[LSJ] Anabelle special.
Reyda
i want to know how anabelle 's special works.
When the card says "Annabelle can give all Toreador +1 bleed for the
remainder of the turn as a +1 stealth action", does it apply only to
toreadors in play at the moment the card is played ?
example : after her action, Anabelle untaps and plays revelation of the
sire on Antoinette. Then she freak drives and play an embrace which would be
a toreador. Do they both benefit the +1 bleed bonus ?
(please don't tell me the embrace cannot bleed, there's always a possibility
to untap her, or even teach her fortitude so she can force of will ;) )
If the answer is yes, i've something on my mind...
reyda
Smiling Tom
> If the answer is yes, i've something on my mind...
Turbo-Annabelle(soul gem-freak-ability-praxis seixure:monaco/paris+awe-force
of will+daring the dawn+aire, repeat with new annabelle with a +1 bleed for
each Annabelle who successfully permormed the combo this turn. Add a few
majesty/alacrity/siren's lure and a few distractions) deck has alrady been
discused. And if my memory doesn't fail me, the answer to your question is
yes.
>
> reyda
Smiling Tom,
Amazed as how Rob Tressure has found, built and tried the
UltimateMultiRushDeck.
Anyone in spain has spare beast melds?
Reyda
"Smiling Tom" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message
news:bh7sk9$hr9$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net...
> >
> > If the answer is yes, i've something on my mind...
>
> Turbo-Annabelle(soul gem-freak-ability-praxis
seixure:monaco/paris+awe-force
> of will+daring the dawn+aire, repeat with new annabelle with a +1 bleed
for
> each Annabelle who successfully permormed the combo this turn. Add a few
> majesty/alacrity/siren's lure and a few distractions) deck has alrady been
> discused. And if my memory doesn't fail me, the answer to your question is
> yes.
Mmmm... i want LSJ to answer.
And for you info, yes i remember we talked about this turbo anabelle deck
with Kulaid in march 2K3 =)
http://minilien.com/?eqn7YjCpvj
Reyda
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f377752$0$21933$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
crap ! here is the correct link !
http://minilien.com/?Mjh3hck6BR
anyone, feel free to use the idea if you've got enough anabelles ;)
LSJ
> Hi !
> i want to know how anabelle 's special works.
> When the card says "Annabelle can give all Toreador +1 bleed for the
> remainder of the turn as a +1 stealth action", does it apply only to
> toreadors in play at the moment the card is played ?
Yes.
> example : after her action, Anabelle untaps and plays revelation of the
> sire on Antoinette. Then she freak drives and play an embrace which would be
> a toreador. Do they both benefit the +1 bleed bonus ?
> (please don't tell me the embrace cannot bleed, there's always a possibility
> to untap her, or even teach her fortitude so she can force of will ;) )
>
> If the answer is yes, i've something on my mind...
>
> reyda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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/
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F37834...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> > Hi !
> > i want to know how anabelle 's special works.
> > When the card says "Annabelle can give all Toreador +1 bleed for the
> > remainder of the turn as a +1 stealth action", does it apply only to
> > toreadors in play at the moment the card is played ?
>
> Yes.
so, following the same logic, why Invitation accepted does not work for
vampires which are not in the game at the time it is played ?
salem
scrawled:
yes...?
Annabelle's special only works for toreador in the game at the time.
Invitation Accepted only works for Setites in the game at the time.
Consistency.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
Orpheus
> >vampires which are not in the game at the time it is played ?
>
> yes...?
>
> Annabelle's special only works for toreador in the game at the time.
> Invitation Accepted only works for Setites in the game at the time.
WHAT ???
I'm not sure that is right. "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any
vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all Followers of
Set are considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All options
available to Camarilla clans are now open to the Followers of Set."
"All Followers of Set" and "for the rest of the game" seem to imply lasting
effects, even for newcomers, by cardtext (of course I don't care about FoS,
but Giovanni Acceptance is another matter completely... ;-).
LSJ ?
Orpheus
Kevin M.
"All Followers of Set" implies all the controlled FoS. Who else *could* it
apply to? You do not put the card into play, the referendum card in the ash
heap does not trigger upon another FoS entering play, and there is no card
text indicating lasting effects, out-of-play FoS, or any other effects
beyond all the controlled FoS, if any.
