Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires

To be sure that everyone sees the call, and to avoid having useful input lost among the non-constructive posts, I'll start a new thread here. Currently, the rulebook says that allies who can play certain cards as a vampire are treated a a vampire only for the play of that card and specifically not for any effects of the card once it is in play nor for any lingering effects of the card. [1.6.3] That last bit, "nor for any lingering effects of the card", means that, for example, a Torn Signpost will give no benefit to an ally who plays it as a vampire. The option being considered is to remove that last bit (so that a Torn Signpost will function for an ally who can play it as a vampire, for example), while leaving the "not for any effects the card produces for being in play" bit. The purpose of the change being to reduce the complexity of the rule (making it simpler and easier to understand and apply without increasing the complexity in other areas, like bookkeeping). Does anyone see any problem, balance-wise or complexity-wise, of that proposed change?

can you help me understand the difference between a lingering effect and an effect by a card put into play ? e.g. an ally that can play protean as a campire, can "wear" a shadow of the beast. Using the maneuver of the shadow of the beast, is a lingering effect or an effect from a card in play ? i would say the later, correct ? in a few words, lingering effects are effects gained from cards that are played and the effect is the result of playing the card and not puting it into play, like shadow of the beast, concordance, e.t.c. correct ? So, if an ally than can play POT as a vampire, plays mighty grapple sup to strike for str+1, then will he be able to use the press in the press step ? According to the current rules, i would say no. correct ? According to the proposed change, if Herald of Topeth was able to play cards that require DAI as a vampire, then he wouldn't be able to benefit by a concordance (effect granted by card in play that doesnot "see" herald as a vampire, after the action resolves, correct ?) but would be able to benefit from a sup Ignore the Searing Flames (burn 1 blood and prevent all aggravated damage this round, lingering effect, correct ?) So, if i understand the terms correctly, i believe that a change like the one proposed, would be nice and wouldn't cause any trouble to the game. 1 vote for it :D

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > can you help me understand the difference between a lingering effect > and an effect by a card put into play ? It's generally just card text. > e.g. an ally that can play protean as a campire, can "wear" a shadow of > the beast. Using the maneuver of the > shadow of the beast, is a lingering effect or an effect from a card in > play ? i would say the later, correct ? Correct: "The vampire with this card gets one optional maneuver each combat." The effect of the card being played is: put this card on the acting vampire. It has no other effect (other than performing the action itself). The effect of the card being in play is the rest. > in a few words, lingering effects are effects gained from cards that > are played and the effect is the result of playing > the card and not puting it into play, like shadow of the beast, > concordance, e.t.c. correct ? So, if an ally than can play POT as a > vampire, plays mighty grapple sup to strike for str+1, then will he be > able to use the press in the press step ? According to the current > rules, i would say no. correct ? He would be able to press. The press is not a lingering effect (although it is a delayed effect -- another point of complication that would be eliminated by the change). > According to the proposed change, if Herald of Topeth was able to play > cards that require DAI as a vampire, then he wouldn't be able to > benefit by a concordance (effect granted by card in play that doesnot > "see" herald as a vampire, after the action resolves, correct ?) but Correct. > would be able to benefit from a sup Ignore the Searing Flames (burn 1 > blood and prevent all aggravated damage this round, lingering effect, > correct ?) Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

tzimisce_dragon wrote: [...] > According to the proposed change, if Herald of Topeth was able to play > cards that require DAI as a vampire, then he wouldn't be able to > benefit by a concordance (effect granted by card in play that doesnot > "see" herald as a vampire, after the action resolves, correct ?) but > would be able to benefit from a sup Ignore the Searing Flames (burn 1 > blood and prevent all aggravated damage this round, lingering effect, > correct ?) Heralds of Topheth cannot and could not play Concordance anyway, since it requires an INFERNAL vampire to play :-( Name: Concordance [BL:C1, KMW:PB2] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Daimoinon/Serpentis +1 stealth action. [ser] (D) Bleed. If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. [dai] Requires an infernal vampire. Put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire treats aggravated damage as normal damage and has +1 strength and -1 stealth. [DAI] As [dai] above, and this vampire has flight [FLIGHT]. During your influence phase, this vampire may burn 1 blood to untap. Artist: Steve Ellis -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

