Camarilla).
Daneel
>> There is no Camarilla. = The institute of the Camarilla is dismantled.
>> Cards or effects tied to that sect are unusable, as the sect is gone.
>> Camarilla Exemplary cannot be called, because there is no Camarilla.
>
> True enough. Then add "Mata can play cards that require Camarilla
> as a Camarilla" and you're back in the game.
I'm not trying to argue or something - just pointing out that it is easy
to believe that once tha Camarilla has ceased to exist, effects that are
related to it are no longer meaningful. In that sense, playing a card
"as Camarilla" is still impossible, given how the Camarilla no longer
exists.
Not that I would mind it either way - I'm just trying to be helpful.
--
Going to bust some Tzimisce butt,
Daneel
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> >> Cards or effects tied to that sect are unusable, as the sect is gone.
> >> Camarilla Exemplary cannot be called, because there is no Camarilla.
> >
> > True enough. Then add "Mata can play cards that require Camarilla
> > as a Camarilla" and you're back in the game.
>
> I'm not trying to argue or something - just pointing out that it is easy
> to believe that once tha Camarilla has ceased to exist, effects that are
> related to it are no longer meaningful. In that sense, playing a card
> "as Camarilla" is still impossible, given how the Camarilla no longer
> exists.
>
The thing you're sticking on is that she is *pretending* to be Camarilla.
You can *pretend* to be all sorts of things that don't exist. If someone
printed a card that required Cappadocians, she could play it, even if the
Cappadocians don't actually exist.
Daneel
<ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>> I'm not trying to argue or something - just pointing out that it is easy
>> to believe that once tha Camarilla has ceased to exist, effects that
>> are
>> related to it are no longer meaningful. In that sense, playing a card
>> "as Camarilla" is still impossible, given how the Camarilla no longer
>> exists.
>
> The thing you're sticking on is that she is *pretending* to be Camarilla.
> You can *pretend* to be all sorts of things that don't exist. If someone
> printed a card that required Cappadocians, she could play it, even if the
> Cappadocians don't actually exist.
The problem with this reasoning is that one vampire pretending to be
Camarilla does not reconstruct the dismantled organisation, the access to
whose resources grant the power behind the Camarilla cards. I don't think
any vampire can pretend to be any more Camarilla than Arika, for example.
Masquerading as a Camarilla vampire should not be of any use if the
Camarilla no longer exists. Card text: "There is no Camarilla".
--
Bye,
Daneel
Colin McGuigan
> The problem with this reasoning is that one vampire pretending to be
> Camarilla does not reconstruct the dismantled organisation, the access to
> whose resources grant the power behind the Camarilla cards. I don't think
> any vampire can pretend to be any more Camarilla than Arika, for example.
> Masquerading as a Camarilla vampire should not be of any use if the
> Camarilla no longer exists. Card text: "There is no Camarilla".
How, in your worldview, is a copy of someone previously diablerized
allowed to be transferred back into the ready region?
Why is there only one Police Department in the entire world?
Etc.
--Colin McGuigan
XZealot
"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:BLadnVzVjt4...@speakeasy.net...
Because due to the improving morality of society there is only one corrupt
police station left in the world........
must....
refrain....
from.....
laughing.....
can't.....
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Emmit Svenson
> Why is there only one Police Department in the entire world?
Why can you buy a Learjet for the price of a Beretta 9mm?
John Flournoy
Daneel wrote:
> Masquerading as a Camarilla vampire should not be of any use if the
> Camarilla no longer exists. Card text: "There is no Camarilla".
Key words: "Card text:". Not "RPG text:", not "Flavor text:", not "Play
the game as if thematically:" and not "Pretend that your cards are
actually characters in a fictional setting where:".
The card Fall of the Camarilla deals with the (card game term/rule)
sect: Camarilla, not some hypothetical imaginary organization that
someone likes to mentally roleplay the pictures on their cards as being
associated with whenever they play the card game.
There have certainly been technically-CCGs where you're supposed to
factor thematic and roleplaying decisions into adjudicating the effects
of playing cards (Dragonstorm, for instance), but this isn't one of
them.
> Bye,
>
> Daneel
-John Flournoy
salem
<emmits...@hotmail.com> scrawled:
>Colin McGuigan wrote:
>> Why is there only one Police Department in the entire world?
>
>Why can you buy a Learjet for the price of a Beretta 9mm?
gotta love ebay.
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Colin McGuigan
How do you go about arsoning the Info Highway?
--Colin McGuigan
jnew...@difsol.com
Someone left their firewall unattended?
John
Pat
Firebomb Al Gore's house?
- Pat
Colin McGuigan
I think that would require a Rewind Time, first. Unless I'm mistaken,
the Intarweb is now stored in two different houses.
--Colin McGuigan
Daneel
Okay, smartass, I wanted to provide a clear explanation so that everyone
can understand the issue. Quickie: if a card says "No bleeding is possible
as long as this card is in play.", then can Kalinda use her special text
to bleed at +1bleed at +1 stealth? Not really. No matter what you do, if a
card prohibits you from bleeding, you CANNOT bleed, no matter what. Do I
need to get any clearer than that?
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> How, in your worldview, is a copy of someone previously diablerized
> allowed to be transferred back into the ready region?
Buzz off. For ONCE I want to maintain a civilized discussion. A mistake
I won't repreat. 4$$ h013!!11!
--
Bye,
Daneel
x5m...@gmx.de
John Flournoy wrote:
> Key words: "Card text:". Not "RPG text:", not "Flavor text:", not
"Play
> the game as if thematically:" and not "Pretend that your cards are
> actually characters in a fictional setting where:".
John, if you want to play a card game without pictures, flavour text
and a fictional background, why not play those games that use the cards
that have written 7, 8, 9, 10, Q, K , A on them.
VTES becomes nothing, if you loose the background (i am not saying,
that the background decides rule questions!). And in reality thanks the
design team VTES is still very close to the background and the play
makes much sense in the background. "Disengage" is (and the picture
shows it) slipping away from a grapple. So it does prevent "Immortal
Grappel" but not "Thrown Gate". Is that random. No, its the background.
Sten Düring
>
> Every Camarilla vampire may do so.
> The problem is that there are no other Camarilla vampires.
> All vampires, being not Camarilla, therefore fail to meet
> the requirements of the card.
> Mata Hari's special enables her to meet the requirement,
> however. Any vampire who meets the requirement can play
> the card.
Hmm, ok :)
I may not agree, but this is a distinct and clear ruling anyway,
and that is enough for me.
>>
>>There is a sematic difference between those two groups, but I don't
>>know if it's supposed to be a semantic difference (ie, if I can do
>>X that require Y then I MUST do X that require Y as if I was Y no
>>matter if such text exists or not).
>
>
> The only difference is that, for the ones whose card space allows
> it, the implicit "as a" is made explicit.
>
Once again I may not agree, but as above a clear and distinct ruling.
Whenever you do X that requires Y you take on all aspects of being
Y no matter if there is supporting cardtext or not. Ok.
That leaves me with the info I need to answer questions locally.
Thanks :)
Sten During
Colin McGuigan
If you want to maintain a civilized discussion, what's with the profanity?
--Colin McGuigan
Emmit Svenson
Colin McGuigan wrote:
> How do you go about arsoning the Info Highway?
Who would get so drunk at a club called Nod that they gave a dog a
flamethrower? And how would the dog figure out how to use it?
Colin McGuigan
> Who would get so drunk at a club called Nod that they gave a dog a
> flamethrower? And how would the dog figure out how to use it?
How the dog figured out how to drive the sports bike is what I want to know.
But how come a single Garou can hit for four in a turn, but an entire
pack of them only hits for three?
--Colin McGuigan
John Flournoy
everyone
> can understand the issue.
Sure. My snide comment was not so much aimed at you specifically - a
LOT of people in the last few weeks have been arguing about a wide
range of 'roleplaying logic over game logic' issues - for example, the
people griping because the Abominations are not inherently all combat
monsters with special powers that can kill any other vampire. Sorry
that you took my comment personally.
> Quickie: if a card says "No bleeding is possible
> as long as this card is in play.", then can Kalinda use her special
text
> to bleed at +1bleed at +1 stealth? Not really. No matter what you
do, if a
> card prohibits you from bleeding, you CANNOT bleed, no matter what.
Do I
> need to get any clearer than that?
You don't.
Here's my non-sarcastic counter-example:
If you give a rat the power 'fly through the air as if the rat were a
passenger pigeon', the act of flying would not actually MAKE him a
passenger pigeon, and the fact that passenger pigeons have been extinct
for a hundred years doesn't mean that it's suddenly impossible to
behave in a similar fashion.
Mata Hari gets to play cards in exactly the same fashion as a Camarilla
vampire - even if there ARE no Camarilla vampires, or even if there's
no Camarilla. She doesn't actually BECOME Camarilla even if the
Camarilla exists, so the existence or not is irrelevant.
If someone (not necessarily Daneel) wants a role-play analogy, think of
it not as 'Mata Hari pretends she's Camarilla' but rather 'Mata Hari
has snooped around and stolen/copied the sekrit methods the Camarilla
uses to get stuff done, and uses similar dirty, underhanded tactics to
manipulate society to do her bidding.'
> --
> Bye,
>
> Daneel
-John Flournoy
Jozxyqk
John Flournoy
x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> VTES becomes nothing, if you loose the background (i am not saying,
> that the background decides rule questions!). And in reality thanks
the
> design team VTES is still very close to the background and the play
> makes much sense in the background. "Disengage" is (and the picture
> shows it) slipping away from a grapple. So it does prevent "Immortal
> Grappel" but not "Thrown Gate". Is that random. No, its the
background.
Absolutely. Lots of aspects of the game make perfect sense, like
Disengage, or the list of cards that are considered "Frenzy" cards.
It's great that the game sticks very closely to the source material
thematically.
But it IS random that a Leather Jacket can fully protect a vampire from
being hit with an RPG Launcher, a Burst of Sunlight, or a freakin' CAR.
To say nothing about why a little sunlight totally destroys a leather
jacket (geek joke: it was made by Drow!)