"For the rest of the game" implies lasting effects for the *affected* FoS,
those affected being all the controlled FoS at the time the referendum is
successful.
- IA referendum is successful
===THE EFFECTS TAKE HOLD===
- Find all controlled Followers of Set. They are all now Camarilla
vampires, etc.
===PLAY CONTINUES===
>
> LSJ ?
IANLSJIAOK.
>
> Orpheus
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
LSJ
> Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>Annabelle's special only works for toreador in the game at the time.
>>>Invitation Accepted only works for Setites in the game at the time.
>>
>>WHAT ???
>>
>>I'm not sure that is right. "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by
>>any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all
>>Followers of Set are considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of
>>the game. All options available to Camarilla clans are now open to
>>the Followers of Set."
>
> ===THE EFFECTS TAKE HOLD===
> - Find all controlled Followers of Set. They are all now Camarilla
> vampires, etc.
> ===PLAY CONTINUES===
>
>>LSJ ?
It's correct.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EC8D3C3.2090607%40white-wolf.com
(and surrounding thread)
Jozxyqk
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>Annabelle's special only works for toreador in the game at the time.
>>>>Invitation Accepted only works for Setites in the game at the time.
>>>
>>>WHAT ???
>>>
>>>I'm not sure that is right. "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by
>>>any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all
>>>Followers of Set are considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of
>>>the game. All options available to Camarilla clans are now open to
>>>the Followers of Set."
>>
>> - IA referendum is successful
>> ===THE EFFECTS TAKE HOLD===
>> - Find all controlled Followers of Set. They are all now Camarilla
>> vampires, etc.
>> ===PLAY CONTINUES===
>>
>>>LSJ ?
> It's correct.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EC8D3C3.2090607%40white-wolf.com
> (and surrounding thread)
Is this currently under review by the rules team?
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EC8D3C3.2090607%40white-wolf.com
>>(and surrounding thread)
>
> Is this currently under review by the rules team?
See message #6 in that "surrounding thread".
hawk_the_demon
> effects, even for newcomers, by cardtext (of course I don't care about FoS,
> but Giovanni Acceptance is another matter completely... ;-).
compare it to the card text on tadjid:
'For the remainder of the game, the Blood Curse no longer prevents
Assamites from committing diablerie. Only one Tajdid can be played in
a game.'
where the blood curse is the target, not the assamites.
as a rule, you can't target something that isn't in play, I believe
that this is the main reason for how these cards have bee ruled (not
that I agree completely with that ruling, but that is an entirely
different matter).
Darky
I think you misunderstood his "Yes" as a reply to your second question :)
-Bram Vink^
LSJ
> as a rule, you can't target something that isn't in play, I believe
> that this is the main reason for how these cards have bee ruled (not
Correct.
> that I agree completely with that ruling, but that is an entirely
> different matter).
If anyone sees an improvement available over the current implementation,
please present it. Namely, one that takes into account the Anarch rules
without being too convoluted or piecemeal.
See the previously cited thread.
MarkandJosie
I would think the card is actually saying "The Followers of Set
have joined the Camarilla", and as such, all future Followers of Set
coming into play, would be Camarilla. Surely it doesnt make sense
that in your version of the card, Followers of Set would be "split
up", some being camarilla and others something else.
Jozxyqk
> hawk_the_demon wrote:
>> as a rule, you can't target something that isn't in play, I believe
>> that this is the main reason for how these cards have bee ruled (not
> Correct.
>> that I agree completely with that ruling, but that is an entirely
>> different matter).
> If anyone sees an improvement available over the current implementation,
> please present it. Namely, one that takes into account the Anarch rules
> without being too convoluted or piecemeal.
> See the previously cited thread.
My idea (presented in pieces just for clarity):
1) Any action being performed which creates a new vampire inherits the
sect of the acting vampire, unless otherwise specified in card text.
2) Any action being performed which changes the clan of a vampire
inherits the "Default Sect" of that clan, unless otherwise specified
in card text.
3) Any effect which creates a new vampire which is not part of an action
inherits the Default Sect of the clan, unless otherwise specified by
card text.
4) A slight change to the texts of the four sect-changing votes.
Something like this (using Ravnos Acceptance as an example):
"If this <referendum> is successful, all non-Anarch Independent
Ravnos are considered to be Camarilla vampires instead."