In message <1146591782.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes: >tzimisce_dragon wrote: >[...] >> According to the proposed change, if Herald of Topeth was able to play >> cards that require DAI as a vampire, then he wouldn't be able to >> benefit by a concordance (effect granted by card in play that doesnot >> "see" herald as a vampire, after the action resolves, correct ?) but >> would be able to benefit from a sup Ignore the Searing Flames (burn 1 >> blood and prevent all aggravated damage this round, lingering effect, >> correct ?) > >Heralds of Topheth cannot and could not play Concordance anyway, since >it requires an INFERNAL vampire to play :-( I have highlighted the important term in the card text below. Concordance could then be played by him, I think. Not that it would be that useful. Barbaro Lucchese [Promo-20041015] Barbaro may place a taint counter on a MINION as a +1 stealth (D) ^^^^^^ action. If a minion has 2 taint counters, burn those counters to make the minion infernal. Barbaro may change his clan to Tremere antitribu as +1 stealth action. Infernal. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ skrev: > > That last bit, "nor for any lingering effects of the card", means that, > for example, a Torn Signpost will give no benefit to an ally who plays > it as a vampire. > > The option being considered is to remove that last bit (so that a Torn > Signpost will function for an ally who can play it as a vampire, for > example), while leaving the "not for any effects the card produces for > being in play" bit. > How long is lingering? Assuming an ally is printed that can play cards as a vampire from a specific clan: Concert Tour. Basically, there are some cards that burn "later" and either bestows an effect until burned or gives an effect when burned. If such an effect requires a vampire, is this still considered to be a "lingering" effect rather than an effect from putting a card in play? One could argue that Torn Signpost is a card that is burned "later" and bestows a "vampire" with + 1/2 strength until the burning of the card (end of combat). Ok, most cards have a "put in play" or "put this card on this vampire" -clause. The former is clear, but the latter? Is it simply implicitly assumed to be put in play? What about the production of princes/archbishops? Ok, no allies can currently pretend to be Camarilla/Sabbat, but those card are never put in play, so the effect definitely goes into the "lingering" departement. Sten During *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Sten During wrote: > LSJ skrev: > > > > > That last bit, "nor for any lingering effects of the card", means that, > > for example, a Torn Signpost will give no benefit to an ally who plays > > it as a vampire. > > > > The option being considered is to remove that last bit (so that a Torn > > Signpost will function for an ally who can play it as a vampire, for > > example), while leaving the "not for any effects the card produces for > > being in play" bit. > > > > How long is lingering? > > Assuming an ally is printed that can play cards as a vampire from a > specific clan: Concert Tour. Lingering means: NOT based on a card in play (that is "continuous effect from card in play"), but continually in effect for some duration based on a card that was played earlier (but is not in play now). > Basically, there are some cards that burn "later" and either bestows > an effect until burned or gives an effect when burned. If such an > effect requires a vampire, is this still considered to be a "lingering" > effect rather than an effect from putting a card in play? No. > One could > argue that Torn Signpost is a card that is burned "later" and bestows > a "vampire" with + 1/2 strength until the burning of the card (end > of combat). Not really. It's a card that's played and burned now, that has an effect that lingers for the remainder of combat. It's never put into play. > Ok, most cards have a "put in play" or "put this card on > this vampire" -clause. The former is clear, but the latter? Is it simply > implicitly assumed to be put in play? All of these cards are in play. None of them are lingering effects. > What about the production of princes/archbishops? Ok, no allies can > currently pretend to be Camarilla/Sabbat, but those card are never > put in play, so the effect definitely goes into the "lingering" > departement. No longer true. See the most recent card text. All title votes are now title cards which are put into play and thus no longer a lingering effect. However, they *used* to be lingering effects, and could have caused serious issues had that still been the case. Witness1 -ItE

I put this on the Mata Hari thread but it works here better... I would say its all semantics but that is way too obvious (all laws are semantics after all) but should there be a consideration of intent? Is the idea with Mata Hari that she be able to perform all clan based actions and use all clan based equipment? You can apply the same point to any ally that can take actions as a vampire. Likewise you can apply the same test to say the Sword of Judgement. Does the fact that Mata Hari can use the Sword of Judgement break a principle of the game (currently she can't as the text is pretty clear)? I don't feel it does. I can envisage a role play situation where Mata Hari wields the Sword of Judgement. Once you have decided if there is a principle involved then you have to think about game in terms of balance and simplicity. The Game balance question has been looked at and no one has come up with a devastating combo that really breaks anything. >From a simplicity perspective if Mata Hari can play a card she should be able to use it. Any other option adds complexity. If there is no principle at stake and this doesn't create any broken combos, or indeed if it resolves possible exploitative combos (Mata Hari and Toreador Grand Ball...), then that should be the rule, KISS. If there are possible broken combos then you need to decide if its easier to 'fix' them or 'fix' the underlying rule. You don't need to worry about future cards as you can write them with any new rule in mind. So is the complexity of differeniating between playing a card as x and the lingering effects of a card played as x, or indeed the complexity of playing a permanent and then not being able to actually use it worthwhile? I say not. Allow them to use through the lingering effect (and I would be tempted to tamper with the effect of permanents as well and allow Mata Hari to use permananets too ... :-) ) .

witness1 skrev: > No longer true. See the most recent card text. All title votes are now > title cards which are put into play and thus no longer a lingering > effect. However, they *used* to be lingering effects, and could have > caused serious issues had that still been the case. > Ok. Charming Lobby presents a problem (provided you manage to untap the ally who played Charming Lobby as a vampire). So would Camarilla Exemplary (provided of course that an ally could pretend to be Camarilla). This card, and its Sabbat counterpart would present a bookkeeping problem with Mata Hari today given a change of the rules according to the topic of this thread. Kindred Segregation is an example of a minor problem. An ally calls it throuh Charming Lobby and should be excempt from the paying/burning clause given the new rules suggestion. Mark of the Damned is another (yes, yes, cornercase) bookkeeping problem. I call it with an ally. I call it again later in the game. How "lingering" was my vampire status when calling the vote with my, now burned, ally? Still, all in all, removing the "lingering" clause should present no major balance-problems, even though it may still present a number of problems concerning explaining and convincing to players during any one given game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > witness1 skrev: > > > No longer true. See the most recent card text. All title votes are now > > title cards which are put into play and thus no longer a lingering > > effect. However, they *used* to be lingering effects, and could have > > caused serious issues had that still been the case. > > > > Ok. Charming Lobby presents a problem (provided you manage to untap > the ally who played Charming Lobby as a vampire). Or block every vote until your next turn (since NRA wouldn't allow him to call another vote even if he untapped). Which is not really a problem, except in bookkeeping. > So would Camarilla Exemplary (provided of course that an ally > could pretend to be Camarilla). This card, and its Sabbat counterpart > would present a bookkeeping problem with Mata Hari today given a > change of the rules according to the topic of this thread. Actually, I would think Cam Exemplary would already work on Mata Hari. "Successful referendum means that for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block that vampire burns 1 blood".The lingering effect places no restriction on remaining Camarilla, only on being a vampire. At any rate, the bookkeeping this presents seems to be no more difficult than the bookkeeping already presented by Camarilla exemplary (i.e., you need to remember which minion is the exemplary, and that the exemplary effect is actually in effect so blocking vamps must burn one blood). You don't really need to remember that Exemplary "sees" some ally as a vampire, only that an Exemplary effect is on that ally. You only need to go that far if you're trying to remember/explain *why* the Exemplary effect works on that minion. > Kindred Segregation is an example of a minor problem. An ally > calls it throuh Charming Lobby and should be excempt from the > paying/burning clause given the new rules suggestion. Very minor/temporary bookkeeping, but yes. It could be an issue. > Mark of the Damned is another (yes, yes, cornercase) bookkeeping > problem. I call it with an ally. I call it again later in the > game. How "lingering" was my vampire status when calling the > vote with my, now burned, ally? Mark of the Damned sets up no lingering effect. If it did, only *that* copy of Mark of the Damned would see the ally as a vampire, not any future copy. No effect that was not played "as an X" by minion Y ever sees minion Y as an X unless that minion actually IS an X. > Still, all in all, removing the "lingering" clause should present > no major balance-problems, even though it may still present a > number of problems concerning explaining and convincing to players > during any one given game. Sure, but it shouldn't be any harder to explain than the current situation, and several people have stated in the other thread that this move would make more sense to them. Witness1 -ItE

