L. Scott Johnson#
Jon,
Here are a few things I noticed in a fifteen-minute read of the rule sheet
that comes in the Sabbat boosters:
Running Out of Cards and Withdrawing:
"Cards already in play in another player's active or torpor region (such
as ...) remain in play until the end of the game."
Should be:
"Cards you own that are in play in another Methuselah's controlled region
(such as ...) are not burned when you withdraw."
(Also, does the exception to the Golden Rule of Card Ownership apply to
any form of exit (e.g., ousting), or just to this forced withdrawal?)
Vampire Politics:
"If a vampire calls a political action with a card, you automatically
receive one vote from the card itself."
Should be:
"If a vampire you control calls..."
The Prisci Vote:
"If the sub-vote is a tie, the Prisci abstain from the main vote"
Does this mean that if they (as a group) abstain, that they have all
effectively abstained? For example, if Scorn of Adonis or Bribes is
in effect, will a Methuselah lose or gain a pool for having her
Priscus vote even if the Prisci end up abstaining from the main vote?
"You can use action modifier or reaction cards to cast more votes."
Again, the printed rulebook fails to make it clear that action modifiers
and reaction cards are not replaced until the vote is completed. How
many more rulebooks are going to omit this essential note?
"You can play action modifiers only if one of your vampires is the
acting minion, and you can play reaction cards only if another player's
vampire is the acting minion."
Should be:
"Only the acting minion can play action modifiers, and then only if the
action is taken on your own turn. Your minions can play reaction cards
only if another Methuselah's vampire is the action minion, and then only
if it is not your turn."
(Unless you wish to allow all of my presence-bearing vampires to play
Bewitching Orations on a vote one of my vampires calls, *and* you want
to do away with that "no action modifiers or action cards on actions
you take on someone else's turn and no reaction cards on actions someone
else takes on your turn" contrivance.)
Camarilla Membership Has Its Privileges
"Only Camarilla vampires can call Praxis Seizures, Justicar Retribution,
Command of the Harpies, or Masquerade Enforcement - the effect can target
any vampire"
Remove the targeting clause - it only serves to confuse the reader:
Praxis Seizures can only "target" the acting vampire.
Justicar Retribution can and must target all vampires with >3 bleed.
Command of the Harpies can only target Camarilla Princes.
Masquerade Enforcement only targets Methuselahs, not vampires.
"Only Camarilla vampires can become Primogen using the Of Noble Blood
card from the Dark Sovereigns expansion, ..."
Why cite the expansion here when you didn't for Command of the Harpies?
"... though any vampire may call the action"
Card text on Of Noble Blood states that only Primogen can take the action.
"Independent and Sabbat vampires can only use these abilities if they
have a Writ of Acceptance from the Ancient Hearts expansion"
Giovanni can use these abilities if a Giovanni Acceptance had been
successful. Likewise Ravnos with Ravnos Acceptance. Similarly Followers
of Set with Invitation Accepted and Assamites with Revocation of Tyre.
The rulebook should not mention specific cards unless it mentions them
all. And it shouldn't mention them all when simply identifying the
effect is sufficient. e.g.:
"Independent and Sabbat vampires can only use these abilities if an
effect gives them Camarilla status"
Contesting Cities:
"A Prince and Archbishop who rule the same city may enter combat with
each other if either assaults the other as a +1 stealth (D) action during
his or her controller's minion phase."
(Does this mean that the Prince of Miami used in your example cannot attack
the Archbishop of Miami via an action taken with the Madness Network?)
(Does it allow a Prince to attack an Archbishop if the Archbishop is in
torpor?)
(And actually, anybody can enter combat with anybody if they assault them.
This wording is similar to the problem so many people had with finding
a way to burn the Army of Rats)
This would be better worded as:
"If both the Prince and Archbishop of the same city are ready, then both
have the ability to enter combat with the other as a +1 stealth (D) action."
or
"..., then either may enter combat with the other..."
-----
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | I don't suffer from insanity.
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | I enjoy every minute of it.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]