That said (and I'm not speaking about Daneel's comments about Mata Hari
here) there's a constant stream of people who want that thematic logic
to be the deciding factor, and that volume of commentary has been
sharply increasing lately.
In the last few weeks I've seen people arguing the following points,
among many others:
Abominations should inherently be scary combat monsters.
Abominations should not be a clan because they actually do have
existing clans.
Antitribu clans should not count as seperate from default clans.
More seperate Antitribu clans should be made because they're in the RPG
(Serpents of the Light, !Assamites, etc.)
Tremere combat should be much stronger because the Tremere kick ass.
Enkidu should be Gangrel.
Low-cap vampires shouldn't ever be able to affect how a big-cap vampire
votes, because politics is the realm of the Elders and no childe should
be able to make an Inner Circle member do anything socially.
Only Camarilla vampires can put someone on the Red List.
Ahrimanes should have been Scarce, and True Brujah shouldn't have been,
because there's more TB running around the World of Darkness than
Ahrimanes.
And since these posts are coming in various forums, I'm assuming that
the people posting them should actually READ the forums they post to,
and therefore see the endless string of 'the game doesn't try to
perfectly mimic the RPG theme' (optionally including '...you fucking
moron') replies to other people's comments, including from the game
designer (minus the swearing.)
And again, apologies for blasting Daneel - his question was a
legitimate one, even if it sounded a lot at casual glance like it was
bringing RPG issues into the discussion.
-John Flournoy
Emmit Svenson
Colin McGuigan wrote:
> But how come a single Garou can hit for four in a turn, but an entire
> pack of them only hits for three?
And why can you chop up an entire pack of Garou with a Chainsaw, but
not a Gas-Powered Chainsaw? Do they steal gasoline as a strike?
Colin McGuigan
> And why can you chop up an entire pack of Garou with a Chainsaw, but
> not a Gas-Powered Chainsaw? Do they steal gasoline as a strike?
How come Goth Bands can't become Famous and go on Concert Tours once
they've been given a Contract?
--Colin McGuigan
salem
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
Because their bleeds keep getting reduced to -1 by Ecstacy?
salem
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>Daneel wrote:
pwnd!
Daneel
>
> Daneel wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2005 15:02:59 -0800, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >
>> Okay, smartass, I wanted to provide a clear explanation so that
> everyone
>> can understand the issue.
>
> Sure. My snide comment was not so much aimed at you specifically - a
> LOT of people in the last few weeks have been arguing about a wide
> range of 'roleplaying logic over game logic' issues - for example, the
> people griping because the Abominations are not inherently all combat
> monsters with special powers that can kill any other vampire. Sorry
> that you took my comment personally.
Well, you are generally right about the rpg issue. The card game won't
ever be a perfect reproduction. I was arguing more logic than source
material, though my example probably could've been understood
otherwise. And after being merry and peaceful, I usually tend to be
rough and unpeaceful. ;) Sorry for jumping on you.
>> Quickie: if a card says "No bleeding is possible
>> as long as this card is in play.", then can Kalinda use her special
> text
>> to bleed at +1bleed at +1 stealth? Not really. No matter what you
> do, if a
>> card prohibits you from bleeding, you CANNOT bleed, no matter what.
> Do I
>> need to get any clearer than that?
>
> You don't.
>
> Here's my non-sarcastic counter-example:
>
> If you give a rat the power 'fly through the air as if the rat were a
> passenger pigeon', the act of flying would not actually MAKE him a
> passenger pigeon, and the fact that passenger pigeons have been extinct
> for a hundred years doesn't mean that it's suddenly impossible to
> behave in a similar fashion.
I understand the example. However, let me try to counter it with another
(non-sarcastic) example.
The card club only accepts members. Non-members cannot even observe the
games, go into the cafeteria or otherwise enter. Dorian is not a member,
but he can masquerade as such, and partake in the games in such a manner.
Sadly, after a while the card club goes bankrupt. The assets are sold and
the members become non-members. Dorian can still masquerade as a member
- but that won't rebuild the card club.
> Mata Hari gets to play cards in exactly the same fashion as a Camarilla
> vampire - even if there ARE no Camarilla vampires, or even if there's
> no Camarilla. She doesn't actually BECOME Camarilla even if the
> Camarilla exists, so the existence or not is irrelevant.
To me this isn't an absolute logic. I'm thinking more along the lines
of... Since there is no Camarilla (a different effect from all Camarilla
vampires becoming Independent), cards or effects that are related to the
Camarilla are unusable. Not only because no vampire exists who could
play them (as covered in all Camarilla vampires becoming Independents),
but also because the institution does not exist.
> If someone (not necessarily Daneel) wants a role-play analogy, think of
> it not as 'Mata Hari pretends she's Camarilla' but rather 'Mata Hari
> has snooped around and stolen/copied the sekrit methods the Camarilla
> uses to get stuff done, and uses similar dirty, underhanded tactics to
> manipulate society to do her bidding.'
Which could be done by any ex-Camarilla vampire. Dunno, I'm not sure we
should get into RPG analogies. They just don't work - Mata Hari may
have the ability to masquerade as a Cammie and exploit their networks
and resources, but that won't work in the absence of said networks and
resources. Anything she could do, any Camarilla elder could probably
do better. But I don't think this angle is the right way to go... ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
firstco...@aol.com
> But it IS random that a Leather Jacket can fully protect a vampire
from
> being hit with an RPG Launcher, a Burst of Sunlight, or a freakin'
CAR.
> To say nothing about why a little sunlight totally destroys a leather
> jacket (geek joke: it was made by Drow!)
Actually, I heard that it was an old punk and/or biker trick to throw
your leather jacket over your opponent's head and then proceed to beat
the crap out of him while he's trying to get his arms and head out of
the jacket.
If Leather Jacket is thrown on the opponent, it prevents them from
effectively striking you. (Doesn't stop them from trying, but hey,
they can't see.)
> Abominations should inherently be scary combat monsters.
No. Time wears heavy on Abominations, as their Kindred and Garou
natures are opposed. The older the Abomination is, the weaker their
gifts become.
> Abominations should not be a clan because they actually do have
> existing clans.
I don't think that Pariah could just walk into a Ventrue board meeting
and demand equal say, nor could a Tremere abomination get shelter in a
Chantry...it's more thematically correct that they can't use their
clan's cards.
> Low-cap vampires shouldn't ever be able to affect how a big-cap
vampire
> votes, because politics is the realm of the Elders and no childe
should
> be able to make an Inner Circle member do anything socially.
They SO totally can! Have you heard the story of the Seer who is
introduced to the Prince, only to say "You're not the Prince! You
killed the Prince and you're impersonating him!"? Yeah, that was a big
deal, from a 15th generation vampire.
Scalpel Tongue means they use Presence and Celerity to say JUST the
right thing--and that can be huge in politics.
> Only Camarilla vampires can put someone on the Red List.
LSJ has already explained this one.
> Ahrimanes should have been Scarce, and True Brujah shouldn't have
been,
> because there's more TB running around the World of Darkness than
> Ahrimanes.
OK, fair enough. If I were playtesting that set, and knew this, then I
would have said something to LSJ. But if he hadn't changed it, I
wouldn't have been heartbroken.
I don't know how to handle antitribu vs. regular clans affiliation, but
I suppose a lot of it goes to "These two vampires can play the same
cards, and that is undesirable".
-- Brian
Goratrix in Justine's chantry...Bah!
lehrbuch
> I understand the example. However, let me try to counter it with another
> (non-sarcastic) example.
>
> The card club only accepts members. Non-members cannot even observe the
> games, go into the cafeteria or otherwise enter. Dorian is not a member,
> but he can masquerade as such, and partake in the games in such a manner.
> Sadly, after a while the card club goes bankrupt. The assets are sold and
> the members become non-members. Dorian can still masquerade as a member
> - but that won't rebuild the card club.
Perhaps you will be convinced by this example: (Real) people contrive
to benefit from pretending to be members (or descendants) of the Russian
royal family - despite the fact that the Russian royal family "fell",
were executed, and no longer exist.
see: http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/ga00007a.shtml
Prefacing this with the proviso that such arguments are irrelevant and
meaningless, as we are talking about a card game; the rules do what they
say (or perhaps what LSJ says) without reference to any other context.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
Daneel
>> Ahrimanes should have been Scarce, and True Brujah shouldn't have
> been,
>> because there's more TB running around the World of Darkness than
>> Ahrimanes.
>
> OK, fair enough. If I were playtesting that set, and knew this, then I
> would have said something to LSJ. But if he hadn't changed it, I
> wouldn't have been heartbroken.
I actually think that True Brujah are scarce because they are hiding.
They try to lay low and keep a low profile. Whereas, Ahrimanes weren't
so rare a few years back - the whole bloodline is now extinct, or
almost extinct, but in older times they were more numerous. AFAIK.
--
Bye,
Daneel
James Coupe
writes:
> Quickie: if a card says "No bleeding is possible
> as long as this card is in play.", then can Kalinda use her special text
> to bleed at +1bleed at +1 stealth?
False analogy.
Fall of the Camarilla/Fall of the Sabbat do not say "No cards requiring
Camarilla vampires or Camarilla titles can be played." If they did, the
pretend-sect/title specials wouldn't function. But since it doesn't say
that, they work just fine.
--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
James Coupe
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>John, if you want to play a card game without pictures, flavour text
>and a fictional background, why not play those games that use the cards
>that have written 7, 8, 9, 10, Q, K , A on them.
>
>VTES becomes nothing, if you loose the background (i am not saying,
>that the background decides rule questions!).
Well, playing cards (i.e. a deck of 52 normal cards) don't have the same
strategies and tactics available as V:TES. They're, uh, different
games.
And whilst a lot of people do appreciate the background, there are also
quite a few people who would happily play Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle,
so long as all the cards interacted in the same way. (For more details,
search Google for references to Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle.)
Frederick Scott
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:2Cdzmvxf5NJCFwM$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <1109673562.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>>John, if you want to play a card game without pictures, flavour text
>>and a fictional background, why not play those games that use the cards
>>
>>VTES becomes nothing, if you loose the background (i am not saying,
>>that the background decides rule questions!).