Sten During wrote: Thanks for the examinations. Comments and queries below: > Ok. Charming Lobby presents a problem (provided you manage to untap > the ally who played Charming Lobby as a vampire). Which problem? I don't see any related to untapped the ally. > So would Camarilla Exemplary (provided of course that an ally > could pretend to be Camarilla). This card, and its Sabbat counterpart > would present a bookkeeping problem with Mata Hari today given a > change of the rules according to the topic of this thread. You mean if Mata called it and named someone else, that there'd be extra bookkeeping in remembering which CamEx and SabPriest remembered her sect? No. Those two don't care about sect once in play, so there'd be no extra bookkeeping there. You mean if an ally were able to call it and named someone else, then there'd be extra bookkeeping in remembering which ally was to be treated as a vampire by which CamEx/SabPr? Perhaps. But so cornercase as to not exist at the moment and easily enough to fix as the titles were fixed -- by rewording those two effects to be cards in play (like they are in practice). > Kindred Segregation is an example of a minor problem. An ally > calls it throuh Charming Lobby and should be excempt from the > paying/burning clause given the new rules suggestion. That's not new -- it's already true. The resolution of the referendum is not a lingering effect. > Mark of the Damned is another (yes, yes, cornercase) bookkeeping > problem. I call it with an ally. I call it again later in the > game. How "lingering" was my vampire status when calling the > vote with my, now burned, ally? No problem at all. Ashed cards are wiped clean, including of any ally-as-vampire-for-lingering-effect stripes. He's pure ally in the ash heap. > Still, all in all, removing the "lingering" clause should present > no major balance-problems, even though it may still present a > number of problems concerning explaining and convincing to players > during any one given game. Surely fewer problems than the current.

As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar) and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons and use it as a gargoyle? Of course, the obvious reason is that the rules say differently, but the problem many players might have with this is "why?" If you're going to chage the interaction of lingering effects involving ally as vampire, you should also change the lingering effects of vampire as clan/sect for the sake of consistency. I'm not sure that doing so is a very good idea in terms of balance problems that could come about, but that is just idle speculation. Also, a problem could come about with Ian Forestal if for some reason a card were ever printed with a lingering effect that said "this vampire with [disc]". I can't see a reason why this should ever be the case though.

Damnans wrote: > > Heralds of Topheth cannot and could not play Concordance anyway, since > it requires an INFERNAL vampire to play :-( > lol.... i just wanted to understand what lingering effects are, it was never in my intentions to give herald sup DAI or a concordance.... :P yeah, concordance requires an infernal minion, so shoot me...

CthuluKitty wrote: > As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with > changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about > with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar) > and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons > and use it as a gargoyle? > irrelevant. > Of course, the obvious reason is that the rules say differently, but > the problem many players might have with this is "why?" so, what ? Some players asked why smite doesnot burn vehicles, even when vehicles have some electronic devices built into them... i consider these whys ridiculus... A person can always ask "whys"... that must not keep one from fixing a rule. > If you're > going to chage the interaction of lingering effects involving ally as > vampire, you should also change the lingering effects of vampire as > clan/sect for the sake of consistency. you mean for the shake of you, who wants to play raking talons with Mata Hari ??? well, i say, no! no real need to change this... Anyway...

LSJ skrev: > Sten During wrote: > > Thanks for the examinations. Comments and queries below: > >> Ok. Charming Lobby presents a problem (provided you manage to untap >> the ally who played Charming Lobby as a vampire). > > Which problem? > I don't see any related to untapped the ally. > That was me shutting down my brain and forgetting that a minion may never attempt a second political action in one turn :) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ skrev: >> Kindred Segregation is an example of a minor problem. An ally >> calls it throuh Charming Lobby and should be excempt from the >> paying/burning clause given the new rules suggestion. > > That's not new -- it's already true. The resolution of the referendum > is not a lingering effect. > Another one concerning political actions and cards supporting those: Echo of Harmonies at superior (which currently no allies can play it at). For how long is this ally considered to be "this vampire" concerning the ability to later play the retrieved PA-card? Siren's lure will change in as much as the ally will have to take the resulting combat. Toerador's Bane raises a question. Is the acting ally considered a vampire for continuing the action? Ie, would the new rule kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick? [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Another one concerning political actions and cards supporting > those: > Echo of Harmonies at superior (which currently no allies can > play it at). For how long is this ally considered to be "this > vampire" concerning the ability to later play the retrieved > PA-card? Built-in "bookkeeping" (via the PA card), so that doesn't seem problematic. > Siren's lure will change in as much as the ally will have to > take the resulting combat. Yeah, that doesn't look problematic, though. > Toerador's Bane raises a question. Is the acting ally considered > a vampire for continuing the action? No. > Ie, would the new rule > kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick? No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a Rampage.

