Another thing that "Go Anarch" does...

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 2:15:51 PM4/15/03
to
Wow I'm bored and rife with speculation today ;)

Stefano Giovanni becomes a pretty powerhouse voter, as an
Anarch Baron. An independent 6-cap with 2 votes that can
burn a blood for a 3rd. Not too shabby.

albert1642

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 2:37:00 PM4/15/03
to
If xavier has the Writ of Acceptance, he won't have his title and would be
considered camarilla... He go anarch... The writ is transfered away... He
would be anarach and would get his 2 votes back? (Since he'll get the votes
back since he's still independent?)

LSJ

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 2:45:14 PM4/15/03
to

He doesn't lose his title when he becomes Camarilla. "has 2 votes" is a
title that is not tied to sect or to clan.

Since he has a title, he cannot "Go Anarch".

--
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/

Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 2:56:05 PM4/15/03
to

That sounds like one of my questions! :)

It sounds sticky. Because, if he Goes Anarch, he still has the Writ, and
is Camarilla. That could either mean:

A) He is "Changing Sects" to Independent and back to Cam (thus losing the
Go Anarch immediately)
or
B) He isn't Changing Sects, therefore he is a Camarilla Anarch (and thus if
he "changes sects" again by dropping the Writ, he loses his Anarch-ship...?)
or
C) He is "Changing Sects" to Independent which overrides the Writ, therefore
giving him his 2 votes back. Nowhere does the rule say that Anarchs can't
have non-Anarch Independent titles...

ugh.
None of these seems quite right.
But A) seems the most likely to be ruled as "correct".

Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 3:00:45 PM4/15/03
to
Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> C) He is "Changing Sects" to Independent which overrides the Writ, therefore
> giving him his 2 votes back. Nowhere does the rule say that Anarchs can't
> have non-Anarch Independent titles...

Oh yeah, this one's invalid. What LSJ said. Brain fart.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 3:01:22 PM4/15/03
to
Jozxyqk wrote:
> It sounds sticky. Because, if he Goes Anarch, he still has the Writ, and
> is Camarilla. That could either mean:
>
> A) He is "Changing Sects" to Independent and back to Cam (thus losing the
> Go Anarch immediately)

[...]

> ugh.
> None of these seems quite right.
> But A) seems the most likely to be ruled as "correct".

He cannot go anarch since he has a title, but say he didn't have a title.
A) is correct.

albert1642

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 4:37:43 PM4/15/03
to


So xavier with the writ.... Get's voted as a Gangrel Justicar... He would have
5 votes?


Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 5:54:03 PM4/15/03
to
albert1642 <alber...@aol.com> wrote:

> So xavier with the writ.... Get's voted as a Gangrel Justicar... He would have
> 5 votes?

No.. You can still only have one title at a time. He would have 3 votes.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 5:58:38 PM4/15/03
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E9C5702...@white-wolf.com...

> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > It sounds sticky. Because, if he Goes Anarch, he still has the Writ, and
> > is Camarilla. That could either mean:
> >
> > A) He is "Changing Sects" to Independent and back to Cam (thus losing the
> > Go Anarch immediately)
>
> [...]
>
> > ugh.
> > None of these seems quite right.
> > But A) seems the most likely to be ruled as "correct".
>
> He cannot go anarch since he has a title, but say he didn't have a title.
> A) is correct.

I had thought Writ of Acceptance would follow the usual "most
recent effect played" rule (so Clan Impersonating to a Sabbat
clan after getting a Writ would make you Sabbat). I guess I
was wrong about that? Is that because, as equipment, its
effect is always applied "after" that of other cards like Clan
Impersonation?

I'm not sure I see why that should be the case, though. Could
you expand on it a little?

thanks,

Josh

doesn't have to play along today


Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 15, 2003, 7:40:41 PM4/15/03
to
Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I had thought Writ of Acceptance would follow the usual "most
> recent effect played" rule (so Clan Impersonating to a Sabbat
> clan after getting a Writ would make you Sabbat). I guess I
> was wrong about that? Is that because, as equipment, its
> effect is always applied "after" that of other cards like Clan
> Impersonation?

> I'm not sure I see why that should be the case, though. Could
> you expand on it a little?

I think it's because Writ of Acceptance says:
The vampire with this equipment is considered a Camarilla vampire.

not

The vampire with this equipment *becomes a Camarilla vampire when
he equips it*.


