Priscus Title

I have searched for the rulebook and the all rules off the website does not directly say that the Pricus title makes a vampire a titled vampire. I always thought that the Pricus was a title... worth zero votes... Am I correct? Andrew

dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: > I have searched for the rulebook and the all rules off the website does > not directly say that the Pricus title makes a vampire a titled > vampire. It's in Section "10.2. Sabbat" of the rulebook. Also see the card text of "Investiture". > I always thought that the Pricus was a title... worth zero votes... It is a title worth 1 vote in the prisci subreferendum. Regards, Hardy Range Prince of Bochum, Germany http://www.vekn.de

HardyRange wrote: > dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > I have searched for the rulebook and the all rules off the website > does > > not directly say that the Pricus title makes a vampire a titled > > vampire. > > It's in Section "10.2. Sabbat" of the rulebook. Actually, that section doesn't *explicitly* state that Priscus is a title, it just states that only Sabbat vampires can be(come) Prisci. Of course it is implied, since the Section talks about the sects and their titles, but nowhere does it say: "Priscus is a Sabbat Title". > Also see the card text of "Investiture". > That's the one he's been looking for, i think... ;)

Thats strange! That is the ONLY place I could find that refered the Pricus as a title. Maybe they need to clarify in thr rule book. Andrew

dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: > That is the ONLY place I could find that refered the Pricus as a title. > > Maybe they need to clarify in thr rule book. Yeah -- 'cause it seems to have been a source of confusion for all this time. Or not. Perhaps it is clear in section 10 that it is a title. "... bishops, archbishops, prisci, cardinals... archbishop is a city based title ... the other titles are not unique and cannot be contested." -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > That is the ONLY place I could find that refered the Pricus as a title. > > > > Maybe they need to clarify in thr rule book. > > Yeah -- 'cause it seems to have been a source of confusion for all this time. > Or not. > > Perhaps it is clear in section 10 that it is a title. > > "... bishops, archbishops, prisci, cardinals... archbishop is a city based > title ... the other titles are not unique and cannot be contested." >From Rulebook, 10.2 The other major sect is the Sabbat, which is composed of 15 clans: Lasombra, Tzimisce, Pander and the seven antitribu clans (corrupted versions of the Camarilla clans) as well as five of the clans found in Bloodlines: Ahrimanes, Blood Brothers, Harbingers of Skulls, Kiasyd and Salubri antitribu. These vampires are marked "Sabbat" on their cards. Only Sabbat vampires can become bishops, archbishops, prisci or cardinals. Like Camarilla princes, the title of archbishop is associated with a particular city and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of prince or archbishop of the same city. *The other Sabbat titles are not unique and cannot be contested. * Well, as i said: it's implied, but not stated explicitly...apparently, it's not clear enough. ;) It doesn't say: Only Sabbat vampires can hold the titles of bishops, archbishops, prisci or cardinals... [ quoted text not captured ]

Arden McBathan wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: >>>Maybe they need to clarify in thr rule book. >> >>Yeah -- 'cause it seems to have been a source of confusion for all this time. >>Or not. >> >>Perhaps it is clear in section 10 that it is a title. >> >>"... bishops, archbishops, prisci, cardinals... archbishop is a city based >>title ... the other titles are not unique and cannot be contested." > >>From Rulebook, 10.2 [snip longer version of above] > Well, as i said: it's implied, but not stated explicitly...apparently, > it's not clear enough. ;) for whom? Everyone on this thread apparently understands that Priscus is a title. The verbiage will be changed to sell it to the cheap seats in the next edition of the rulebook, but I don't think it will change how anyone actually plays. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Only Sabbat vampires can become bishops, archbishops, prisci or > cardinals. Like Camarilla princes, the title of archbishop is > associated with a particular city and can be contested by another > vampire who claims the title of prince or archbishop of the same city. > *The other Sabbat titles are not unique and cannot be contested. * > > Well, as i said: it's implied, but not stated explicitly...apparently, > it's not clear enough. ;) > > It doesn't say: Only Sabbat vampires can hold the titles of bishops, > archbishops, prisci or cardinals... These shapes require four lines to draw: a square, trapezoid, rectangle and a parallelogram. The trapezoid is unique in that it does not have four right angles. The other quadrilaterals all have four right angles. I wonder if a rectangle is a quadrilateral?