> And whilst a lot of people do appreciate the background, there are also
> quite a few people who would happily play Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle,
> so long as all the cards interacted in the same way. (For more details,
> search Google for references to Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle.)
I think most people would find it a much different and absolutely less
satisfying game without SOME kind of semi-reasonable background. I don't
know about 'Dog Poo' - it makes a difference whether you're substituting
a different-but-still-reasonable-and-detailed background that just explains
the same existing cards in a different way or just the vague abstraction
proposed using Hoyle card decks as mentioned above. If the former, you
may well be right. If the latter, I disagree.
I don't think background is a good excuse for lousy or unbalanced card
design nor that all cards need to be explained perfectly in terms of the
game's backstory. But I still think it's an important piece of this game.
Fred
jnew...@difsol.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> I think most people would find it a much different and absolutely
less
> satisfying game without SOME kind of semi-reasonable background. I
don't
> know about 'Dog Poo' - it makes a difference whether you're
substituting
> a different-but-still-reasonable-and-detailed background that just
explains
> the same existing cards in a different way or just the vague
abstraction
> proposed using Hoyle card decks as mentioned above. If the former,
you
> may well be right. If the latter, I disagree.
>
> I don't think background is a good excuse for lousy or unbalanced
card
> design nor that all cards need to be explained perfectly in terms of
the
> game's backstory. But I still think it's an important piece of this
game.
I think it's important primarily in terms of decoration and
inspiration.
Decoration is by far the less important, but having good artwork and
consistent themes certainly makes any game more enjoyable.
Drawing on the background as an inspiration for new cards and rules is
quite a bit more important (and reinforces the themes and decorative
aspects of background as well - a double benefit). Still, the exact
interaction of cards should not be determined by the background, even
if it doesn't disrupt game balance.
John
> Fred
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> vampires becoming Independent), cards or effects that are related to the
> Camarilla are unusable.
That's a sensible thought, but that's not what the card says.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > as long as this card is in play.", then can Kalinda use her special text
> > to bleed at +1bleed at +1 stealth?
>
> False analogy.
>
> Fall of the Camarilla/Fall of the Sabbat do not say "No cards requiring
> Camarilla vampires or Camarilla titles can be played." If they did, the
> pretend-sect/title specials wouldn't function. But since it doesn't say
> that, they work just fine.
>
A more apropriate analogy would be:
Becoming of Even More Annoying, Gehenna Event
All minions have zero levels of Protean.
Ian Forestal and an apropriately carded Black Spiral Buddy could still
play cards requiring Protean.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > been, because there's more TB running around the World of Darkness
> > than Ahrimanes.
>
During the Revised timeline, yes. Not at the period of time wherein each
game of V:tES starts.
Sten Düring
>
> A more apropriate analogy would be:
>
> Becoming of Even More Annoying, Gehenna Event
> All minions have zero levels of Protean.
>
> Ian Forestal and an apropriately carded Black Spiral Buddy could still
> play cards requiring Protean.
And if your acting minion had played the action modifier
Kiss the Gangrel (any vampire with protean attempting
to block this action goes to torpor, block fails), and
if Ian played Sonar then Ian would go to torpor.
Sten During
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
No, only the Sonar would treat Ian as having Protean.
Daneel
Indeed. What does "There is no Camarilla" mean in your interpretation?
We know that it is different from "All Camarilla vampires are considered
Independent". It is a separate sentence, without any parentheses. So it
probably does something different. Something that does not have to do
anything with the part covered in the second sentence...
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
> A more apropriate analogy would be:
>
> Becoming of Even More Annoying, Gehenna Event
> All minions have zero levels of Protean.
Add "There is no Protean."
> Ian Forestal and an apropriately carded Black Spiral Buddy could still
> play cards requiring Protean.
No they couldn't; there is no Protean. How can you play a Protean card,
if Protean suddenly *poof* disappeared from the universe?
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> Indeed. What does "There is no Camarilla" mean in your interpretation?
> We know that it is different from "All Camarilla vampires are considered
> Independent". It is a separate sentence, without any parentheses. So it
> probably does something different. Something that does not have to do
> anything with the part covered in the second sentence...
Not true. The sentences are a matched pair -- they simply tell
you what occurs. The first is the idea. The second is the practical
implementation.
See Jimmy Dunn, Ex Nihilo, or Blood Clots for similar.
--
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/
Daneel
> Perhaps you will be convinced by this example: (Real) people contrive
> to benefit from pretending to be members (or descendants) of the Russian
> royal family - despite the fact that the Russian royal family "fell",
> were executed, and no longer exist.
> see: http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/ga00007a.shtml
Nice try. ;) Really. The reason it did not convince me is that those
claiming to be royalty weren't ANY better off than if they were real
royalty. Alexis or Anastasia could have been successful in getting a
hold of the family heirloom, whereas these false claims were basically
fruitless efforts.
If Fall said, "Burn all Camarilla vampires.", I'd be inclined to
reconsider. Alas, the way things are, the example wasn't too
convincing. Thanks for the reading, anyway, it was educational.
> Prefacing this with the proviso that such arguments are irrelevant and
> meaningless, as we are talking about a card game; the rules do what they
> say (or perhaps what LSJ says) without reference to any other context.
Aye, true. I'm trying to argue logic first and foremost, as adherence to
the source material is ultimately not without its limits.
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:34:06 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>
>> A more apropriate analogy would be:
>>
>> Becoming of Even More Annoying, Gehenna Event
>> All minions have zero levels of Protean.
>
> Add "There is no Protean."
"There is no Protean. Minions with Protean have an equal number of levels in
Auspex instead."
Ian could still play Horrific Countenance in that case.
>> Ian Forestal and an apropriately carded Black Spiral Buddy could still
>> play cards requiring Protean.
>
> No they couldn't; there is no Protean. How can you play a Protean card,
> if Protean suddenly *poof* disappeared from the universe?
Card text. Ian can play cards "as if" he has the basic level of
Protean, even though that doesn't exist.
Otherwise, a card requiring nothing (e.g., a nonexistent Discipline)
could be played by anyone (since it lacks requirements).
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> Indeed. What does "There is no Camarilla" mean in your interpretation?
>> We know that it is different from "All Camarilla vampires are
>> considered
>> Independent". It is a separate sentence, without any parentheses. So it
>> probably does something different. Something that does not have to do
>> anything with the part covered in the second sentence...
>
> Not true. The sentences are a matched pair -- they simply tell
> you what occurs. The first is the idea. The second is the practical
> implementation.
>
> See Jimmy Dunn, Ex Nihilo, or Blood Clots for similar.
Does that mean that "There is no Camarilla" was intended to mean no more
than "Camarilla vampires are Independent"?
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
By way of implementation, yes.
If it meant more, then the second sentence would be non-sensical.
See also Jimmy Dunn, et al.
Sten Düring
I'm not entirely sure this is the case. The invented
action-modifier is supposedly one with an "ongoing"
effect, like Faceless Night at superior, and as such
should "look for" when its effect kicks in.
Similar to Sonja Blue. She is able to block an action
modified with Daring the Dawn, ie I try to block with
a vamp, you play Daring the Dawn, I wake with Sonja
Blue (playing that wake requires a vampire) and decide
to block as an ally at which moment your modifier
suddenly finds out that the reacting vampire wasn't a
vampire after all.
Sten During
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:34:06 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>> <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A more apropriate analogy would be:
>>>
>>> Becoming of Even More Annoying, Gehenna Event
>>> All minions have zero levels of Protean.
>>
>> Add "There is no Protean."
>
> "There is no Protean. Minions with Protean have an equal number of
> levels in
> Auspex instead."
>
> Ian could still play Horrific Countenance in that case.
Dunno. "There is no Protean" in itself kind of implies that cards that
require Protean are useless. Even without the second sentence. How can
you use something that does not exist?
>>> Ian Forestal and an apropriately carded Black Spiral Buddy could still
>>> play cards requiring Protean.
>>
>> No they couldn't; there is no Protean. How can you play a Protean card,
>> if Protean suddenly *poof* disappeared from the universe?
>
> Card text. Ian can play cards "as if" he has the basic level of
> Protean, even though that doesn't exist.
Yeah, but from the card's perspective Protean still does not exist.
> Otherwise, a card requiring nothing (e.g., a nonexistent Discipline)
> could be played by anyone (since it lacks requirements).
Twist of concepts. A card requiring Protean translates to something
like this to common sense:
This card is a Protean card (compare card text on Horrock). Therefor
it can only be used by a minion who can use Protean cards.
Game-mechanics-wise that translates to needing either the Protean
discipline or the ability to play it.
Obviously, if there is no protean, the Protean cards, the Protean
discipline and the ability to play Protean cards is pointless.
However, to compensate crypt cards for their loss, they will now get
an equal level of Auspex (equal to the levels they had in Protean
before the discipline vanished).
--
Bye,
Daneel
salem
is:
>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:34:06 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>>> <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>>>> Ian Forestal and an apropriately carded Black Spiral Buddy could still
>>>> play cards requiring Protean.
there's no 'appropriately carding' a Black Spiral Buddy. You'd need
some other sort of ally, like a Shadow Court Satyr, for that.
:P
James Coupe
Düring <ya...@netg.se> writes:
>Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
<Pretending Protean has been removed from lots of vampires via a Fall of
the Camarilla type event>
>> No, only the Sonar would treat Ian as having Protean.
>
>I'm not entirely sure this is the case. The invented
>action-modifier is supposedly one with an "ongoing"
>effect, like Faceless Night at superior, and as such
>should "look for" when its effect kicks in.
Ian "can play cards of any Discipline as though..." but since Kiss of Ra
(or whatever) isn't Ian playing it, Ian's special doesn't function at
all on it.
If Ian's special said:
"Ian may play cards requiring a Discipline he does not have. If
he does so, he gains the basic level of that Discipline until
the end of the current action."
then Kiss of Ra would affect him. Or he'd be able to use the Celeritous
effects of, say, Stunt Cycle.