So no matter how many times you change his sect, he is still
"considered a Camarilla vampire" while he has it.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 7:56:11 AM4/16/03
to

Correct. [LSJ 05-SEP-2000]
Google: "writ clan impersonation author:LSJ"

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 11:35:01 AM4/16/03
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E9D44DB...@white-wolf.com...

> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>I had thought Writ of Acceptance would follow the usual "most
> >>recent effect played" rule (so Clan Impersonating to a Sabbat
> >>clan after getting a Writ would make you Sabbat). I guess I
> >>was wrong about that? Is that because, as equipment, its
> >>effect is always applied "after" that of other cards like Clan
> >>Impersonation?
> >
> >>I'm not sure I see why that should be the case, though. Could
> >>you expand on it a little?
> >
> > I think it's because Writ of Acceptance says:
> > The vampire with this equipment is considered a Camarilla vampire.
> >
> > not
> >
> > The vampire with this equipment *becomes a Camarilla vampire when
> > he equips it*.
> >
> > So no matter how many times you change his sect, he is still
> > "considered a Camarilla vampire" while he has it.
>
> Correct. [LSJ 05-SEP-2000]
> Google: "writ clan impersonation author:LSJ"

But then, why does the same reasoning not apply to Clan Impersonation?

Text: "Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This
vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her
original clan (if any)."

Isn't "This vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan" an
ongoing effect just like "[This vampire] is considered a Camarilla
vampire"?

That is, it seems to me like Clan Impersonation ought to be
"maintaining" its subject's new-clanness and therefore new-sectness
just as much as Writ of Acceptance does. So I don't understand why
Writ's effect should always "win out" over Clan Impersonation.


Josh

impersonable


Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 11:55:20 AM4/16/03
to
Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Text: "Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This
> vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her
> original clan (if any)."

Because that is the result of an action that happens once.
It doesn't say "while this card is on this vampire."

Derek Rawlings

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 2:08:29 PM4/16/03
to
> But then, why does the same reasoning not apply to Clan Impersonation?
>
> Text: "Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This
> vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her
> original clan (if any)."
>
> Isn't "This vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan" an
> ongoing effect just like "[This vampire] is considered a Camarilla
> vampire"?
>
> That is, it seems to me like Clan Impersonation ought to be
> "maintaining" its subject's new-clanness and therefore new-sectness
> just as much as Writ of Acceptance does. So I don't understand why
> Writ's effect should always "win out" over Clan Impersonation.

Writ is equipment, and can thus easily be burnt through play. Once a CI
is played, nothing short of another CI or perhaps some other obscure
effects are going to change that. That is why there is no need to
"maintain" a vampire's clan-ness when a CI is played.

Derek Rawlings

Kulaid

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 2:37:19 PM4/16/03
to

But CI is placed on the vampire as well... And needs to be burnt to
revert back to it's old clan... As long as CI card is on that vampire,
he's considered that clan... No? From the way I read it.. To only way
to cancel the effect of that card is to burn it... If not, then burning
the card won't change back it's clan at all...

That's funky then, gonna have to see the rules if a vampire can or can
not be of 2 different clans(Same sect)... Cause as long as the CI is on
the vampire he's considered of that clan... Won't multiples mean he's
considered in more then 1 clan? (Don't remeber reading that a vampire
can only be in 1 clan...)

Clan Impersonation [AH, CE]
Cardtype: Action

Cost: 2 blood

+1 stealth action.


Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire is
considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her original clan

(if any). This vampire can burn this card as an action.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

LSJ

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 2:59:13 PM4/16/03
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> But then, why does the same reasoning not apply to Clan Impersonation?
>
> Text: "Choose a clan and put this card on the acting vampire. This
> vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan instead of his or her
> original clan (if any)."
>
> Isn't "This vampire is considered to be of the chosen clan" an
> ongoing effect just like "[This vampire] is considered a Camarilla
> vampire"?

OK. So it's not as straightforward as previously stated.

If the sect change brought about by going anarch was a temporary
effect, it would be in the same class as Writ. But it isn't. Becoming
an anarch changes the vampire's sect to Independent. Permanently.

Example:

Bob the Brujah (Camarilla) goes anarch (cardless action).
He's now Bob the Brujah (Independent anarch).
He gets a Writ.
He loses his anarch status (since his sect is changed).
He's now Bob the Brujah with a Writ (temp. Camarilla overriding base
Independence).
He loses the Writ, reverting to his base sect.
He's now Bob the Brujah (Independent).

The "Go Anarch" action functions similarly - it is not a temporary
change of sect.