Isn't that simple? It gets around special cases like Anka.
And doesn't mess with Anarchs. And if you Go Anarch you still
become Independent.
What are the problems with this (and I'm sure there are some)?
LSJ
>>please present it. Namely, one that takes into account the Anarch rules
>>without being too convoluted or piecemeal.
>
> 1) Any action being performed which creates a new vampire inherits the
> sect of the acting vampire, unless otherwise specified in card text.
>
> 2) Any action being performed which changes the clan of a vampire
> inherits the "Default Sect" of that clan, unless otherwise specified
> in card text.
>
> 3) Any effect which creates a new vampire which is not part of an action
> inherits the Default Sect of the clan, unless otherwise specified by
> card text.
>
> 4) A slight change to the texts of the four sect-changing votes.
> Something like this (using Ravnos Acceptance as an example):
>
> "If this <referendum> is successful, all non-Anarch Independent
> Ravnos are considered to be Camarilla vampires instead."
>
> Isn't that simple? It gets around special cases like Anka.
> And doesn't mess with Anarchs. And if you Go Anarch you still
> become Independent.
4) is piecemeal. It doesn't address the underlying problem - it just
provides a patch for that particular pairing (Anarch vs. RA). What
happens when a new attribute is introduced similar to Anarch? Or a
new equipment card like the Writ of Disapproval - the bearer is
considered Independent?
It also isn't written to overcome 1.6.1.5. (much like the current text
doesn't overcome 1.6.1.5.).
Also note that 2) doesn't quite stretch over Revelations of the Sire
(not that it's any worse than the current, though). Anka revealing
herself as the sire of a Caitiff turns the Caitiff into an Independent
Ravnos (which then quickly becomes a Camarilla Ravnos if RA is in
effect per 4 above), not a Sabbat Ravnos.
Jozxyqk
>> 4) A slight change to the texts of the four sect-changing votes.
>> Something like this (using Ravnos Acceptance as an example):
>>
>> "If this <referendum> is successful, all non-Anarch Independent
>> Ravnos are considered to be Camarilla vampires instead."
>>
>> Isn't that simple? It gets around special cases like Anka.
>> And doesn't mess with Anarchs. And if you Go Anarch you still
>> become Independent.
> 4) is piecemeal. It doesn't address the underlying problem - it just
> provides a patch for that particular pairing (Anarch vs. RA). What
> happens when a new attribute is introduced similar to Anarch? Or a
> new equipment card like the Writ of Disapproval - the bearer is
> considered Independent?
> It also isn't written to overcome 1.6.1.5. (much like the current text
> doesn't overcome 1.6.1.5.).
What I would *really* want it to say is:
Any Ravnos with a /printed/ sect of Independent is considered to have a
/printed/ sect of Camarilla instead.
Which means that Anarchy or other sect changes (including the
Writ of Disapproval) take precedence.
I know it's kind of sketchy to deal with "printed" words.
But I think you can see what I would be going for here.
>> 2) Any action being performed which changes the clan of a vampire
>> inherits the "Default Sect" of that clan, unless otherwise specified
>> in card text.
>>
> Also note that 2) doesn't quite stretch over Revelations of the Sire
> (not that it's any worse than the current, though). Anka revealing
> herself as the sire of a Caitiff turns the Caitiff into an Independent
> Ravnos (which then quickly becomes a Camarilla Ravnos if RA is in
> effect per 4 above), not a Sabbat Ravnos.
Ah yes, I forgot to consider Revelation in that rule.
I think that, if you followed my proposed changes, it would involve
changing the Card Text of Revelation of the Sire explicitly to say
that the clan and sect are inherited, to avoid more convoluted
exceptions in the rulebook. :)
LSJ
> What I would *really* want it to say is:
> Any Ravnos with a /printed/ sect of Independent is considered to have a
> /printed/ sect of Camarilla instead.
>
> Which means that Anarchy or other sect changes (including the
> Writ of Disapproval) take precedence.
> I know it's kind of sketchy to deal with "printed" words.
> But I think you can see what I would be going for here.
I think we all know the target, yes. The point is that the target seems to
be achieved only by undesirable contortions.