But he just plays the specific cards as though he had <discipline>,
nothing else.
>Similar to Sonja Blue. She is able to block an action
>modified with Daring the Dawn, ie I try to block with
>a vamp, you play Daring the Dawn, I wake with Sonja
>Blue (playing that wake requires a vampire) and decide
>to block as an ally at which moment your modifier
>suddenly finds out that the reacting vampire wasn't a
>vampire after all.
Sonja Blue is different, in that her ally-block special is nothing to do
with granting her the ability to pretend to gain temporary disciplines
(or titles, or sects) for the purpose of playing a card.
James Coupe
writes:
>Dunno. "There is no Protean" in itself kind of implies that cards that
> require Protean are useless. Even without the second sentence. How can
> you use something that does not exist?
"There is no Protean" is somewhat ambiguous, without clarification.
Hence the second sentence explaining what it does.
And... Ian Forestal (say) is not using something that does not exist.
If you want an RPG background to it, he's using Thaumaturgy to create an
effect which is somewhat like Protean used to be. Similarly, Kemintiri
is using her old network of contacts to pull a few last strings.
LSJ
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:09:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> Add "There is no Protean."
>>
>> "There is no Protean. Minions with Protean have an equal number of
>> levels in
>> Auspex instead."
>>
>> Ian could still play Horrific Countenance in that case.
>
> Dunno. "There is no Protean" in itself kind of implies that cards that
> require Protean are useless. Even without the second sentence. How can
> you use something that does not exist?
Card text. The alternative is covered below.
>> Otherwise, a card requiring nothing (e.g., a nonexistent Discipline)
>> could be played by anyone (since it lacks requirements).
>
> Twist of concepts.
Um, yeah. That's what got us here in the first place.
(turnabout is fair play, you know?)
> A card requiring Protean translates to something
> like this to common sense:
Ah, the appeal to "common sense dictates".
> This card is a Protean card (compare card text on Horrock). Therefor
> it can only be used by a minion who can use Protean cards.
> Game-mechanics-wise that translates to needing either the Protean
> discipline or the ability to play it.
>
> Obviously, if there is no protean, the Protean cards, the Protean
> discipline and the ability to play Protean cards is pointless.
You can't have it both ways.
If you want to completely eliminate the existence of Protean
then cards that require this completely eliminated concept
effectively have no requirement.
> However, to compensate crypt cards for their loss, they will now get
> an equal level of Auspex (equal to the levels they had in Protean
> before the discipline vanished).
Protean? What's that? It was completely eliminated, erased
from the annals of time. It doesn't make sense to talk about
The vampires that had it -- had what?
Unless, of course, it wasn't erased from the annals of time
(in which case the official answers follow easily).
Sten Düring
No, this is the same.
My invented Kiss the Gangrel is not played in response to anything.
You play it stating that in the case of any vampire with protean
eventually tries to block, said vamp will go to torpor.
Daring the Dawn is played to prevent any vampire from blocking
the action, even if said action should change reacting metuselah.
If Ian plays a card that requires basic protean he actually gains
basic protean for the duration of that cards resolution (according
to earlier rulings in this thread), and this ought to be enough
for Kiss the Gangrel to kick in.
Similar, Sonja Blue cannot block the action modified by Daring the
Dawn unless she does so as an ally, in which case the ally-clause
in Daring the Dawn kicks in.
In both examples we have an instant point of resolution for the
interaction between acting effects and reacting effects. There's
no prolonged duration. Does the instantenous existence of an attempted
block by a vampire with protean occur? Does the instanteneous existence
of an attempted block by an ally occur? In the first case the sequence
branches to move the blocking vampire to torpor after which we start
looking for legal block-attempts again, in the second the sequence moves
into the iterations for handling a legal block-attempt sequence (stealth
intercept etc).
As long as there is a trigger waiting to happen, then for each added
affect that trigger has to be checked. If the number of vampires with
protean attempting to block at least equals the number of players then
the controller of that vampire burns one pool. This is a kind of trigger
that has to be checked for each and every counter-effect applied.
Sten During
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> >>>> play cards requiring Protean.
>
> there's no 'appropriately carding' a Black Spiral Buddy. You'd need
> some other sort of ally, like a Shadow Court Satyr, for that.
>
It's not my fault they didn't reprint SCS...
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> >>modified with Daring the Dawn, ie I try to block with
> >>a vamp, you play Daring the Dawn, I wake with Sonja
> >>Blue (playing that wake requires a vampire) and decide
> >>to block as an ally at which moment your modifier
> >>suddenly finds out that the reacting vampire wasn't a
> >>vampire after all.
> >
> >
> > Sonja Blue is different, in that her ally-block special is nothing to do
> > with granting her the ability to pretend to gain temporary disciplines
> > (or titles, or sects) for the purpose of playing a card.
> >
>
> No, this is the same.
Sonja Blue is different because of the scope of her ability. For
Ian/SCS/Keminitri, only the card treats them as being that thing. For
Sonja, the block attempt, and all cards that modify the block attempt,
treats her as an ally.
> If Ian plays a card that requires basic protean he actually gains
> basic protean for the duration of that cards resolution
No, he very much does not.
> Sonja Blue cannot block the action modified by Daring the Dawn unless
> she does so as an ally, in which case the ally-clause in Daring the Dawn
> kicks in.
>
This is correct. That doesn't mean she *is* an Ally. She is just treated
as one by the block attempt.
Sten Düring
>
>>If Ian plays a card that requires basic protean he actually gains
>>basic protean for the duration of that cards resolution
>
>
> No, he very much does not.
Ok, he plays it as a vampire with basic protean, including attaining
all attributes that goes with being a vampire with basic protean. At
least this has been made clear by LSJ earlier in this thread (playing
cards requiring Y implictly means playing cards as being Y, even though
the actual example was Kemintiri implictly being a Justicar during the
resolution of any cards she plays requiring a Justicar).
>
>
>>Sonja Blue cannot block the action modified by Daring the Dawn unless
>>she does so as an ally, in which case the ally-clause in Daring the Dawn
>>kicks in.
>>
>
>
> This is correct. That doesn't mean she *is* an Ally. She is just treated
> as one by the block attempt.
No, see above. Implictly Sonja Blue effectively IS an ally, or if you
would prefer it, takes on all aspects of being an ally, for the duration
of the block. This, I assume, means she burns if she spends her last two
blood to be eligible to block an action modified with superior
Crocodile's Tongue as she suddenly finds herself still blocking an
action as an ALLY with zero LIFE, which is a condition that burns an
ally. Unfourtenately, after she burns she resumes being a vampire which
prevents you from playing Left for Dead (a burned minion may not block
and so she no longer is treated as an ally).
I simply read her card-text as actually saying she ATTEMPTS to block as
an ally even though it doesn't say so, and should be treated as an ally
in all respects for the entire duration of that attempt.
Sten During
LSJ
> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> >>If Ian plays a card that requires basic protean he actually gains
> >>basic protean for the duration of that cards resolution
> >
> > No, he very much does not.
>
> Ok, he plays it as a vampire with basic protean, including attaining
> all attributes that goes with being a vampire with basic protean. At
> least this has been made clear by LSJ earlier in this thread (playing
> cards requiring Y implictly means playing cards as being Y, even though
> the actual example was Kemintiri implictly being a Justicar during the
> resolution of any cards she plays requiring a Justicar).
But only as far as the card she plays as a justicar is concerned.
> >>Sonja Blue cannot block the action modified by Daring the Dawn unless
> >>she does so as an ally, in which case the ally-clause in Daring the Dawn
> >>kicks in.
> >
> > This is correct. That doesn't mean she *is* an Ally. She is just treated
> > as one by the block attempt.
>
> No, see above. Implictly Sonja Blue effectively IS an ally, or if you
> would prefer it, takes on all aspects of being an ally, for the duration
> of the block.
Not "for the duration".
What it means is that the block treats her as an ally.
Nothing else does (even "during" the block).
> This, I assume, means she burns if she spends her last two
> blood to be eligible to block an action modified with superior
> Crocodile's Tongue as she suddenly finds herself still blocking an
> action as an ALLY with zero LIFE, which is a condition that burns an
> ally.
No. Blocking won't burn an ally. Her being at zero blood doesn't
see her as an ally.
> Unfourtenately, after she burns she resumes being a vampire which
> prevents you from playing Left for Dead (a burned minion may not block
> and so she no longer is treated as an ally).
>
> I simply read her card-text as actually saying she ATTEMPTS to block as
> an ally even though it doesn't say so, and should be treated as an ally
> in all respects for the entire duration of that attempt.
Only by the block (attempt).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Emmit Svenson
LSJ wrote:
> What it means is that the block treats [Sonja Blue] as an ally.
> Nothing else does (even "during" the block).
If Sonja plays Wake with Evening's Freshness, can she attempt to block
as an ally?
Card text from WwEF: "This reacting VAMPIRE can use reaction cards and
attempt to block..." (emphasis mine)
LSJ
Not while she's tapped, no.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:38m2vrF...@individual.net...
> "Sten Düring" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:1109775363.21de2b94dee34615a43dc3c1078b13e1@teranews...
> > Ok, he plays it as a vampire with basic protean, including attaining
> > all attributes that goes with being a vampire with basic protean. At
> > least this has been made clear by LSJ earlier in this thread
(playing
> > cards requiring Y implictly means playing cards as being Y, even
though
> > the actual example was Kemintiri implictly being a Justicar during
the
> > resolution of any cards she plays requiring a Justicar).
>
> But only as far as the card she plays as a justicar is concerned.
I may be beating an extremely dead horse, but the "as a" rulings are
inherently pretty complicated, so I'll do it anyway...
If Daring the Dawn has been played on an action, vampires cannot block
that action. Because of that, if the action is at stealth, an ally that
can play Auspex-requiring cards can't play an Auspex intercept card to
block the action either, because it'd have to play the Auspex card "as a
vampire" and vampires can't block the Daring the Dawn action.