CthuluKitty wrote: > As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with > changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about > with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar) > and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons > and use it as a gargoyle? She would be able to. The change would be applied to everything which uses the base rule as a precedent. Mata, Kemintiri, etc. > Also, a problem could come about with Ian Forestal if for some reason a > card were ever printed with a lingering effect that said "this vampire > with [disc]". I can't see a reason why this should ever be the case > though. Still wouldn't be a problem, since he'd follow the precedent.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146656567....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Sten During wrote: >> Toerador's Bane raises a question. Is the acting ally considered >> a vampire for continuing the action? > > No. > >> Ie, would the new rule >> kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick? > > No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a > Rampage. Well, of course he would still be an ally, but I don't see why the Toreador's Bane itself would not apply its action-continues effect, since the ally would have played it as a vampire. "[mel] Strike: combat ends, and if this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked." Surely this is at least a lingering effect of the card played as a vampire, if not an immediate effect with delayed results (which would work already). Of course no *other* game effects would consider the ally to be a vampire, so it's not much like The Grandest Trick. Josh bane from the end of the world

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146583206.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think such a change would probably be fine. The bookkeeping wouldn't be any worse than it is for vampires who can play the same effects, and I don't see any current allies that would be unbalanced by it. It might require slightly more care in designing future allies, but I wouldn't expect that to be a problem either. If not for Mata Hari, I'd think that you could also remove the restriction on effects of cards in play that were "played as X". :-) Josh damn that mata hari, always messing things up for the poor helpless allies

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:1146656567....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > Sten During wrote: > > >> Toerador's Bane raises a question. Is the acting ally considered > >> a vampire for continuing the action? > > > > No. > > > >> Ie, would the new rule > >> kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick? > > > > No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a > > Rampage. > > Well, of course he would still be an ally, but I don't see why the > Toreador's Bane itself would not apply its action-continues effect, since > the ally would have played it as a vampire. That wasn't the question, nor did the answer given above say that he wouldn't get the action--continues effect. He does indeed continue the action. The question was "is he transmorgrified into a vampire while doing so?"

Joshua Duffin wrote: >> > "[mel] Strike: combat ends, and if this vampire was blocked while performing > an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as > if unblocked." > my best judgement is that the action should not continue, as the minion when he was blocked, was not a vampire, but an ally... But that's just my opinion...

LSJ wrote: > CthuluKitty wrote: > > As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with > > changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about > > with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar) > > and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons > > and use it as a gargoyle? > > She would be able to. The change would be applied to everything which > uses the base rule as a precedent. Mata, Kemintiri, etc. > ????..... so, Mata Hari plays raking talons as a gargoyle and this card for the rest of the game "sees" her as a Gargoyle... correct ? Then if an ally that can play pro as a vampire, plays shadow of the beast, then (according to above the Mata Hari case) the card should consider the ally a vampire for the rest of the game and thus, he/she will be able to use the maneuver ? So, LSJ, what exactly are you talking about ??? Changing the whole base rule, so as, cards that minions play as "something they are not", recognize them as "this something" for the rest of the game, BUT allies will still be limited by the "allies who can play certain cards as a vampire are treated a a vampire only for the play of that card and specifically not for any effects of the card once it is in play" ???? So, a vampire who can play "!Brujah" cards as a "!Brujah", would be able to use Sword of Judgement, according to your Mata Hari ruling about raking talons... I think this is not good... My opinion is that removing the "lingering effects" part from the current rule is enough. P.S. I didn't get the "Ghouled street thug and rampage" thing mentioned somewhere in this post, from what i know, according to the current rules, Ghouled Street Thug can perform a rampage as a vampire, right ? or am i wrong ?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146669081....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> Well, of course he would still be an ally, but I don't see why the >> Toreador's Bane itself would not apply its action-continues effect, since >> the ally would have played it as a vampire. > > That wasn't the question, nor did the answer given above say that he > wouldn't get the action--continues effect. > > He does indeed continue the action. > The question was "is he transmorgrified into a vampire while doing so?" Oh, duh. I was reading Sten's question as "is he considered a vampire to get the effect of continuing the action", rather than "is he considered a vampire for the rest of the action." His sudden leap to The Grandest Trick makes more sense now. :-) Thanks for the clarification. Josh easily misled

"tzimisce_dragon" <clan_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146672262.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > LSJ wrote: >> CthuluKitty wrote: >> > As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with >> > changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about >> > with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar) >> > and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons >> > and use it as a gargoyle? >> >> She would be able to. The change would be applied to everything which >> uses the base rule as a precedent. Mata, Kemintiri, etc. > ????..... so, Mata Hari plays raking talons as a gargoyle and this card > for the > rest of the game "sees" her as a Gargoyle... correct ? Raking Talons only applies for the rest of the combat, not the rest of the game. Its "lingering effect" of making the playing "Gargoyle's" (Mata Hari's) hand damage aggravated for the rest of the combat would apply to Mata Hari when she played it as a Gargoyle, yes. > Then if an ally that can play pro as a vampire, plays shadow of the > beast, then (according to above the Mata Hari case) the card should > consider the ally a vampire for the rest of the game and thus, he/she > will be able to use the maneuver ? No. He's not talking about changing the rule for effects from cards in play, only for cards that have a lingering effect produced by the actual play of the card, like Torn Signpost, Raking Talons, Bone Spur, etc. A card that goes into play, even if "played as X", will not apply any effects to the playing (faking) minion that would normally depend on that minion remaining "X". > So, LSJ, what exactly are you talking about ??? > > Changing the whole base rule, so as, cards that minions play as > "something they are not", recognize them as "this something" for the > rest of the game, BUT allies will still be limited by the "allies who > can play certain cards as a vampire are treated a a vampire only for > the play of that card and specifically not for any effects of the card > once it is in play" ???? No. It would be the same for allies playing cards as vampires and for vampires playing cards as [some characteristic that they don't really have]. > My opinion is that removing the "lingering effects" part from the > current rule is enough. That's what's being proposed. > P.S. I didn't get the "Ghouled street thug and rampage" thing mentioned > somewhere in this post, from what i know, according to the current > rules, Ghouled Street Thug can perform a rampage as a vampire, right ? > or am i wrong ? Yes, Ghouled Street Thug can currently play Rampage "as a vampire with Potence". However, that doesn't magically turn the Thug into a vampire for the duration of the action - only the Rampage sees him as a vampire, which allows him to play the card; all other effects see him as the ally that he truly is. Josh not really a vampire

