Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla Princes

[Tammy, Chris, and Alex Shorb]

I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even before, but
is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla Princes from the
same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each other still a rule?

Chris
--
Tammy Shorb 5'7"
Alexander Shorb 2'10"
Chris Shorb 5'11"
Shameless plug:
<http://www.graphicnovels.com/>

[pallando]

not exactly. archbishops and princes ruling the same city may attack each
other as a +1 stealth d-action.

pallando

Chris <shr...@alumni.williams.edu> wrote:
3918A732...@alumni.williams.edu...

[LSJ]

shr...@alumni.williams.edu wrote:
> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even before, but
> is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla Princes from the
> same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each other still a rule?

No.

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Halcyan 2]

>> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even before, but
>> is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla Princes from the
>> same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each other still a rule?
>
>No.

Why not? I always thought it added some interesting atmosphere to the game. Did
it create problems or something?

Halcyan 2

[Noal McDonald]

>>> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even
>>> before, but is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla
>>> Princes from the same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each
>>> other still a rule?
>>
>> No.
>

> Why not? Did it create problems or something?

Hrm. That's news to me. When was errata or ruling issued that is
contrary to specific text in the Sabbat rulebook addendum?

Noal
--
"What you cannot enforce, do not command."
-- Socrates

[LSJ]

Noal McDonald wrote:
> >>> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even
> >>> before, but is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla
> >>> Princes from the same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each
> >>> other still a rule?
> >>
> >> No.
>

> Hrm. That's news to me. When was errata or ruling issued that is
> contrary to specific text in the Sabbat rulebook addendum?

See the revised rulebook.

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

[Ramsteiner]

In article <8fguvl$ppo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even
> >>> before, but is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla
> >>> Princes from the same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each
> >>> other still a rule?
> >>
> >> No.
> >

> > Why not? Did it create problems or something?
>

> Hrm. That's news to me. When was errata or ruling issued that is
> contrary to specific text in the Sabbat rulebook addendum?
>

News to me too. I thought that a city's Prince and Archbishop could
attack each other through a +1 Stealth (D) Action.

Michael Eichler

> Noal
> --
> "What you cannot enforce, do not command."
> -- Socrates
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

--
Worry comes from the belief you are powerless.
(So get in there and kick some butt!)

[Noal McDonald]

>>>>> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even
>>>>> before, but is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla
>>>>> Princes from the same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each
>>>>> other still a rule?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>

>> Hrm. That's news to me. When was errata or ruling issued that is
>> contrary to specific text in the Sabbat rulebook addendum?
>

> See the revised rulebook.

...and the earlier question, Why?

I don't see a game balance issue and I thought it was a nifty way of
handling a power struggle within a city. Certainly none of that
"confusion" or "common sense" stuff creeping in. Hell, I don't even
remember anybody complaining about it in the newsgroup.

Noal McDonald
National Jyhad League

[LSJ]

Noal McDonald wrote:
>
> >>>>> I don't know if this has been brought up recently, or even
> >>>>> before, but is the rule that Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla
> >>>>> Princes from the same city can get effectively Bum's Rush each
> >>>>> other still a rule?
> >>>>
> >>>> No.
> >>
> >> Hrm. That's news to me. When was errata or ruling issued that is
> >> contrary to specific text in the Sabbat rulebook addendum?
> >
> > See the revised rulebook.
>
> ...and the earlier question, Why?
>
> I don't see a game balance issue and I thought it was a nifty way of
> handling a power struggle within a city. Certainly none of that
> "confusion" or "common sense" stuff creeping in. Hell, I don't even
> remember anybody complaining about it in the newsgroup.

For the same reason Paralyze (and, I suspect, "Close Quarters") got
dropped: highly limited scope without suitable justification.
I.e., rulebook simplification.

[Saliib]

> For the same reason Paralyze (and, I suspect, "Close Quarters") got
> dropped: highly limited scope without suitable justification.
> I.e., rulebook simplification.

Hmmm. I know it's a moot point, but I would disagree. The opportunity
for one player to harass another player without the use of a card would
be a big advantage - and would definately be within scope of the game.
Players will likely use Princes and Archbishops regardless of the
(previous)consequence of Direct combat. However, it is still a
consideration, and one that can't be ignored if one of the players is
playing a combat deck. *shrug* I though it made perfect sense, not to
mention that it is one of the few VTES rules that stayed consitant with
the RPG.

Just beating a dead horse.

Saliib Alcalah
Black Hand Remover