The analogy is (or could be) that if Kemintiri (merged) tries to play a
card "as a justicar" while Fall of the Camarilla is in play, she can't
do it because a Camarilla justicar cannot play cards that require a
justicar while Fall of the Camarilla is in play.
I know you've said that's not the case because she's not actually a
justicar, she just has the ability to play cards that require the title
"as a justicar". But I'm not sure it's inherently clear why these cases
are different.
Josh
always finds his brain twisted by "as an X" effects
LSJ
> If Daring the Dawn has been played on an action, vampires cannot block
> that action. Because of that, if the action is at stealth, an ally that
> can play Auspex-requiring cards can't play an Auspex intercept card to
> block the action either, because it'd have to play the Auspex card "as a
> vampire" and vampires can't block the Daring the Dawn action.
The ally that is attempting to block and needs intercept can
play intercept, even if it means playing the intercept as a
vampire. He's still blocking as an ally.
See the previously-mentioned case of Sonja playing intercept.
> The analogy is (or could be) that if Kemintiri (merged) tries to play a
> card "as a justicar" while Fall of the Camarilla is in play, she can't
> do it because a Camarilla justicar cannot play cards that require a
> justicar while Fall of the Camarilla is in play.
Nonsensical statement. A Camarilla justicar can play cards that
require a justicar while the Fall is in play (the p->q relationship
is true if p is false -- there are no justicars, so all of them
can do whatever they want).
> I know you've said that's not the case because she's not actually a
> justicar, she just has the ability to play cards that require the title
> "as a justicar". But I'm not sure it's inherently clear why these cases
> are different.
She can play it because her card text says she can.
Sten Düring
>
>>This, I assume, means she burns if she spends her last two
>>blood to be eligible to block an action modified with superior
>>Crocodile's Tongue as she suddenly finds herself still blocking an
>>action as an ALLY with zero LIFE, which is a condition that burns an
>>ally.
>
>
> No. Blocking won't burn an ally. Her being at zero blood doesn't
> see her as an ally.
>
This I honestly don't understand.
For simplicity sake. Sonja Blue is untapped and at zero blood. She
attempts to block as an ally and does not burn because she's only
an ally for the sake of blocking and not for having no blood/life.
Compare Mata Hari playing Camarilla Exemplary targeting herself. She's
Camarilla for the purposes of playing the card as well as targetability.
(Earlier examples being Kemintiri attempting to play Blood Hunt on
herself, or a Primogen with Will of the Council doing the same)
How come in one case the do X as Y only covers being Y for doing X
(block as an ally) whereas in the other doing X as Y covers being Y
for doing X as well as being targeted by X?
What about an ally allowed to play cards requiring Quietus as a vampire
of capacity 3? Tapped ally plays Black Sunrise on a bleed modified with
Daring the Dawn. It's 1) not allowed to play the card as it requires a
tapped vampire no matter the cardtext on the ally; 2) allowed to play it
and attempts to block the bleed because it's only partially considered
an ally for the resolution of Black Sunrise; 3) not allowed to play it
because it would attempt to block the bleed as a vampire with basic
Quietus at capacity 3 and vampires may not attempt to block an action
modified with Daring the Dawn.
(Talaq, The Immortal comes to mind)
If 2) is the case I'll have a hard time explaining the difference when
a player fully legally has Herald of Topeth playing a Charming Lobby,
calls Banishment on a capacity 4 vampire and pushes the vote with a
Bewitching Oration during the Referendum and when the target complains
I'm supposed to say the Herald is supposed to take on all attributes of
"being a vampire of capacity 5" including being allowed to partake in
political actions normally forbidden allies (given of course the
Charming Lobby).
Sten During
jtdu...@yahoo.com
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38mdmnF...@individual.net...
> > If Daring the Dawn has been played on an action, vampires cannot
block
> > that action. Because of that, if the action is at stealth, an ally
that
> > can play Auspex-requiring cards can't play an Auspex intercept card
to
> > block the action either, because it'd have to play the Auspex card
"as a
> > vampire" and vampires can't block the Daring the Dawn action.
>
> The ally that is attempting to block and needs intercept can
> play intercept, even if it means playing the intercept as a
> vampire. He's still blocking as an ally.
This would be a reversal. I don't mind you reversing it at all, since
it makes more sense to me this way, but you had previously ruled it the
other way. (I'm not trying to trip you up here, I do think this case
is more logical the way you're ruling it now. Though logic can be a
little difficult to apply in these cases, since there are contradictory
effects at work.)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/41de520084368d2e
> See the previously-mentioned case of Sonja playing intercept.
You mean the case of Sonja Blue playing cards that require disciplines
while blocking as an ally, right? I don't see a previously mentioned
case specific to Sonja playing intercept.
Anyway, being able to play a card that requires you to be a member of
set A while blocking as a member of set B, with sets A and B excluding
each other, seems like it should conflict with Sonja *not* being able
to block as an ally after playing Wake with Evening's Freshness to gain
the ability to block. Her ability to block as an ally shouldn't keep
her from benefiting from Wake (because of it allowing a vampire to
block, not an ally to block), any more than her ability to block as an
ally keeps her block-as-an-ally from benefiting from an intercept card
she plays as a vampire.
> > The analogy is (or could be) that if Kemintiri (merged) tries to
play a
> > card "as a justicar" while Fall of the Camarilla is in play, she
can't
> > do it because a Camarilla justicar cannot play cards that require a
> > justicar while Fall of the Camarilla is in play.
>
> Nonsensical statement. A Camarilla justicar can play cards that
> require a justicar while the Fall is in play (the p->q relationship
> is true if p is false -- there are no justicars, so all of them
> can do whatever they want).
uh.... p->q relationship, true, p false?
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say that the "play as an X"
effects are inherently confusing. :-)
I think you're saying that the reason printed Camarilla justicars can't
play justicar-requiring cards with Fall of the Camarilla in play is
that they aren't justicars anymore. Fine. But then it seems like
merged Kemintiri should be susceptible to the same problem, in that if
she plays a card "as a justicar", she should also fail to be a justicar
because there are no justicars.
Your argument seems like an insistence on having it both ways in the
other direction: you're saying she can play a card that requires a
justicar because she's not a printed justicar, she just has the
card-text ability to play cards that require justicars, regardless of
other effects that interfere with justicars. But that ability says she
plays those cards *as* a justicar. If that doesn't mean that she's
considered the same as a printed justicar for the play of these cards -
and, for the duration of playing them, effects that affect the
playability of those cards, like Fall of the Camarilla - then how is it
meaningful to have an "as an X" rule?
Josh
didn't mean to start discussing this again
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:38mee8F...@individual.net...
> > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:38mdmnF...@individual.net...
> > > If Daring the Dawn has been played on an action, vampires cannot
> block
> > > that action. Because of that, if the action is at stealth, an ally
> that
> > > can play Auspex-requiring cards can't play an Auspex intercept card
> to
> > > block the action either, because it'd have to play the Auspex card
> "as a
> > > vampire" and vampires can't block the Daring the Dawn action.
> >
> > The ally that is attempting to block and needs intercept can
> > play intercept, even if it means playing the intercept as a
> > vampire. He's still blocking as an ally.
>
> This would be a reversal. I don't mind you reversing it at all, since
> it makes more sense to me this way, but you had previously ruled it the
> other way. (I'm not trying to trip you up here, I do think this case
> is more logical the way you're ruling it now. Though logic can be a
> little difficult to apply in these cases, since there are contradictory
> effects at work.)
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/41de520084368d2e
It's a reversal, apparently, yes.
You were right all along. Happy? :-)
> Anyway, being able to play a card that requires you to be a member of
> set A while blocking as a member of set B, with sets A and B excluding
> each other, seems like it should conflict with Sonja *not* being able
> to block as an ally after playing Wake with Evening's Freshness to gain
> the ability to block. Her ability to block as an ally shouldn't keep
> her from benefiting from Wake (because of it allowing a vampire to
> block, not an ally to block), any more than her ability to block as an
> ally keeps her block-as-an-ally from benefiting from an intercept card
> she plays as a vampire.
She can block as an ally. Which means, like all would-be blockers,
she must be untapped or able to block as if untapped.
She is not untapped.
And Wake allows the Vampire to block as if untapped, and an untapped
vampire cannot block a Daring the Dawn action.
> > > The analogy is (or could be) that if Kemintiri (merged) tries to
> play a
> > > card "as a justicar" while Fall of the Camarilla is in play, she
> can't
> > > do it because a Camarilla justicar cannot play cards that require a
> > > justicar while Fall of the Camarilla is in play.
> >
> > Nonsensical statement. A Camarilla justicar can play cards that
> > require a justicar while the Fall is in play (the p->q relationship
> > is true if p is false -- there are no justicars, so all of them
> > can do whatever they want).
>
> uh.... p->q relationship, true, p false?
>
> See, this is what I'm talking about when I say that the "play as an X"
> effects are inherently confusing. :-)
The p->q stuff is just for clarity to those who like symbols.
The rest can use the immediately-following equivalent explanation:
"All none of them can do whatever they want".
> I think you're saying that the reason printed Camarilla justicars can't
> play justicar-requiring cards with Fall of the Camarilla in play is
> that they aren't justicars anymore. Fine.
I'm saying that vampires that aren't justicars don't meet the
requirements for justicar-requiring cards.
> But then it seems like
> merged Kemintiri should be susceptible to the same problem, in that if
> she plays a card "as a justicar", she should also fail to be a justicar
> because there are no justicars.
She is not susceptible to the "non-justicars don't meet the requirements"
since, even though she is a non-justicar, she can play cards that
require a justicar as if she were (as if she met the requirement).
Fall doesn't see her try to be "as if" a justicar (she isn't playing
it), so it has no bearing on her ability.
> Your argument seems like an insistence on having it both ways in the
> other direction: you're saying she can play a card that requires a
> justicar because she's not a printed justicar, she just has the
> card-text ability to play cards that require justicars, regardless of
> other effects that interfere with justicars. But that ability says she
> plays those cards *as* a justicar. If that doesn't mean that she's
> considered the same as a printed justicar for the play of these cards -
> and, for the duration of playing them, effects that affect the
> playability of those cards, like Fall of the Camarilla - then how is it
> meaningful to have an "as an X" rule?