LSJ skrev: >> Ie, would the new rule >> kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick? > > No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a > Rampage. > Hmm. Ok, even though it makes "playing" sense I'm not sure I follow you semantically here. I thought the "lingering" was for the "duration" of an effect that is not "put in play". Isn't the duration here until the resolution of the action? If not, a lot of potential problems go away. An example below of potential problems otherwise. Ghouled Street Thug plays Rampage as a vampire of capacity 2. Reacting player attempts to block with an Atoned Sonja Blue and argues that she should not tap becasuse of the capacity-comparision and that she should also benefit from The Unmasking (because she's blocking as an ally and Ghouled Street Thug is attempting Rampage as a vampire). So, all in all, "lingering" effects need a clear definition to avoid situations where they are seemingly turned on and off and then on again. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "tzimisce_dragon" <clan_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1146672262.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > No. He's not talking about changing the rule for effects from cards in > play, only for cards that have a lingering effect produced by the actual > play of the card, like Torn Signpost, Raking Talons, Bone Spur, etc. A card > that goes into play, even if "played as X", will not apply any effects to > the playing (faking) minion that would normally depend on that minion > remaining "X". > i am sincerely sorry, i didn't exactly know what Raking talons is, as i was away of VTES for 1 year and recently came back :) I looked it in FELDB, but i was careless... i mistook the card for a Gargoyle "Talons of the Dead"... Maybe i am stupid :)... Anyway, forget my comment... Raking Talons is a combat card, so if the new rule is implemented, then Mata Hari should be able to benefit from its play... i am sorry again :D > No. It would be the same for allies playing cards as vampires and for > vampires playing cards as [some characteristic that they don't really have]. > see above. > That's what's being proposed. > well, yes... i know understand this :D > Yes, Ghouled Street Thug can currently play Rampage "as a vampire with > Potence". However, that doesn't magically turn the Thug into a vampire for > the duration of the action - only the Rampage sees him as a vampire, which > allows him to play the card; all other effects see him as the ally that he > truly is. > > you mean if he gets blocked, then in combat he will be considered an ally... if this is what you are menaning, then yes, naturaly...

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:4458df93$0$29364$8826...@free.teranews.com... > LSJ skrev: > >>> Ie, would the new rule >>> kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick? >> >> No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a >> Rampage. >> > > Hmm. Ok, even though it makes "playing" sense I'm not sure I follow > you semantically here. I thought the "lingering" was for the "duration" > of an effect that is not "put in play". Isn't the duration here until > the resolution of the action? Allowing lingering effects to apply during "play as X" situations doesn't change the basic premise that only the cards played "as X" ever see the playing minion "as X". Nothing else in the game thinks the Shadow Court Satyr is really a vampire; only the Toreador's Bane thinks the Shadow Court Satyr is a vampire. > If not, a lot of potential problems go away. An example below of > potential problems otherwise. > > Ghouled Street Thug plays Rampage as a vampire of capacity 2. Reacting > player attempts to block with an Atoned Sonja Blue and argues that she > should not tap becasuse of the capacity-comparision and that she should > also benefit from The Unmasking (because she's blocking as an ally and > Ghouled Street Thug is attempting Rampage as a vampire). Right, the "lingering effects" concept would not change this. The Rampage card thinks the Ghouled Street Thug is playing Rampage "as a vampire with Potence", but no other effects in the game are fooled by this. To everything except the requirement on Rampage itself (e.g. Atonement, Sonja Blue, The Unmasking), the Thug remains an ally. This has been the case and would remain the case. > So, all in all, "lingering" effects need a clear definition to avoid > situations where they are seemingly turned on and off and then on again. Do you still think so? I'm not aware of any lingering effects that are particularly unclear on their own durations. Josh do you have to let it linger

"tzimisce_dragon" <clan_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146679196.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> No. He's not talking about changing the rule for effects from cards in >> play, only for cards that have a lingering effect produced by the actual >> play of the card, like Torn Signpost, Raking Talons, Bone Spur, etc. A >> card >> that goes into play, even if "played as X", will not apply any effects to >> the playing (faking) minion that would normally depend on that minion >> remaining "X". >> > > i am sincerely sorry, i didn't exactly know what Raking talons is, as i > was away of VTES for 1 year and recently came back :) heh! Well, I'm glad I could help with the understanding. :-) >> Yes, Ghouled Street Thug can currently play Rampage "as a vampire with >> Potence". However, that doesn't magically turn the Thug into a vampire >> for >> the duration of the action - only the Rampage sees him as a vampire, >> which >> allows him to play the card; all other effects see him as the ally that >> he >> truly is. > > you mean if he gets blocked, then in combat he will be considered an > ally... > if this is what you are menaning, then yes, naturaly... Right. Nothing would change in this regard. Josh no problems here