For example, going on "printed" (which is a bit contorted already) wouldn't
help, say, any Embraced Ravnos, since they don't have "a /printed/ sect of
Independent."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EC92B6B.4090300%40white-wolf.com
Jozxyqk
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> What I would *really* want it to say is:
>> Any Ravnos with a /printed/ sect of Independent is considered to have a
>> /printed/ sect of Camarilla instead.
>>
>> Which means that Anarchy or other sect changes (including the
>> Writ of Disapproval) take precedence.
>> I know it's kind of sketchy to deal with "printed" words.
>> But I think you can see what I would be going for here.
> I think we all know the target, yes. The point is that the target seems to
> be achieved only by undesirable contortions.
> For example, going on "printed" (which is a bit contorted already) wouldn't
> help, say, any Embraced Ravnos, since they don't have "a /printed/ sect of
> Independent."
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EC92B6B.4090300%40white-wolf.com
Ugh, yeah. Messy, circular arguments.
I'm out of ideas.
Hey, I know,.. why don't we just blow up the whole world and start over? :)
</joke>
Timlagor
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > What I would *really* want it to say is:
> > Any Ravnos with a /printed/ sect of Independent is considered to have a
> > /printed/ sect of Camarilla instead.
> >
> > Which means that Anarchy or other sect changes (including the
> > Writ of Disapproval) take precedence.
> > I know it's kind of sketchy to deal with "printed" words.
> > But I think you can see what I would be going for here.
>
> I think we all know the target, yes. The point is that the target seems to
> be achieved only by undesirable contortions.
>
> For example, going on "printed" (which is a bit contorted already) wouldn't
> help, say, any Embraced Ravnos, since they don't have "a /printed/ sect of
> Independent."
How about change the default Sect for the Clan?
Then you can refer to the "default sect" elsewhere. You could then put
an asterisk on the cards to indicate when a vampire is of a non-default
sect (as a reminder).
Jozxyqk
That doesn't fix anything, since card text always overrides default sect.
So no vampires *except* embraces/clan impersonations would get changed.
Reyda
"Darky" <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote
> "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > > Reyda wrote:
> > > > Hi !
> > > > i want to know how anabelle 's special works.
> > > > When the card says "Annabelle can give all Toreador +1 bleed for the
> > > > remainder of the turn as a +1 stealth action", does it apply only to
> > > > toreadors in play at the moment the card is played ?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > so, following the same logic, why Invitation accepted does not work for
> > vampires which are not in the game at the time it is played ?
>
> I think you misunderstood his "Yes" as a reply to your second question :)
>
> -Bram Vink^
yup.
too bad.
But anyway the more expansions we get, the less i understand the logic
behind words in the card texts. Maybe i should stop this game and move to
something less ambuguous.
Charles Lechasseur
wrote:
>If anyone sees an improvement available over the current implementation,
>please present it. Namely, one that takes into account the Anarch rules
>without being too convoluted or piecemeal.
let me take a stab at it. it probably won't solve the problem, since you
probably put more thought into it than I can ever do, but from the many
ideas, I guess something could emerge.
Name: Giovanni Acceptance
Cardtype: Political Action
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and put a
Camarilla Allegiance counter on all Independent Giovannis in play. When an
Independent Giovanni enters play, put a Camarilla Allegiance counter on
him or her. A vampire with a Camarilla Allegiance counter is considered
Camarilla. Burn the counter if the vampire changes sect.
i'm still struggling on the "enters play" here, it probably causes
problems which i am not seeing. it's a start.
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
hawk_the_demon
> please present it. Namely, one that takes into account the Anarch rules
> without being too convoluted or piecemeal.
I'll present this to my playgroup, maybe we will come up with something.
LSJ
> let me take a stab at it. it probably won't solve the problem, since you
> probably put more thought into it than I can ever do, but from the many
> ideas, I guess something could emerge.
>
> Name: Giovanni Acceptance
> Cardtype: Political Action
> Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
> If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and put a
> Camarilla Allegiance counter on all Independent Giovannis in play. When an
> Independent Giovanni enters play, put a Camarilla Allegiance counter on
> him or her. A vampire with a Camarilla Allegiance counter is considered
> Camarilla. Burn the counter if the vampire changes sect.
>
>
> i'm still struggling on the "enters play" here, it probably causes
> problems which i am not seeing. it's a start.
It will cease functioning when the Methuselah who called it is ousted.
It will convert an Anarch Giovanni who is banished/contested and then
influenced/won to a Camarilla.
