[LSJ] Communal Havens

[salem]

Coomunal Haven: Temple (SW)
"A Methuselah may only have one communal haven in play".

oh, wait. i just checked the online text and they squished a
"<temple>" in there after "haven".

are you supposed to be allowed to have multiple Communal Haven:
Cathedrals (BH)?

Also, one of the BH expansion master cards (i don't remember which)
starts it's second line (second sentance) with 'vampire...', lower
case 'v' and the sentence seems to need a "This" or something to start
it that it doesn't have. Ok, this is not as useful a paragraph as i
might have given, but i only got to read the card briefly at the
prerelease before i gave it back to it's owner and i didn't make any
physical notes about it, merely this somewhat lacking mental note i am
transcribing now.

um. yeah.....

salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

[LSJ]

salem wrote:
> are you supposed to be allowed to have multiple Communal Haven:
> Cathedrals (BH)?

See card text. Absence of a restriction means that card text doesn't
restrict it.

--
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/

[salem]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:32:01 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:

>salem wrote:
>> are you supposed to be allowed to have multiple Communal Haven:
>> Cathedrals (BH)?
>
>See card text. Absence of a restriction means that card text doesn't
>restrict it.

sometimes I wonder why I bother asking these sorts of things. :)

OK, was the origional design intent to be such that only 1 Communal
haven (of any kind) could be controlled by a methuselah, but then when
the mistake was noticed it didn't seem to be a problem so didn't
warrant addressing?

thanks,

[LSJ]

salem wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:32:01 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:
>
>
>>salem wrote:
>>
>>>are you supposed to be allowed to have multiple Communal Haven:
>>>Cathedrals (BH)?
>>
>>See card text. Absence of a restriction means that card text doesn't
>>restrict it.
>
>
> sometimes I wonder why I bother asking these sorts of things. :)
>
> OK, was the origional design intent to be such that only 1 Communal
> haven (of any kind) could be controlled by a methuselah, but then when
> the mistake was noticed it didn't seem to be a problem so didn't
> warrant addressing?

No. The original design intent seems (I was not the designer of CH:Temple)
to have been to restrict the number of CH:Temples a Methuselah could
control at one time.

That is the design intent of the BH set (now or as well, depending on
the deign intent of the original Sabbat designers).