Joshua Duffin skrev: > Allowing lingering effects to apply during "play as X" situations doesn't > change the basic premise that only the cards played "as X" ever see the > playing minion "as X". Nothing else in the game thinks the Shadow Court > Satyr is really a vampire; only the Toreador's Bane thinks the Shadow Court > Satyr is a vampire. Let me see if I understand correctly. If Sonja Blue blocks a vampire as an ally she won't benefit from The Unmasking? She'll also be disallowed to play any intercept-modifiers only playable by allies (don't know if any such cards exist)? If Bima plays Black Sunrise and attempts to block a diablerizing vampire then Bima will benefit from The Unmasking? Bima is also disallowed to playing The Deadliest Sin when the acting vampire produces a lot of stealth? When Bima calls a PA by means of Charming Lobby and the referendum fails reacting players are not allowed to play Political Backlash? When Bima calls a Kindred Segregation and it passes then Bima is excempt from effects both from the result of the referendum as well as a reacting minion playing Treachery? When Superior Madrigal is played and Herald of Topeth plays a card giving him votes Herald will not lose/gain blood (paid or given as life instead according to Herald's cardtext)? Bima is not allowed to play Healing Touch on itself? If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? This one would be wonderful to explain to new players... And just for the fun of it: If an ally would ever be allowed to play cards requiring Obeah at superior as a vampire then Unburdening the Bestial Soul might just be one of the most powerful cards in the game :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Joshua Duffin skrev: > > > Allowing lingering effects to apply during "play as X" situations doesn't > > change the basic premise that only the cards played "as X" ever see the > > playing minion "as X". Nothing else in the game thinks the Shadow Court > > Satyr is really a vampire; only the Toreador's Bane thinks the Shadow Court > > Satyr is a vampire. > > Let me see if I understand correctly. > > If Sonja Blue blocks a vampire as an ally she won't benefit from The > Unmasking? She'll also be disallowed to play any intercept-modifiers > only playable by allies (don't know if any such cards exist)? I don't fully understand Sonja Blue myself. She's the one case where she does something other than "play cards as an X", so she doesn't exactly > If Bima plays Black Sunrise and attempts to block a diablerizing > vampire then Bima will benefit from The Unmasking? Bima is also > disallowed to playing The Deadliest Sin when the acting vampire > produces a lot of stealth? Currently, Bima benefits from The Unmasking, and can never play The Deadliest Sin. This will not change with the proposal discussed in this thread. > When Bima calls a PA by means of Charming Lobby and the referendum > fails reacting players are not allowed to play Political Backlash? Correct. This will not change under the proposal discussed in this thread. > When Bima calls a Kindred Segregation and it passes then Bima is > excempt from effects both from the result of the referendum as > well as a reacting minion playing Treachery? Correct. This will not change under the proposal discussed in this thread. > When Superior Madrigal is played and Herald of Topeth plays a card > giving him votes Herald will not lose/gain blood (paid or given as > life instead according to Herald's cardtext)? Correct. This will not change under the proposal discussed in this thread. > Bima is not allowed to play Healing Touch on itself? Correct. This will not change with under the proposal discussed in this thread. > If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring > the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be > allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still > not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? This one would > be wonderful to explain to new players... See above. Sonja Blue is not exactly the same case. > And just for the fun of it: If an ally would ever be allowed to > play cards requiring Obeah at superior as a vampire then Unburdening > the Bestial Soul might just be one of the most powerful cards in > the game :) No. It will be burned during the minion's next untap phase, as there is no "This acting vampire" to burn the 2 blood required to keep it in play. Witness1 -ItE

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:4458f6ca$0$29360$8826...@free.teranews.com... > Joshua Duffin skrev: >> Allowing lingering effects to apply during "play as X" situations doesn't >> change the basic premise that only the cards played "as X" ever see the >> playing minion "as X". Nothing else in the game thinks the Shadow Court >> Satyr is really a vampire; only the Toreador's Bane thinks the Shadow Court >> Satyr is a vampire. > > Let me see if I understand correctly. > > If Sonja Blue blocks a vampire as an ally she won't benefit from The > Unmasking? She'll also be disallowed to play any intercept-modifiers > only playable by allies (don't know if any such cards exist)? I don't believe that's true, no. Josh was referring to an effect that allows a minion to play a *card* as if it were a different type of minion. Sonja Blue's effect allows her to "block as an ally" - which presumedly means all cards/effects in the game see her as an ally for purposes of calculating success in blocking - otherwise, what function would the effect have? > If Bima plays Black Sunrise and attempts to block a diablerizing > vampire then Bima will benefit from The Unmasking? Yes, Bima is an ally. It is only a vampire for purposes of the Black Sunrise giving it the ability to untap and attempt to block. > Bima is also disallowed to playing The Deadliest Sin when the > acting vampire produces a lot of stealth? When could Bima ever have played The Deadliest Sin? I'm confused why this is even an issue. > When Bima calls a PA by means of Charming Lobby and the referendum > fails reacting players are not allowed to play Political Backlash? Correct. > When Bima calls a Kindred Segregation and it passes then Bima is > excempt from effects both from the result of the referendum as > well as a reacting minion playing Treachery? I'll assume you're suggesting the Bima used a Charming Lobby to call the Kindred Segregation. I don't believe the controller is exempt from the effect forcing him to burn the Bima or pay. The Charming Lobby treats the Bima as a vampire; the Kindred Segregation treats it as an ally. But, yes, Trechery could not be played because it doesn't see Bima as a vampire. > When Superior Madrigal is played and Herald of Topeth plays a card > giving him votes Herald will not lose/gain blood (paid or given as > life instead according to Herald's cardtext)? Correct. > Bima is not allowed to play Healing Touch on itself? Correct. > If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring > the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be > allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still > not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? I believe it could; Sonja Blue's effect is not a play-card-as-an- ally effect; it's a block-as-an-ally effect. > This one would be wonderful to explain to new players... You won't have to. > And just for the fun of it: If an ally would ever be allowed to > play cards requiring Obeah at superior as a vampire then Unburdening > the Bestial Soul might just be one of the most powerful cards in > the game :) And why would that be? UtBS, played by an ally playing it as a vampire, would only be able to play it on allies or vampires younger than whatever capacity vampire the ally is playing superior Obeah cards as. (If no capacity is given, then the ally plays UtBS as a one-capacity vampire - and thus could not play it on a vampire.) Then, during the the minion's untap phase, since an ally can pay no blood, UtBS automatically goes away. Doesn't sound particularly powerful to me. Fred