> That is, it seems to me like Clan Impersonation ought to be
> "maintaining" its subject's new-clanness and therefore new-sectness
> just as much as Writ of Acceptance does. So I don't understand why
> Writ's effect should always "win out" over Clan Impersonation.

Changing clan changes sect. [10].

Maintaining clan doesn't maintain sect (otherwise Writ would have no
effect at all).

CI says "I'm this clan". Writ says "I'm this sect". Both apply.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 3:00:21 PM4/16/03
to
Derek Rawlings wrote:
> Writ is equipment, and can thus easily be burnt through play. Once a CI
> is played, nothing short of another CI or perhaps some other obscure
> effects are going to change that. That is why there is no need to
> "maintain" a vampire's clan-ness when a CI is played.

CI has a built-in burn option.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 3:03:45 PM4/16/03
to
Kulaid wrote:
> But CI is placed on the vampire as well... And needs to be burnt to
> revert back to it's old clan... As long as CI card is on that vampire,
> he's considered that clan... No? From the way I read it.. To only way
> to cancel the effect of that card is to burn it... If not, then burning
> the card won't change back it's clan at all...

Burning the CI removes the temporary clan.

> That's funky then, gonna have to see the rules if a vampire can or can
> not be of 2 different clans(Same sect)... Cause as long as the CI is on
> the vampire he's considered of that clan... Won't multiples mean he's
> considered in more then 1 clan? (Don't remeber reading that a vampire
> can only be in 1 clan...)

A vampire cannot be two clans at the same time.
Multiple conflicting temporary effects means: most recent played ("top") wins.

Jozxyqk

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 3:28:44 PM4/16/03
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

> Example:

> Bob the Brujah (Camarilla) goes anarch (cardless action).
> He's now Bob the Brujah (Independent anarch).
> He gets a Writ.
> He loses his anarch status (since his sect is changed).
> He's now Bob the Brujah with a Writ (temp. Camarilla overriding base
> Independence).
> He loses the Writ, reverting to his base sect.
> He's now Bob the Brujah (Independent).

Ahhh.. so *that's* how all the Gangrel leave the Camarilla! :)

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 4:30:13 PM4/16/03
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E9DA801...@white-wolf.com...

> OK. So it's not as straightforward as previously stated.
>
> If the sect change brought about by going anarch was a temporary
> effect, it would be in the same class as Writ. But it isn't. Becoming
> an anarch changes the vampire's sect to Independent. Permanently.
>
> Example:
>
> Bob the Brujah (Camarilla) goes anarch (cardless action).
> He's now Bob the Brujah (Independent anarch).
> He gets a Writ.
> He loses his anarch status (since his sect is changed).
> He's now Bob the Brujah with a Writ (temp. Camarilla overriding base
> Independence).
> He loses the Writ, reverting to his base sect.
> He's now Bob the Brujah (Independent).
>
> The "Go Anarch" action functions similarly - it is not a temporary
> change of sect.

This kind of activity would apply the same way to Setites who
had been affected by Invitation Accepted, yes? Except in that
case, they would have had a permanent Camarilla effect applied
to them rather than an Independent one.

> > That is, it seems to me like Clan Impersonation ought to be
> > "maintaining" its subject's new-clanness and therefore new-sectness
> > just as much as Writ of Acceptance does. So I don't understand why
> > Writ's effect should always "win out" over Clan Impersonation.
>
> Changing clan changes sect. [10].
>
> Maintaining clan doesn't maintain sect (otherwise Writ would have no
> effect at all).

Ahhh. That makes sense.

Thanks!

> CI says "I'm this clan". Writ says "I'm this sect". Both apply.

Right. Since CI changes sect only as a side-effect of changing
clan, it doesn't "hold down" the sect value like it holds down
the clan value. I think I get it now. :-)


Josh

this baby's so simian


LSJ

unread,
Apr 16, 2003, 5:46:03 PM4/16/03
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> This kind of activity would apply the same way to Setites who
> had been affected by Invitation Accepted, yes? Except in that
> case, they would have had a permanent Camarilla effect applied
> to them rather than an Independent one.

Those referendums pose difficulties, yes.

"All <class of vampires> are considered Camarilla vampires for the
rest of the game"

should be an effect that is applied at the instant of resolution to
all members of the given class.

But it is currently interpreted as something that applies continuously.
Even to members of the class that weren't in play at the time of
resolution or that were in play but weren't part of the class and became
part of the class later. This is different than most/all other effects.

That's not a problem so long as there are no contradictory sect
changers. And now there are.