Fall doesn't see her as a justicar. Only the card she plays
as a justicar sees her as one.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> >>This, I assume, means she burns if she spends her last two
> >>blood to be eligible to block an action modified with superior
> >>Crocodile's Tongue as she suddenly finds herself still blocking an
> >>action as an ALLY with zero LIFE, which is a condition that burns an
> >>ally.
> >
> > No. Blocking won't burn an ally. Her being at zero blood doesn't
> > see her as an ally.
>
> This I honestly don't understand.
>
> For simplicity sake. Sonja Blue is untapped and at zero blood. She
> attempts to block as an ally and does not burn because she's only
> an ally for the sake of blocking and not for having no blood/life.
Right.
> Compare Mata Hari playing Camarilla Exemplary targeting herself. She's
> Camarilla for the purposes of playing the card as well as targetability.
> (Earlier examples being Kemintiri attempting to play Blood Hunt on
> herself, or a Primogen with Will of the Council doing the same)
Right.
> How come in one case the do X as Y only covers being Y for doing X
> (block as an ally) whereas in the other doing X as Y covers being Y
> for doing X as well as being targeted by X?
In both cases, the thing (X) being done as Y treats the minion as Y.
> What about an ally allowed to play cards requiring Quietus as a vampire
> of capacity 3? Tapped ally plays Black Sunrise on a bleed modified with
> Daring the Dawn. It's 1) not allowed to play the card as it requires a
> tapped vampire no matter the cardtext on the ally; 2) allowed to play it
> and attempts to block the bleed because it's only partially considered
> an ally for the resolution of Black Sunrise; 3) not allowed to play it
> because it would attempt to block the bleed as a vampire with basic
> Quietus at capacity 3 and vampires may not attempt to block an action
> modified with Daring the Dawn.
> (Talaq, The Immortal comes to mind)
> If 2) is the case I'll have a hard time explaining the difference when
> a player fully legally has Herald of Topeth playing a Charming Lobby,
> calls Banishment on a capacity 4 vampire and pushes the vote with a
> Bewitching Oration during the Referendum and when the target complains
> I'm supposed to say the Herald is supposed to take on all attributes of
> "being a vampire of capacity 5" including being allowed to partake in
> political actions normally forbidden allies (given of course the
> Charming Lobby).
3) was the answer most recently overturned (see Josh's link).
2) is correct. The ally can attempt to block.
The referendum is Charming Lobby's effect.
The block (attempt) is merely required to be made after playing Sunrise.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
Colin McGuigan
> She can block as an ally. Which means, like all would-be blockers,
> she must be untapped or able to block as if untapped.
>
> She is not untapped.
>
> And Wake allows the Vampire to block as if untapped, and an untapped
> vampire cannot block a Daring the Dawn action.
So, just to verify:
Let's suppose Sonja has [aus] (she may, I'm too lazy to check) and the
Bowl of Convergence. Can she use the Bowl for +1 intercept to block a
+1 stealth Daring the Dawn action as an ally?
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
Yes. The Bowl doesn't see her as an ally. It sees her as she is -- a
vampire (with [aus], per your assumptions).
Colin McGuigan
> "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:QuqdnSjUfJ-...@speakeasy.net...
>
>>LSJ wrote:
>>
>>>She can block as an ally. Which means, like all would-be blockers,
>>>she must be untapped or able to block as if untapped.
>>>
>>>She is not untapped.
>>>
>>>And Wake allows the Vampire to block as if untapped, and an untapped
>>>vampire cannot block a Daring the Dawn action.
>>
>>So, just to verify:
>>
>>Let's suppose Sonja has [aus] (she may, I'm too lazy to check) and the
>>Bowl of Convergence. Can she use the Bowl for +1 intercept to block a
>>+1 stealth Daring the Dawn action as an ally?
>
> Yes. The Bowl doesn't see her as an ally. It sees her as she is -- a
> vampire (with [aus], per your assumptions).
Ok. I'm confused. So, there's a +1 stealth Daring the Dawn action, and
Sonja Blue has the Bowl of Convergence.
She can attempt to block it as an ally, and continue to use the Bowl as
a vampire.
However, she cannot Wake as a vampire and attempt to block as an ally?
I understand that allies cannot block if tapped, but the Wake (which
still treats her as a vampire) allows her to make block attempts while
tapped.
Alternate question: If Sonja gets [AUS], may she use Eagle's Sight to
block crosstable as an ally?
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> Ok. I'm confused. So, there's a +1 stealth Daring the Dawn action, and
> Sonja Blue has the Bowl of Convergence.
>
> She can attempt to block it as an ally, and continue to use the Bowl as
> a vampire.
>
> However, she cannot Wake as a vampire and attempt to block as an ally?
> I understand that allies cannot block if tapped, but the Wake (which
> still treats her as a vampire) allows her to make block attempts while
> tapped.
The Wake allows "this vampire" to attempt to block. Was my reasoning.
But you're right. It seems to be in the same bowl.
So (reversal), she can wake and block.
> Alternate question: If Sonja gets [AUS], may she use Eagle's Sight to
> block crosstable as an ally?
Yes.
jnew...@difsol.com
Colin McGuigan wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> >>Let's suppose Sonja has [aus] (she may, I'm too lazy to check) and
the
> >>Bowl of Convergence. Can she use the Bowl for +1 intercept to
block a
> >>+1 stealth Daring the Dawn action as an ally?
> >
> > Yes. The Bowl doesn't see her as an ally. It sees her as she is --
a
> > vampire (with [aus], per your assumptions).
>
> Ok. I'm confused. So, there's a +1 stealth Daring the Dawn action,
and
> Sonja Blue has the Bowl of Convergence.
>
> She can attempt to block it as an ally, and continue to use the Bowl
as
> a vampire.
You're right, this is confusing. It may have something to do with the
fact that the Bowl grants intercept to that vampire continuously (i.e.,
Sonja, being a vampire, has that intercept even if she's not attempting
to block at all).
> However, she cannot Wake as a vampire and attempt to block as an
ally?
> I understand that allies cannot block if tapped, but the Wake (which
> still treats her as a vampire) allows her to make block attempts
while
> tapped.
>
> Alternate question: If Sonja gets [AUS], may she use Eagle's Sight to
> block crosstable as an ally?
Based on the Wake ruling, I'd have to say no: "this vampire untaps and
attempts to block..." parallels to "this vampire may block and play
reaction cards..."
Unless it's that pesky "may" in the wake that somehow screws it up.
Which would be really confusing.
John
> --Colin McGuigan
jnew...@difsol.com
Never mind. Thanks LSJ!
> > --Colin McGuigan
salem
scrawled:
>No, this is the same.
>My invented Kiss the Gangrel is not played in response to anything.
>You play it stating that in the case of any vampire with protean
>eventually tries to block, said vamp will go to torpor.
[snip]
>If Ian plays a card that requires basic protean he actually gains
>basic protean for the duration of that cards resolution (according
>to earlier rulings in this thread), and this ought to be enough
>for Kiss the Gangrel to kick in.
noooo.
Only "Sonar" treats him as having Protean when he plays it as if he
had protean. other cards, just as your kiss of the gangrel, will not
see any protean on him. It's _only_ the card he's playing that counts
him as having the disc he's playing it as.
salem
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled:
>I think you're saying that the reason printed Camarilla justicars can't
>play justicar-requiring cards with Fall of the Camarilla in play is
>that they aren't justicars anymore. Fine. But then it seems like
>merged Kemintiri should be susceptible to the same problem, in that if
>she plays a card "as a justicar", she should also fail to be a justicar
>because there are no justicars.
i thought there were justicars, and that there was no probem with the
existence of the title. just like there is a prisci sub referendum.
the problem for the cammies is, that they are no longer cammie, so
they no longer qualifiy to have their justicar title. so while the
concept of justicar is perfectly valid while fall is in lplay, no one
actually qualifies to have it. the title still exists on those cammies
with it, it's just dormant, until such time as the stinky bugger who
played Fall of Cam is ousted.
Joshua Duffin
[on allies playing cards as vampires during Daring the Dawn actions]
> It's a reversal, apparently, yes.
> You were right all along. Happy? :-)
Yes. Yes I am. :-)
[on merged Kemintiri versus Fall of the Camarilla]
> She is not susceptible to the "non-justicars don't meet the
requirements"
> since, even though she is a non-justicar, she can play cards that
> require a justicar as if she were (as if she met the requirement).
> Fall doesn't see her try to be "as if" a justicar (she isn't playing
> it), so it has no bearing on her ability.
OK. I keep trying to generalize rulings into a rule and failing, it
seems, but I'll try again...
Given this, and the Sonja Blue can block with a Wake ruling (the most
recent), and the Talaq the Immortal can block with Black Sunrise against
Daring the Dawn ruling, it seems that there is now a consistent rule
that *only* the card being played "as X" sees the playing minion "as X";
no other effects or rules of the game consider that minion anything
other than what it "really" is. So Talaq can block a Daring the Dawn
action with Black Sunrise even though if he were a vampire, he couldn't
play Black Sunrise on that action. And Kemintiri can play Protect Thine
Own if Fall of the Camarilla is in play, even though it's not possible
to be Camarilla or a justicar "for real".
Good. Or at least, hopefully good. :-)
Josh
and nothing to get hung about
Sten Düring
>>How come in one case the do X as Y only covers being Y for doing X
>>(block as an ally) whereas in the other doing X as Y covers being Y
>>for doing X as well as being targeted by X?
>
>
> In both cases, the thing (X) being done as Y treats the minion as Y.
Ok.
>
>
>>What about an ally allowed to play cards requiring Quietus as a vampire
>>of capacity 3? Tapped ally plays Black Sunrise on a bleed modified with
>>Daring the Dawn. It's 1) not allowed to play the card as it requires a
>>tapped vampire no matter the cardtext on the ally; 2) allowed to play it
>>and attempts to block the bleed because it's only partially considered
>>an ally for the resolution of Black Sunrise; 3) not allowed to play it
>>because it would attempt to block the bleed as a vampire with basic
>>Quietus at capacity 3 and vampires may not attempt to block an action
>>modified with Daring the Dawn.