It doesn't affect a Ravnos that later impersonates a Giovanni, and a Camarilla
Giovanni that impersonates Lasombra loses his counter, and it stays lost when
he burns the impersonation.
Jozxyqk
to say that "Anarch" is a sect in-and-of itself?
It would be non-Camarilla, and non-Sabbat.
And also non-Independent.
The only two cards that it "messes up" in this case (so far) are
Free States Rant and Banner of Neutrality.
And these could be errata'd if necessary, couldn't they?
And it would get around the Anarch problem with the four "indy
clan becomes camarilla" cards, because Anarchs would be inherently
ignored.
Janne Hägglund
> Is there any reason that you couldn't just change the rules slightly,
> to say that "Anarch" is a sect in-and-of itself?
So we should have a major change in rules, making errata necessary for
everyone, including all beginners who buy Anarch starters?
And requiring redesigning and readjusting all "requires an Independent
vampire" -effects? And issuing errata for them also?
Forcing all V:TES players in the world to find and learn these new rules?
Just so we could slightly adjust four very rarely played cards, that
already work O.K., but not perfectly?
My brain hurts... :-(
--
Nature *is* wasteful; but how well She can afford it!
Nature *is* false; but I'm a bit of a liar myself.
Nature *is* useless; but then how beautiful She is!
Nature *is* cruel; but I too am a Sadist.
- Aleister Crowley
LSJ
> Is there any reason that you couldn't just change the rules slightly,
> to say that "Anarch" is a sect in-and-of itself?
Yes. The Anarchs are designed to be Independent.
> It would be non-Camarilla, and non-Sabbat.
> And also non-Independent.
> The only two cards that it "messes up" in this case (so far) are
> Free States Rant and Banner of Neutrality.
> And these could be errata'd if necessary, couldn't they?
It also "messes up" an Anarch Clan Impersonating a Ravnos, for example.
It also touches Redline.
And, of course, Galaric's Legacy, Seattle Committee, and Go Anarch.
But you're probably including errata to those cards under the "slight"
rules change.
> And it would get around the Anarch problem with the four "indy
> clan becomes camarilla" cards, because Anarchs would be inherently
> ignored.
Not currently. It would under some of the proposed errata to
those PA acceptance cards, yes.
Jozxyqk
> Just so we could slightly adjust four very rarely played cards, that
> already work O.K., but not perfectly?
Actually, I don't think this would be an issue at all if it weren't
for Advanced Tegyrius :)
Before Anarchs came out, these cards existed and I never saw a single
one played. Not for "tricks" (Setite princes), not for "offense"
(preventing Giovanni from playing Free States Rant), never.
But when you see this Assamite Justicar, who gives voting benefits
to Camarilla Assamites, then the idea of Revocation of Tyre becomes
appetizing, and thematically appropriate even.
Of course, the cause of all the world's problems always has something to
do with sects.
(Sorry, I really couldn't resist making that pun. Please don't hurt
me).
Jozxyqk
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> Is there any reason that you couldn't just change the rules slightly,
>> to say that "Anarch" is a sect in-and-of itself?
> Yes. The Anarchs are designed to be Independent.
Yeah, I suppose this is more of a "design phase" suggestion, which has
long since passed...
hawk_the_demon
All (insert clan here) are considered camarilla for the remainder of
the game (including those that enter play at a later time) unless they
are already non-independent or are the target of an effect which
either makes them independent or requires them to be independent.
this would mean that:
- sabbat members are unaffected
- anarchs are unaffected (makes/requires independance)
- writh of acceptance removed -> still camarilla
- future mechanisms similar to being anarch should work
I found no cards that this would mess with in a quick search using
ELDB.
anything I missed?
Halcyan 2
>> Ravnos are considered to be Camarilla vampires instead."
>>
>> Isn't that simple? It gets around special cases like Anka.
>> And doesn't mess with Anarchs. And if you Go Anarch you still
>> become Independent.
>
>4) is piecemeal. It doesn't address the underlying problem - it just
>provides a patch for that particular pairing (Anarch vs. RA). What
>happens when a new attribute is introduced similar to Anarch? Or a
>new equipment card like the Writ of Disapproval - the bearer is
>considered Independent?
How about something like:
"Put this card into play. The Default Sect for Clan <Ravnos> is Camarilla. When
a <Ravnos> vampire enters play she becomes Camarilla."
This would allow future Ravnos to become Camarilla as well and seems to
interact fine with the Anarch trait. A few flaws:
#1. This current mechanism involves putting the card into play (which may or
may not be good). It does allow a means with which to remove the card (oust the
controlling player). If you don't like this you can just add a "for the
remainder of the game" clause to each of the parts.
#2. There are a few corner cases where this card might have some minor
unforeseen consequences (i.e. a Banished Anarch Ravnos is brought back into
play or an Anarch Ravnos is contested and returns to play) but they are either
corner-case enough or can simply be worked around (i.e. explicitly exempt
vampires returning to play after contesting, etc.).
Just an idea.
Halcyan 2
LSJ
Convoluted.
"Independent" in card text is an effect which makes a vampire independent.
Clan Impersonating a Giovanni is an effect which makes a vampire independent.
LSJ
See that idea, and repsonse, earlier in this thread.
salem
>>> "If this <referendum> is successful, all non-Anarch Independent
>>> Ravnos are considered to be Camarilla vampires instead."
>>>
>>> Isn't that simple? It gets around special cases like Anka.
>>> And doesn't mess with Anarchs. And if you Go Anarch you still
>>> become Independent.
>>
>>4) is piecemeal. It doesn't address the underlying problem - it just
>>provides a patch for that particular pairing (Anarch vs. RA). What
>>happens when a new attribute is introduced similar to Anarch? Or a
>>new equipment card like the Writ of Disapproval - the bearer is
>>considered Independent?
>
>
>How about something like:
>
>"Put this card into play. The Default Sect for Clan <Ravnos> is Camarilla. When
>a <Ravnos> vampire enters play she becomes Camarilla."
Anka.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
Timlagor
> > Name: Giovanni Acceptance
> > Cardtype: Political Action
> > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
> > If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and put a
> > Camarilla Allegiance counter on all Independent Giovannis in play. When an
> > Independent Giovanni enters play, put a Camarilla Allegiance counter on
> > him or her. A vampire with a Camarilla Allegiance counter is considered
> > Camarilla. Burn the counter if the vampire changes sect.
> >
> >
> > i'm still struggling on the "enters play" here, it probably causes
> > problems which i am not seeing. it's a start.
>
> It will cease functioning when the Methuselah who called it is ousted.
Remove 'putin play'. Ass "until the end of the game".
> It will convert an Anarch Giovanni who is banished/contested and then
> influenced/won to a Camarilla.
When an unaffiliated Giovanni enters play.
"unafiliated"= independent and not Anarch and not some other to be
introduced non-Anarch thingummy.
> It doesn't affect a Ravnos that later impersonates a Giovanni, and a Camarilla
> Giovanni that impersonates Lasombra loses his counter, and it stays lost when
> he burns the impersonation.
How about "when a card becomes an Unafiliated Giovanni Vampire in play"?
Is there some way of becoming independent that people might want to use
that this would interfere with? If so does that make this less good than
the current rules?
Timlagor
> LSJ expounded:
> > > Name: Giovanni Acceptance
> > > Cardtype: Political Action
> > > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
> > > If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and put a
> > > Camarilla Allegiance counter on all Independent Giovannis in play. When an
> > > Independent Giovanni enters play, put a Camarilla Allegiance counter on
> > > him or her. A vampire with a Camarilla Allegiance counter is considered
> > > Camarilla. Burn the counter if the vampire changes sect.
> > >
> > >
> > > i'm still struggling on the "enters play" here, it probably causes
> > > problems which i am not seeing. it's a start.
> >
> > It will cease functioning when the Methuselah who called it is ousted.
>
> Remove 'putin play'. Ass "until the end of the game".
Oh dear.
..."put in play". ADD...
hawk_the_demon
> hawk_the_demon wrote:
> > an idea, might need better wording:
> >
> > All (insert clan here) are considered camarilla for the remainder of
> > the game (including those that enter play at a later time) unless they
> > are already non-independent or are the target of an effect which
> > either makes them independent or requires them to be independent.
> Convoluted.
>
> "Independent" in card text is an effect which makes a vampire independent.
> Clan Impersonating a Giovanni is an effect which makes a vampire independent.
if we skip the 'makes them independent' clause.
that would mean that anka with a 'writ of unacceptance' would also
become camarilla (example). this would probably at least be easier to
keep track of than the current one (which requires remembering who was
in play when the vote was called) and probably closer to the original
intention (just my guess).
being anarch, which is the only current effect I remember that
requires a vampire to be independent, would still be ok. future
effects would be designed to fit this model.
Charles Lechasseur
wrote:
>Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>> Name: Giovanni Acceptance
>> Cardtype: Political Action
>> Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
>> If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and put a
>> Camarilla Allegiance counter on all Independent Giovannis in play. When an
>> Independent Giovanni enters play, put a Camarilla Allegiance counter on
>> him or her. A vampire with a Camarilla Allegiance counter is considered
>> Camarilla. Burn the counter if the vampire changes sect.
>
>It will cease functioning when the Methuselah who called it is ousted.
the current implementation ceases functioning as soon as the referendum is over.
>It will convert an Anarch Giovanni who is banished/contested and then
>influenced/won to a Camarilla.
yes, that's a tough one. as i said, i was struggling with the "enter play"
thing. i originally thought that this would be better:
"When an Independent Giovanni is moved from the uncontrolled region to the
ready region..."
...which would solve the contesting problem, but not the banishment
problem. and it would not affect Giovannis entering play by other means
(Possession, etc.).
maybe these are acceptable bummers. not sure.
>It doesn't affect a Ravnos that later impersonates a Giovanni, and a Camarilla
>Giovanni that impersonates Lasombra loses his counter, and it stays lost when
>he burns the impersonation.
with the current implementation, the impersonating Ravnos isn't taken into
account either, and the impersonating Giovanni will revert to Independent
when burning the impersonation (if i understand the ruling correctly).
as i said, it's not the solution, but it's a start. it already has a more
"permanent" effect than the current version.
LSJ
> In article <3F3A2B0B...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> wrote:
> >Charles Lechasseur wrote:
> >> Name: Giovanni Acceptance
> >> Cardtype: Political Action
> >> Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
> >> If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and put a
> >> Camarilla Allegiance counter on all Independent Giovannis in play. When an
> >> Independent Giovanni enters play, put a Camarilla Allegiance counter on
> >> him or her. A vampire with a Camarilla Allegiance counter is considered
> >> Camarilla. Burn the counter if the vampire changes sect.
> >
> >It will cease functioning when the Methuselah who called it is ousted.
>
> the current implementation ceases functioning as soon as the referendum is over.
The current thread is about fixing that.
Or, rather, about the difficulty involved in fixing it.
Just pointing out that the current system isn't perfect isn't a reason
to add errata.
> >It will convert an Anarch Giovanni who is banished/contested and then
> >influenced/won to a Camarilla.
>
> yes, that's a tough one. as i said, i was struggling with the "enter play"
> thing. i originally thought that this would be better:
>
> "When an Independent Giovanni is moved from the uncontrolled region to the
> ready region..."
>
> ...which would solve the contesting problem, but not the banishment
> problem. and it would not affect Giovannis entering play by other means
> (Possession, etc.).
>
> maybe these are acceptable bummers. not sure.
>
> >It doesn't affect a Ravnos that later impersonates a Giovanni, and a Camarilla
> >Giovanni that impersonates Lasombra loses his counter, and it stays lost when
> >he burns the impersonation.
>
> with the current implementation, the impersonating Ravnos isn't taken into
> account either, and the impersonating Giovanni will revert to Independent
> when burning the impersonation (if i understand the ruling correctly).
Correct.
> as i said, it's not the solution, but it's a start. it already has a more
> "permanent" effect than the current version.
A "start" that seems to prove the point, yes.
LSJ
> > > an idea, might need better wording:
> > >
> > > All (insert clan here) are considered camarilla for the remainder of
> > > the game (including those that enter play at a later time) unless they
> > > are already non-independent or are the target of an effect which
> > > either makes them independent or requires them to be independent.
>
> > Convoluted.
> >
> > "Independent" in card text is an effect which makes a vampire independent.
> > Clan Impersonating a Giovanni is an effect which makes a vampire independent.
>
> if we skip the 'makes them independent' clause.
> that would mean that anka with a 'writ of unacceptance' would also
> become camarilla (example).
Right. Which would be contrary to the goal.
> this would probably at least be easier to
> keep track of than the current one (which requires remembering who was
> in play when the vote was called)
That is easily done - just use counters.
> and probably closer to the original
> intention (just my guess).
Quite true. The feasibility of effecting the original intention is the
topic at hand.
Timlagor
> > >It will cease functioning when the Methuselah who called it is ousted.
> >
> > the current implementation ceases functioning as soon as the referendum is over.
>
> The current thread is about fixing that.
> Or, rather, about the difficulty involved in fixing it.
>
> Just pointing out that the current system isn't perfect isn't a reason
> to add errata.
Pointing out that the current system has the drawback you ascribved to
the new system only even more acutely is certainly relevant.
Charles Lechasseur
i am guessing that by "point", you mean the difficulty of changing the
current implementation? (sorry, i'm kinda lost in the replies here, i
don't remember how this started :)
hawk_the_demon
> > that would mean that anka with a 'writ of unacceptance' would also
> > become camarilla (example).
>
> Right. Which would be contrary to the goal.
exactly, I was pointing this out as a flaw to that suggestion.
but unless there are plans to create 'writ of unacceptance', this will
not be a problem. AND since existing cards are considered when new
cards are designed, this is a problem that could easily be avoided IF
such card would be introduced.
example:
writ of unacceptance
equipment
the vampire with this equipment is considered independent (this
overrides any other sect designation this vampire has).
and writ of acceptance could also be modified to match this if needed.
James Coupe
hawk_the_demon <de...@hell.is> writes:
>writ of unacceptance
>equipment
>the vampire with this equipment is considered independent (this
>overrides any other sect designation this vampire has).
>
>and writ of acceptance could also be modified to match this if needed.
And now I equip Writ of Acceptance and Writ of Unacceptance...
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Timlagor
> In message <63352126.03081...@posting.google.com>,
> hawk_the_demon <de...@hell.is> writes:
> >writ of unacceptance
> >equipment
> >the vampire with this equipment is considered independent (this
> >overrides any other sect designation this vampire has).
> >
> >and writ of acceptance could also be modified to match this if needed.
>
> And now I equip Writ of Acceptance and Writ of Unacceptance...
>
"A vampire may have onlyone Writ. If a Vampire acquires a new writ, burn
it's previous writ."
James Coupe
<Timlagor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> And now I equip Writ of Acceptance and Writ of Unacceptance...
>
>"A vampire may have onlyone Writ. If a Vampire acquires a new writ, burn
>it's previous writ."
And if another non-Writ item comes in that declares it over-rides
everything else?
Emmit Svenson
Name: Giovanni Acceptance
Cardtype: Political Action
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
For the remainder of the game, all methuselahs may change the sect of
one or more Giovanni vampires he or she controls to Camarilla during
the minion phase.
hawk_the_demon
> In message <MPG.19a75de04...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor
> <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> And now I equip Writ of Acceptance and Writ of Unacceptance...
> >
> >"A vampire may have onlyone Writ. If a Vampire acquires a new writ, burn
> >it's previous writ."
>
> And if another non-Writ item comes in that declares it over-rides
> everything else?
if a vampire has both, it is considered both independent and
camarilla.
in rpg sense, he/she just points at the document: 'look, I´m camarilla
so I can do this' or: 'I have a document that says I have no
association with the camarilla or sabbat'.
James Coupe
>camarilla.
Not possible.
Independent is "not aligned with either sect" (Camarilla or Sabbat).
Being Camarilla aligns you with one of the sects.
Additionally:
Independent vampires are both "Non-Camarilla" and "Non-Sabbat."
That is part of the definition of Independent.
hawk_the_demon
> Being Camarilla aligns you with one of the sects.
>
> Additionally:
>
> Independent vampires are both "Non-Camarilla" and "Non-Sabbat."
>
> That is part of the definition of Independent.
ahh.. ok.
but if you think about it, the only modifications required at the
moment to make this work is the rewording of the political cards.
other modifications need only be done if:
a) the frequently mentioned Writ of Unacceptance is introduced (or any
card with similar effect).
- the card needs specific ruling: burn any writ of acceptance this
vampire has, cannot equip with a writ of acceptance, overrides all
other sect etc. no errata is actually needed on writ of acceptance
unless some other new mechanism requires it.
b) any new sect dependent mechanism is introduced.
- I must admit that I can´t find any complications with this...
anyone?