It's on the list for RT review.

Noal McDonald

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 10:15:15 AM4/17/03
to
LSJ wrote:
> "All <class of vampires> are considered Camarilla vampires for the
> rest of the game"
>
> That's not a problem so long as there are no contradictory sect
> changers. And now there are.

Easy change in phrasing fixes this:

The default sect of all <class of vampires> is now Camarilla for the
rest of the game. All current <class of vampires> are now considered
Camarilla.

Easy phrasing that communicates that any vampire from that clan
(controlled and otherwise) or vampire that gets a Clan Impersonation
becomes Camarilla, but doesn't override any subsequent sect changes.

Regards,
Noal

LSJ

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 10:46:10 AM4/17/03
to
Noal McDonald wrote:
> The default sect of all <class of vampires> is now Camarilla for the
> rest of the game. All current <class of vampires> are now considered
> Camarilla.
>
> Easy phrasing that communicates that any vampire from that clan
> (controlled and otherwise) or vampire that gets a Clan Impersonation
> becomes Camarilla, but doesn't override any subsequent sect changes.

That would indicate that all controlled members of that clan are
Camarilla and that newly created vampires (Embraces) or vampire that
change clan to the given clan (CI) would have the new default sect.

It doesn't, however, give any effect to not-currently-controlled members,
since they all have card text to override the default anyhow.

Jeff Kuta

unread,
Apr 17, 2003, 1:18:40 PM4/17/03
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E9DCF1B...@white-wolf.com>...

> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > This kind of activity would apply the same way to Setites who
> > had been affected by Invitation Accepted, yes? Except in that
> > case, they would have had a permanent Camarilla effect applied
> > to them rather than an Independent one.
>
> Those referendums pose difficulties, yes.
>
> "All <class of vampires> are considered Camarilla vampires for the
> rest of the game"
>
> should be an effect that is applied at the instant of resolution to
> all members of the given class.

Well, I would think that by design, someone could want all of THEIR
Indie vampires to become Camarilla. If the card changes, then they
lose that capability, which they currently have.



> But it is currently interpreted as something that applies continuously.
> Even to members of the class that weren't in play at the time of
> resolution or that were in play but weren't part of the class and became
> part of the class later. This is different than most/all other effects.
>
> That's not a problem so long as there are no contradictory sect
> changers. And now there are.
>
> It's on the list for RT review.

What if those votes were something like this:
"If this referendum is successfull, all [Indie Clan members] are
considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. Vampires in
play or entering play later may choose to keep their base sect
affiliation."

Since any vampire now has the option to "Go Anarch" I don't see why
they shouldn't have the option to keep their sect how they want
regardless of other political machinations.

Noal McDonald

unread,
Apr 22, 2003, 11:12:08 AM4/22/03
to
LSJ wrote:
> Noal McDonald wrote:
> > The default sect of all <class of vampires> is now Camarilla for the
> > rest of the game. All current <class of vampires> are now considered
> > Camarilla.
> >
> > Easy phrasing that communicates that any vampire from that clan
> > (controlled and otherwise) or vampire that gets a Clan Impersonation
> > becomes Camarilla, but doesn't override any subsequent sect changes.
>
> That would indicate that all controlled members of that clan are
> Camarilla and that newly created vampires (Embraces) or vampire that
> change clan to the given clan (CI) would have the new default sect.

Yep.

> It doesn't, however, give any effect to not-currently-controlled members,
> since they all have card text to override the default anyhow.

Clearly, my intent was that the default override the text on currently
uncontrolled vampires, but not override any subsequent actions to
change sect. Either adding the following statement:
This change in default will override any text on crypt cards.
or changing the last statement to:
All controlled and uncontrolled <class of vampires> are now considered
Camarilla.
should do the trick.

Regards,
Noal

LSJ

unread,
Apr 22, 2003, 11:29:12 AM4/22/03
to
Noal McDonald wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>>Noal McDonald wrote:
>>>The default sect of all <class of vampires> is now Camarilla for the
>>>rest of the game. All current <class of vampires> are now considered
>>>Camarilla.
>>>
>>>Easy phrasing that communicates that any vampire from that clan
>>>(controlled and otherwise) or vampire that gets a Clan Impersonation
>>>becomes Camarilla, but doesn't override any subsequent sect changes.
>>
>>It doesn't, however, give any effect to not-currently-controlled members,
>>since they all have card text to override the default anyhow.
>
> Clearly, my intent was that the default override the text on currently
> uncontrolled vampires, but not override any subsequent actions to
> change sect. Either adding the following statement:

Clearly, yes. I was commenting on the implementation, not the intent.