>>(Talaq, The Immortal comes to mind)
>>If 2) is the case I'll have a hard time explaining the difference when
>>a player fully legally has Herald of Topeth playing a Charming Lobby,
>>calls Banishment on a capacity 4 vampire and pushes the vote with a
>>Bewitching Oration during the Referendum and when the target complains
>>I'm supposed to say the Herald is supposed to take on all attributes of
>>"being a vampire of capacity 5" including being allowed to partake in
>>political actions normally forbidden allies (given of course the
>>Charming Lobby).
>
>
> 3) was the answer most recently overturned (see Josh's link).
> 2) is correct. The ally can attempt to block.
>
> The referendum is Charming Lobby's effect.
I know, and that was why I chose Banishment. Banishments effect requires
a younger vampire as a target, and so, during the referendum, and for
that matter, Banishment, Herald is still considered to be a vampire, ie
his being a vampire extends after Charming Lobby has resolved.
But, ok, calling that referendum is part of Charming Lobby's resolution
is another way to see it and thus he may indeed Banish a "younger"
vampire even though Charming Lobby has already found it's way to the
ash heap by the time Herald plays Bewitching Oration as a vampire
during a referendum a "dead" card allowed him to participate in the
first place.
Still confusing, but I can see why, however:
> The block (attempt) is merely required to be made after playing Sunrise.
>
Compare with Herald. Black Sunrise hasn't resolved until reacting minion
has already started to attempt to block the action. "and attempts to
block." is part of that cards resolution and thus Talak should be
affected by "as a vampire..." when he "attempts to block." as per card-
text.
The Sonja Blue dilemma (as far as my understanding goes, anyway) is that
she has explicit card-text "but remains a vampire in combat". This leads
me to think she should be treated as an ally during all of 6.2.2 in the
rules but be treated as a vampire from 6.2.3 and onwards.
Compare also The Grandest Trick where something that looks very much
like a clarification, or remainder, has the acting vampire burn should
he or she be reduced to zero blood/life.
On a slightly different vein. Alia, God's Messenger equipped with The
Bowl of Convergence gets +1 or +2 intercept when she plays Spirit's
Touch? Even though I guess +1 (Alia's cardtext doesn't look for the
Bowl when she plays Spirit's Touch "as a vampire", this is still more
than slightly confusing for me :)
Sten During
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> The block (attempt) is merely required to be made after playing Sunrise.
> Compare with Herald. Black Sunrise hasn't resolved until reacting minion
> has already started to attempt to block the action. "and attempts to
> block." is part of that cards resolution and thus Talak should be
> affected by "as a vampire..." when he "attempts to block." as per card-
> text.
Black Sunrise merely requires a block (attempt).
> The Sonja Blue dilemma (as far as my understanding goes, anyway) is that
> she has explicit card-text "but remains a vampire in combat". This leads
> me to think she should be treated as an ally during all of 6.2.2 in the
> rules but be treated as a vampire from 6.2.3 and onwards.
Only as far as blocking.
> Compare also The Grandest Trick where something that looks very much
> like a clarification, or remainder, has the acting vampire burn should
> he or she be reduced to zero blood/life.
Grandest Trick offers no parallel. Its effect is that everything
treats the vampire as an ally -- the vampire is, for all purposes,
an ally for the duration of the effect. Quite different than granting
the vampire the ability to use a certain class of cards or effects
as an ally.
Allies burn when reduced to zero life. GT reminds you of this
effect, yes.
> On a slightly different vein. Alia, God's Messenger equipped with The
> Bowl of Convergence gets +1 or +2 intercept when she plays Spirit's
> Touch? Even though I guess +1 (Alia's cardtext doesn't look for the
> Bowl when she plays Spirit's Touch "as a vampire", this is still more
> than slightly confusing for me :)
The Bowl doesn't work for Alia at all. She is not a vampire with Auspex,
as required by the Bowl.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:09:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>> Daneel wrote:
>>>> Add "There is no Protean."
>>>
>>> "There is no Protean. Minions with Protean have an equal number of
>>> levels in
>>> Auspex instead."
>>>
>>> Ian could still play Horrific Countenance in that case.
>>
>> Dunno. "There is no Protean" in itself kind of implies that cards that
>> require Protean are useless. Even without the second sentence. How can
>> you use something that does not exist?
>
> Card text. The alternative is covered below.
>
>>> Otherwise, a card requiring nothing (e.g., a nonexistent Discipline)
>>> could be played by anyone (since it lacks requirements).
>>
>> Twist of concepts.
>
> Um, yeah. That's what got us here in the first place.
> (turnabout is fair play, you know?)
No. Twisting is not the same as finding an alternate but valid
interpretation. I sometimes get the feeling that you intentionally
fail to understand some of these wording issues. Stating how a phrase
means one thing and not another is odd, given the existance of the
objective language as a medium for communication.
I think that you definitaly _can_ have an opinion on what some phrase
means, you _can_ have a desired effect for the given card or effect
(being the designer, I guess you work with concepts first and phrases
later), and you _can_ state that you rule a certain card or effect to
work in a certain way. What I don't think you should do is introduce
logic and language into the issue.
> > A card requiring Protean translates to something
>> like this to common sense:
>
> Ah, the appeal to "common sense dictates".
Like your appeal to "this is how logic works" and "this is how english
works".
>> This card is a Protean card (compare card text on Horrock). Therefor
>> it can only be used by a minion who can use Protean cards.
>> Game-mechanics-wise that translates to needing either the Protean
>> discipline or the ability to play it.
>>
>> Obviously, if there is no protean, the Protean cards, the Protean
>> discipline and the ability to play Protean cards is pointless.
>
> You can't have it both ways.
>
> If you want to completely eliminate the existence of Protean
> then cards that require this completely eliminated concept
> effectively have no requirement.
The elimination of the concept is a good start. I'm not saying you
should cut the discipline symbols from the crypt cards or tear the
library cards up. The symbol is there. The game (as in VTES in
general) has a definition for the discipline. But the current game
the one being played) alters the interpretation of teh symbols and
references.
There is no Protean hints at an elimination that goes further than
vampires not being able to use their disciplines. It is like:
#1. All vampires who have protean are considered to not have them.
#2. Protean is considered to be non-existent.
#3. All cards or effects that require Protean are unusable by virtue
of both #1 (practically) and #2 (technically).
>> However, to compensate crypt cards for their loss, they will now get
>> an equal level of Auspex (equal to the levels they had in Protean
>> before the discipline vanished).
>
> Protean? What's that? It was completely eliminated, erased
> from the annals of time. It doesn't make sense to talk about
> The vampires that had it -- had what?
;)
> Unless, of course, it wasn't erased from the annals of time
> (in which case the official answers follow easily).
...from one possible interpretation. There may be others that are just
as legitimate.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:05:26 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Daneel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed. What does "There is no Camarilla" mean in your interpretation?
>>>> We know that it is different from "All Camarilla vampires are
>>>> considered
>>>> Independent". It is a separate sentence, without any parentheses. So
>>>> it
>>>> probably does something different. Something that does not have to do
>>>> anything with the part covered in the second sentence...
>>>
>>> Not true. The sentences are a matched pair -- they simply tell
>>> you what occurs. The first is the idea. The second is the practical
>>> implementation.
>>>
>>> See Jimmy Dunn, Ex Nihilo, or Blood Clots for similar.
>>
>> Does that mean that "There is no Camarilla" was intended to mean no more
>> than "Camarilla vampires are Independent"?
>
> By way of implementation, yes.
> If it meant more, then the second sentence would be non-sensical.
Why? Isn't the effect "All Camarilla vampires are considered Independent"
pretty stand-alone and clear?
> See also Jimmy Dunn, et al.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> In message <opsmz3y1...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> Dunno. "There is no Protean" in itself kind of implies that cards that
>> require Protean are useless. Even without the second sentence. How can
>> you use something that does not exist?
>
> "There is no Protean" is somewhat ambiguous, without clarification.
> Hence the second sentence explaining what it does.
>
> And... Ian Forestal (say) is not using something that does not exist.
Why? "There is no Protean."
> If you want an RPG background to it
I don't, thank you. ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:54:59 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Daneel wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:09:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> >>> Daneel wrote:
> >>>> Add "There is no Protean."
> >>>
> >>> "There is no Protean. Minions with Protean have an equal number of
> >>> levels in
> >>> Auspex instead."
> >>>
> >>> Ian could still play Horrific Countenance in that case.
> >>
> >> Dunno. "There is no Protean" in itself kind of implies that cards that
> >> require Protean are useless. Even without the second sentence. How can
> >> you use something that does not exist?
> >
> > Card text. The alternative is covered below.
> >
> >>> Otherwise, a card requiring nothing (e.g., a nonexistent Discipline)
> >>> could be played by anyone (since it lacks requirements).
> >>
> >> Twist of concepts.
> >
> > Um, yeah. That's what got us here in the first place.
> > (turnabout is fair play, you know?)
>
> No. Twisting is not the same as finding an alternate but valid
> interpretation.
Correct. But that's not what got us here.
The idea that Camarilla would be erased from existence is invalidated
by the very next sentence which mentions Camarilla again.
> > If you want to completely eliminate the existence of Protean
> > then cards that require this completely eliminated concept
> > effectively have no requirement.
>
> The elimination of the concept is a good start. I'm not saying you
> should cut the discipline symbols from the crypt cards or tear the
> library cards up. The symbol is there. The game (as in VTES in
> general) has a definition for the discipline. But the current game
> the one being played) alters the interpretation of teh symbols and
> references.
>
> There is no Protean hints at an elimination that goes further than
> vampires not being able to use their disciplines. It is like:
>
> #1. All vampires who have protean are considered to not have them.
Meaningless if there is no Protean -- no vampires can have something
which does not exist.
> #2. Protean is considered to be non-existent.
So a card that used to have "requires protean" now has no requirement,
since the only requirement no longer exists?
> #3. All cards or effects that require Protean are unusable by virtue
> of both #1 (practically) and #2 (technically).
Protean not existing precludes a card requiring it.
> >> However, to compensate crypt cards for their loss, they will now get
> >> an equal level of Auspex (equal to the levels they had in Protean
> >> before the discipline vanished).
> >
> > Protean? What's that? It was completely eliminated, erased
> > from the annals of time. It doesn't make sense to talk about
> > The vampires that had it -- had what?
>
> ;)
>
> > Unless, of course, it wasn't erased from the annals of time
> > (in which case the official answers follow easily).
>
> ...from one possible interpretation. There may be others that are just
> as legitimate.
OK. If that's all there is then the circle is complete.
No need to go around the same points so many times.
LSJ
It is non-sensical if even the concept of Camarilla vampires is
absent.
Daneel
> Correct. But that's not what got us here.
> The idea that Camarilla would be erased from existence is invalidated
> by the very next sentence which mentions Camarilla again.
The concept of the Camarilla may be erased through proper intepretation
of the references. The references themselves will of course remain (in
the rulebook, on the cards). But their interpretations can change.
>> The elimination of the concept is a good start. I'm not saying you
>> should cut the discipline symbols from the crypt cards or tear the
>> library cards up. The symbol is there. The game (as in VTES in
>> general) has a definition for the discipline. But the current game
>> the one being played) alters the interpretation of teh symbols and
>> references.
>>
>> There is no Protean hints at an elimination that goes further than
>> vampires not being able to use their disciplines. It is like:
>>
>> #1. All vampires who have protean are considered to not have them.
>
> Meaningless if there is no Protean -- no vampires can have something
> which does not exist.
The references to protean still exist. On the cards, in the rulebook.
>> #2. Protean is considered to be non-existent.
>
> So a card that used to have "requires protean" now has no requirement,
> since the only requirement no longer exists?
No... Effects cannot relate to its references in the normal fashion,
only in the newly defined different fashion.
>> #3. All cards or effects that require Protean are unusable by virtue
>> of both #1 (practically) and #2 (technically).
>
> Protean not existing precludes a card requiring it.
The concept is altered. The references to the former concept of Protean
still remain, but the elimination of the concept basically means the
references are handled differently. Cards and effects cannot relate to
it, etc.
> OK. If that's all there is then the circle is complete.
> No need to go around the same points so many times.
You know, with all due respect, I sometimes question your commitment... ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
>> > By way of implementation, yes.
>> > If it meant more, then the second sentence would be non-sensical.
>>
>> Why? Isn't the effect "All Camarilla vampires are considered
>> Independent"
>> pretty stand-alone and clear?
>
> It is non-sensical if even the concept of Camarilla vampires is
> absent.
I get it. I don't think every card is tightly sequential. Sometimes
you need to read the whole text, and then "execute" it in one piece.
Like a batch. You compile the sequential sentences and then execute
all as needed. Later sentences may contain provisions, exceptions,
elaborations, extensions, etc. to prior-defined effects.
--
Bye,
Daneel
jnew...@difsol.com
Daneel wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:47:16 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
>
> > Correct. But that's not what got us here.
> > The idea that Camarilla would be erased from existence is
invalidated
> > by the very next sentence which mentions Camarilla again.
>
> The concept of the Camarilla may be erased through proper
intepretation
> of the references. The references themselves will of course remain
(in
> the rulebook, on the cards). But their interpretations can change.
So... you're setting the pointers to NULL. But they're still there. But
Ian, Mata Hari, etc. override the pointers anyway, so they can still
play the cards that would otherwise throw a NULL pointer exception if
you attempted to play them.
<snip>
> > OK. If that's all there is then the circle is complete.
> > No need to go around the same points so many times.
>
> You know, with all due respect, I sometimes question your
commitment... ;)
You know, with all due respect, I like the game without NULL pointer
exceptions... ;)
John
> --
> Bye,
>
> Daneel
Daneel
>
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:47:16 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Correct. But that's not what got us here.
>> > The idea that Camarilla would be erased from existence is
> invalidated
>> > by the very next sentence which mentions Camarilla again.
>>
>> The concept of the Camarilla may be erased through proper
> intepretation
>> of the references. The references themselves will of course remain
> (in
>> the rulebook, on the cards). But their interpretations can change.
>
> So... you're setting the pointers to NULL. But they're still there. But
> Ian, Mata Hari, etc. override the pointers anyway, so they can still
> play the cards that would otherwise throw a NULL pointer exception if
> you attempted to play them.
Well, null in a sense that the defined features are replaced by
defined lack of features (and not lack of defined features).
This avoids questions like, IF vampires with Protean cannot play
cards that require Protean, and IF Ian Foreastal can play cards
that require Protean as a vampire with inferior Protean could
(who currently CAN NOT play such cards), then how come Ian can
play them?
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> This avoids questions like, IF vampires with Protean cannot play
> cards that require Protean, and IF Ian Foreastal can play cards
> that require Protean as a vampire with inferior Protean could
> (who currently CAN NOT play such cards), then how come Ian can
> play them?
Avoids some questions while enabling others. I've found that
there is nothing regarding anything that avoids all questions. :-)
Vampires with Protean CAN play such cards.
The problem is that there are no vampires with Protean.
All none of them could play Protean-requiring cards, however.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Sten Düring
> Sten Düring wrote:
>
>> LSJ wrote:
>>
>>> The block (attempt) is merely required to be made after playing Sunrise.
>>
>> Compare with Herald. Black Sunrise hasn't resolved until reacting minion
>> has already started to attempt to block the action. "and attempts to
>> block." is part of that cards resolution and thus Talak should be
>> affected by "as a vampire..." when he "attempts to block." as per card-
>> text.
>
>
> Black Sunrise merely requires a block (attempt).
If so it should be illegal to play. It's played as a vampire, and should
thus be illegal to play for the same reason as Second Tradition has been
ruled illegal to play (not allowed to play and fail to block).
Saying that Talak is going to be an ally after the card is played isn't
enough. Once again compare Herald, Charming Lobby and Banishment.
Charming Lobby may be the reason Banishment is played, but Banishment,
when in play, "remembers" Herald's cardtext en route via Charming Lobby
and accepts the ally as a capacity five vampire. So the effect referred
to by Charming Lobby (Banishment) still considers the Herald a vampire,
making it legal to play. In the same way the block attempt referred to
in Black Sunrise should consider Talak a vampire, making it illegal to
play.
Sten During
jnew...@difsol.com
Sten Düring wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Sten Düring wrote:
> >
> >> LSJ wrote:
> >>
> >>> The block (attempt) is merely required to be made after playing
Sunrise.
> >>
> >> Compare with Herald. Black Sunrise hasn't resolved until reacting
minion
> >> has already started to attempt to block the action. "and attempts
to
> >> block." is part of that cards resolution and thus Talak should be
> >> affected by "as a vampire..." when he "attempts to block." as per
card-
> >> text.
> >
> >
> > Black Sunrise merely requires a block (attempt).
>
> If so it should be illegal to play. It's played as a vampire, and
should
> thus be illegal to play for the same reason as Second Tradition has
been
> ruled illegal to play (not allowed to play and fail to block).
I think you're confused. You can't play second tradition if you can't
*attempt* to block, but you *can* play second tradition to untap on a
+3 stealth action, not play any additional intercept, and *fail* to
block. Similarly, all that Black Sunrise requires is that Talaq be
*attempt* to block *as Talaq would normally do so*. I.e., as the ally
he is.
> Saying that Talak is going to be an ally after the card is played
isn't
> enough. Once again compare Herald, Charming Lobby and Banishment.
> Charming Lobby may be the reason Banishment is played, but
Banishment,
> when in play, "remembers" Herald's cardtext en route via Charming
Lobby
> and accepts the ally as a capacity five vampire. So the effect
referred
> to by Charming Lobby (Banishment) still considers the Herald a
vampire,
> making it legal to play. In the same way the block attempt referred
to
> in Black Sunrise should consider Talak a vampire, making it illegal
to
> play.
Black Sunrise considers him a vampire, and so untaps him and forces him
to make a block attempt. If the action is one that Talaq could not
attempt to block once he untaps, he cannot use Black Sunrise to untap.
If it is one he can block once he untaps, he can use Black Sunrise.
Black Sunrise doesn't care *why* Talaq is or is not able to block.
John
> Sten During
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> This avoids questions like, IF vampires with Protean cannot play
>> cards that require Protean, and IF Ian Foreastal can play cards
>> that require Protean as a vampire with inferior Protean could
>> (who currently CAN NOT play such cards), then how come Ian can
>> play them?
>
> Avoids some questions while enabling others. I've found that
> there is nothing regarding anything that avoids all questions. :-)
I know the feeling. ;)
> Vampires with Protean CAN play such cards.
> The problem is that there are no vampires with Protean.
> All none of them could play Protean-requiring cards, however.
Okay, let me put this straight. I think that this handling of
effects is really efficient. Really. I don't have any problem
with this (or the original example, FotC). But, what I do have
a problem with is the seemingly confusing "There is no Protean"
sentence. That leads to a number of questions and doubts.
If the hypothetical card omitted "There is no Protean" (or the
existing one "There is no Camarilla"), there wouldn't be a
problem. Camarilla vampires are considered Independent, end of
line. No problem about mimicking being Camarilla, etc. But I
guess you got that about a week ago, and was just tortuting
poor innocent Daneel with your apparent misunderstanding for
crimes that were never committed... ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Emmit Svenson
jnew...@difsol.com wrote:
> I think you're confused. You can't play second tradition if you can't
> *attempt* to block, but you *can* play second tradition to untap on a
> +3 stealth action, not play any additional intercept, and *fail* to
> block. Similarly, all that Black Sunrise requires is that Talaq be
> *attempt* to block *as Talaq would normally do so*. I.e., as the ally
> he is.
But you couldn't play a 2nd to untap a vampire after the acting minion
played Daring the Dawn.