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:4458f6ca$0$29360$8826...@free.teranews.com... > Joshua Duffin skrev: > >> Allowing lingering effects to apply during "play as X" situations doesn't >> change the basic premise that only the cards played "as X" ever see the >> playing minion "as X". Nothing else in the game thinks the Shadow Court >> Satyr is really a vampire; only the Toreador's Bane thinks the Shadow >> Court Satyr is a vampire. > > Let me see if I understand correctly. > > If Sonja Blue blocks a vampire as an ally she won't benefit from The > Unmasking? She'll also be disallowed to play any intercept-modifiers > only playable by allies (don't know if any such cards exist)? I believe Witness1 was correct on all points (thus, omitted below). He's also right that Sonja Blue is the weirdest case in existence and doesn't match up to all the other "play Y as if X" minions, since her ability is unique to herself. It's not well-defined what it means to block "as an ally". I think that Sonja Blue *would* benefit from The Unmasking while blocking as an ally, my interpretation being that all effects she uses that relate to blocking would see her as an ally in this case. She should also be able to use intercept-modifiers only playable by allies, if there are any. > If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring > the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be > allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still > not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? This one would > be wonderful to explain to new players... I think the acting minion *could* sneak by with Command; that would make Sonja's entire block fail, since she declared it as an ally, in this case. I don't think this relates specifically to the possible change in handling "lingering" effects for allies, though. Josh

Joshua Duffin skrev: > >> If Sonja Blue attempts to block an action declared as a Daring >> the Dawn she'll have to do it as an ally and would thus be >> allowed to block anyway. The acting minion, however, is still >> not allowed to sneak past by means of Command? This one would >> be wonderful to explain to new players... > > I think the acting minion *could* sneak by with Command; that would make > Sonja's entire block fail, since she declared it as an ally, in this case. > > I don't think this relates specifically to the possible change in handling > "lingering" effects for allies, though. > Well, "lingering" effects for something you/the minion/whatever is actually not, ie ally posing as a vampire, the opposite, equipment posing as locations. I don't think allowing effects to "linger" should cause any major problems, but "don't think" is the keyword, and thus this thread to begin with. "Lingering" MIGHT cause a "switch on, switch off, switch back on" type of problem though, even though I'm not entirely clear on how, and that's the main reason for my examples. The Sonja Blue example above is, I think, the closest I've come to exemplify this potential problem. Basically: Now she's a vampire, now she's not and now she's one again. If she blocks as an ally she shouldn't be allowed to play reaction-cards requiring a vampire, for example, ie any card needing a discipline -- or should she? Let's blur it even more. Let her have auspex. Let the acting minion play both stealth as well as Daring the Dawn. Should Sonja ever be allowed to play intercept even if she was allowed to switch her vampiric status on and off? Without "lingering" the scenario becomes easier for me, even though I may have gotten it wrong anyway. The moment she turns on her "ally status" she's an ally (until combat anyway). No lingering vampiric effects. As long as she blocks as an ally she stays an ally and all benefits she's aquired as a vampire are lost. With "lingering", well :) Compare The Grandest Trick, where a lot of cardtext has gone into handling "lingering" effects, or at least effects with a duration. This might be where semantics conflict. "Lingering" not being the same as "with a duration". For me they are kind of intermixable. BTW, forget about UtBS. No vamp, no card -- should have seen that before I even wrote the example :) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Does anyone see any problem, balance-wise or complexity-wise, of that > proposed change? I think that I've read enough threads and looked at enough cards in the past couple of days to say that I don't see any problems with the change. I don't know if you are looking for in favor votes or just looking for the absence of any problems. I vote, Go For It, Make the Change. Later, ~Rehlow

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:445922eb$0$29295$8826...@free.teranews.com... > Let's blur it even more. Let her have auspex. Let the acting minion > play both stealth as well as Daring the Dawn. Should Sonja ever > be allowed to play intercept even if she was allowed to switch her > vampiric status on and off? > Without "lingering" the scenario becomes easier for me, even though > I may have gotten it wrong anyway. The moment she turns on her "ally > status" she's an ally (until combat anyway). No lingering vampiric > effects. As long as she blocks as an ally she stays an ally and all > benefits she's aquired as a vampire are lost. With "lingering", > well :) > > Compare The Grandest Trick, where a lot of cardtext has gone into > handling "lingering" effects, or at least effects with a duration. > This might be where semantics conflict. "Lingering" not being the > same as "with a duration". For me they are kind of intermixable. I believe that, for LSJ, "lingering" is being used only to refer to effects that are played and resolve at one time (ie not actions or strikes, whose delayed resolution is already mentioned in the "allies playing X as vampires" rule), but have an ongoing effect for some "lingering" period. Like Torn Signpost or Claws of the Dead. It's not referring to any kind of lingering around of the ally's "I'm playing cards as a vampire" status. The ally never actually gains any vampiric status at all, for any effects whatsoever, except for the particular card that it has played "as a vampire". For this reason, I wouldn't use the word "lingering" to describe anything about Sonja Blue's ability. "Lingering" is a word that may apply to effects of cards played "as if X", not a word describing the minion's own status. In my opinion. :-) For Sonja Blue specifically, it sounds like LSJ's conception of her is that all her ability means is that she can declare a block "as an ally" even if vampires are prohibited from blocking. To him, it goes no further than that: she doesn't benefit from Unmasking, she can't play ally-requiring cards, etc. All she can do is block even if (all other) vampires can't block. Again, as far as I know. :-) Josh cause a p-funk party don't stop