> This change in default will override any text on crypt cards.
> or changing the last statement to:
> All controlled and uncontrolled <class of vampires> are now considered
> Camarilla.
> should do the trick.

Possibly, but getting less "easy". Besides being fodder for the loophole
seers, players would still have questions about the effects on vampires
still in the crypt (not yet in the uncontrolled region), and it isn't clear
how that effect would stick through burning (it won't, but it "should"
based on my impression of your intent).

Noal McDonald

unread,
Apr 22, 2003, 7:18:17 PM4/22/03
to
LSJ wrote:
> Noal McDonald wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> >>Noal McDonald wrote:
> >>>The default sect of all <class of vampires> is now Camarilla for the
> >>>rest of the game. All current <class of vampires> are now considered
> >>>Camarilla.
> >>>
> >>>Easy phrasing that communicates that any vampire from that clan
> >>>(controlled and otherwise) or vampire that gets a Clan Impersonation
> >>>becomes Camarilla, but doesn't override any subsequent sect changes.
> >>
> >>It doesn't, however, give any effect to not-currently-controlled members,
> >>since they all have card text to override the default anyhow.
> >
> > Clearly, my intent was that the default override the text on currently
> > uncontrolled vampires, but not override any subsequent actions to
> > change sect. Either adding the following statement:
>
> Clearly, yes. I was commenting on the implementation, not the intent.
>
> > This change in default will override any text on crypt cards.
> > or changing the last statement to:
> > All controlled and uncontrolled <class of vampires> are now considered
> > Camarilla.
> > should do the trick.
>
> Possibly, but getting less "easy".

*cough* Mind Rape *cough*

A little thing like complexity never stopped you, before. Why now? :-)

> Besides being fodder for the loophole seers, players
> would still have questions about the effects on vampires
> still in the crypt (not yet in the uncontrolled region),

Vampires in crypts are considered uncontrolled, are they not? The
region they are in (crypt, uncontrolled, contested, etc.) makes them
no less uncontrolled. I always thought it was a boolean switch.

> and it isn't clear how that effect would stick through
> burning (it won't, but it "should" based on my impression
> of your intent).

When a vampire is burned, all effects on that vampire get reset for
all intents and purposes. No reason that sect changes should be any
different. For a couple of examples, say a Camarilla vampire performs
the cardless action to become Anarch, gets burned and then Posessed or
a Setite passes Invitation Accepted, gets burned and then Posessed.
Under current rules, both come out as Camarilla.

Towards that end, the first change would probably be the better choice
as it does a better job of addressing future effects. I'm sure, given
more than two minutes of general musing, better wording can be come up
with.

Regards,
Noal

LSJ

unread,
Apr 22, 2003, 8:51:30 PM4/22/03
to
Noal McDonald wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>>Noal McDonald wrote:
>>>LSJ wrote:
>>>>Noal McDonald wrote:
>>>>>Easy phrasing
>>>This change in default will override any text on crypt cards.
>>>or changing the last statement to:
>>Possibly, but getting less "easy".
> *cough* Mind Rape *cough*
> A little thing like complexity never stopped you, before. Why now? :-)

Easy was your choice of words, not mine. :-)
Needless complexity is avoided, of course.

>>Besides being fodder for the loophole seers, players
>>would still have questions about the effects on vampires
>>still in the crypt (not yet in the uncontrolled region),
>
> Vampires in crypts are considered uncontrolled, are they not? The
> region they are in (crypt, uncontrolled, contested, etc.) makes them
> no less uncontrolled. I always thought it was a boolean switch.

Yes. That doesn't mean that players won't have questions about it,
though.

>>and it isn't clear how that effect would stick through
>>burning (it won't, but it "should" based on my impression
>>of your intent).
>
> When a vampire is burned, all effects on that vampire get reset for
> all intents and purposes. No reason that sect changes should be any
> different. For a couple of examples, say a Camarilla vampire performs
> the cardless action to become Anarch, gets burned and then Posessed or
> a Setite passes Invitation Accepted, gets burned and then Posessed.
> Under current rules, both come out as Camarilla.
>
> Towards that end, the first change would probably be the better choice
> as it does a better job of addressing future effects. I'm sure, given
> more than two minutes of general musing, better wording can be come up
> with.

I've mused on it for some time with no suitable fix.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages