Sabbat Archbishops and Camarilla Princes

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/>

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... [ quoted text not captured ]

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.

>> 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

>>> 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

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/

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!) [ quoted text not captured ]

>>>>> 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

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. [ quoted text not captured ]

> 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 [ quoted text not captured ]