Joshua Duffin skrev: > It's not referring to any kind of lingering around of the ally's "I'm > playing cards as a vampire" status. The ally never actually gains any > vampiric status at all, for any effects whatsoever, except for the > particular card that it has played "as a vampire". Ok, I think I get it. Just checking one of the few combinations that actually see play now and then: Herald of Topeth can play Charming Lobby at inferior as a vampire with a capacity of five. a) Referendum is Banishment. Did Herald of Topeth's ally-status for playing Charming Lobby carry over to Banishment? Ie, does this second card see Herald of Topeth as a vampire with a capacity of five? b) Referendum passes. Bima plays Charming Lobby. Do we have a lingering ally-as-vampire-situation where Bima's referendum automatically passes? ("Lingering" from Bima's Charming Lobby, not from Herald's, which merely sets the opportunity up for passing a second referendum) Now, I'm not ENTIRELY sure "lingering" in itself changes the answer to the questions above, but it would be neat to get answers from both a "lingering" as well as a "non-lingering" aspect. Provided I've got this right "lingering" would clean up the above situation (Herald may indeed get rid of that pesky cap 4 vamp and Bima's next vote automatically passes). It DOES contradict the "ally as vampire for this card only" though. Still, no matter if I'm right or not, I'd prefer lingering effects to stay, minor book-keeping, reversals of current card-play and potential "peculiar" situations, as those seem less peculiar than "non-lingering" ones. The Sonja Blue specific questions seems to have received a thread of its own by now, so I won't expand on it further here :) Sten During [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Joshua Duffin skrev: > > > It's not referring to any kind of lingering around of the ally's "I'm > > playing cards as a vampire" status. The ally never actually gains any > > vampiric status at all, for any effects whatsoever, except for the > > particular card that it has played "as a vampire". > > Ok, I think I get it. Just checking one of the few combinations that > actually see play now and then: > > Herald of Topeth can play Charming Lobby at inferior as a vampire with > a capacity of five. > > a) Referendum is Banishment. Did Herald of Topeth's ally-status for > playing Charming Lobby carry over to Banishment? Ie, does this > second card see Herald of Topeth as a vampire with a capacity of > five? Yes, because the Banishment referendum is part of the resolution of Charming Lobby. This is currently true and will remain true under the proposed change. > b) Referendum passes. Bima plays Charming Lobby. Do we have a lingering > ally-as-vampire-situation where Bima's referendum automatically > passes? ("Lingering" from Bima's Charming Lobby, not from Herald's, > which merely sets the opportunity up for passing a second > referendum) No. Herald of Topheth's Charming Lobby will not see Bima as a vampire. This is currently true and will remain true under the proposed change. HOWEVER, the lingering part of Charming Lobby, "the next referendum called by any vampire thereafter passes automatically", does not currently see Herald of Topheth as a vampire. The ruling change would allow the copy of Charming Lobby *that he played* to see him as a vampire if it were still lingering the next time he called a referendum (via another CL). It would still not see Bima as a vampire (though the Bima's own copy would, if the referendum passed). > Now, I'm not ENTIRELY sure "lingering" in itself changes the answer to > the questions above, but it would be neat to get answers from both a > "lingering" as well as a "non-lingering" aspect. The answers to your actual questions do not change under the proposed change here. > Provided I've got this right "lingering" would clean up the above > situation (Herald may indeed get rid of that pesky cap 4 vamp and Bima's > next vote automatically passes). It DOES contradict the "ally as vampire > for this card only" though. Not at issue here. > Still, no matter if I'm right or not, I'd prefer lingering effects to > stay, minor book-keeping, reversals of current card-play and potential > "peculiar" situations, as those seem less peculiar than "non-lingering" > ones. With a few exceptions (like Charming Lobby), the bookkeeping isn't any harder than it would be for any vampire playing the cards. Keeping track of the Torn Signpost strength change for the duration of combat, or the aggravated damage from Wolf Claws for the round of combat is no more difficult for allies than it is for vampires. > The Sonja Blue specific questions seems to have received a thread of its > own by now, so I won't expand on it further here :) Yeah, she's different. Witness1 -ItE

On 2 May 2006 08:20:06 -0700, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > To be sure that everyone sees the call, and to avoid having useful > input lost among the non-constructive posts, I'll start a new thread > here. > > Currently, the rulebook says that allies who can play certain cards as > a vampire are treated a a vampire only for the play of that card and > specifically not for any effects of the card once it is in play nor for > any lingering effects of the card. [1.6.3] > > That last bit, "nor for any lingering effects of the card", means that, > for example, a Torn Signpost will give no benefit to an ally who plays > it as a vampire. > > The option being considered is to remove that last bit (so that a Torn > Signpost will function for an ally who can play it as a vampire, for > example), while leaving the "not for any effects the card produces for > being in play" bit. > > The purpose of the change being to reduce the complexity of the rule > (making it simpler and easier to understand and apply without > increasing the complexity in other areas, like bookkeeping). > > Does anyone see any problem, balance-wise or complexity-wise, of that > proposed change? I think it is a fair call. Indeed simplifies without unblancing anything. The only thing to watch is to make sure any card that generates a lingering effect is put in play. Also, I see the slight discrepancy with combat cards that are put into play. Otherwise, it's still a good call. -- Bye, Daneel