LSJ wrote: >> Well, as i said: it's implied, but not stated explicitly...apparently, >> it's not clear enough. ;) >for whom? >Everyone on this thread apparently understands that Priscus is a title. The initial poster apparently was confused. Robert Scythe wrote: >These shapes require four lines to draw: a square, trapezoid, rectangle >and a parallelogram. The trapezoid is unique in that it does not have >four right angles. The other quadrilaterals all have four right angles. >I wonder if a rectangle is a quadrilateral? I wonder if a rectangle is a parallelogram? It sure is, but it's not clear from (explicitly stated in) your definition. ;-D Hey, it's clear that a priscus is a sabbat title, it's just funny that the only *explicit* (sorry to beat a dying horse) reference is on a card, that's all.

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:wTaje.4716$uR4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > Everyone on this thread apparently understands that Priscus is a title. > > The verbiage will be changed to sell it to the cheap seats in the next > edition of the rulebook, but I don't think it will change how anyone > actually plays. It probably wouldn't hurt to have an explicit list of what is a title, if there's no explicit, objective rule from which one can make the determination spelled out anywhere. I remember when I first started trying to play the game. I read the rules over and over and looked at card text and recall having a terrible problem figuring out which action modifiers could be played before combat and which ones were after combat (or either option, in many cases). (I wasn't even aware enough to realize there WAS such a distintion about things getting played before and after an opponent yields the opportunity to block.) Now, of course, all these issues are crystal clear to me. In fact, I think I recall checking at some point and determining that the answer to that question could ultimately be resolved somewhere in either the rules (even the ones printed at the time) and/or card text for all cards. But it didn't prevent me from getting frustrated and shelving my cards for a couple years. Sometimes being pedantic about stating rules and listing things may not be strictly necessary but can be a good thing, none the less. Fred

Dont get me wrong LSJ... I love ya work.. but this is an issue. I wished to discuss it as some one posted a concern as a player made Gratiano a Cardinal and kept the Pricus title... the reason being that it DOES NOT state that Pricus is a title... only place as I have learnt is the card Investiture. This is what the original concern was from a player in Sweden: Thanx, Andrew. Got my answers as usual. The reason this came up at all was because someone made Gratiano a Cardinal and claimed that he actually kept his Priscus status. But I guess he's the exception. I don't think being Priscus is actually considered a title with votes in the usual sense. Either that or his extra vote in the Pris-ref makes the difference. So to contrict you, it will change the way someone plays. :) Andrew

On 19 May 2005 21:16:29 -0700, dal...@iinet.net.au scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] if you make Grats a cardinal, he loses his priscus title. he does, however, also keep his additional vote in the priscus sub-ref. thus, if no other priscus are on the table, he commands 6 votes. does the little index card that comes in starters have titles on it? there are about 1000 of them in my house, but they're all downstairs and i am lazy. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Arden McBathan wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Everyone on this thread apparently understands that Priscus is a > > title. > > The initial poster apparently was confused. He understands that it is a title. At least, according to the content of his initial post -- unless you don't count the way he said it as explicit enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Everyone on this thread apparently understands that Priscus is a title. >> >>The verbiage will be changed to sell it to the cheap seats in the next >>edition of the rulebook, but I don't think it will change how anyone >>actually plays. > > It probably wouldn't hurt to have an explicit list of what is a title, > if there's no explicit, objective rule from which one can make the > determination spelled out anywhere. ? Right. See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: > So to contrict you, it will change the way someone plays. :) And some people play that stolen blood in excess of blood supply sends one to torpor. The point is that the rules already indicate that Priscus is a title. [ quoted text not captured ]

Indeed... seems like we are going around in circles. :) Thanks for the clarification! Andrew

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:qKije.7601$w21....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message >>>Everyone on this thread apparently understands that Priscus is a title. >>> >>>The verbiage will be changed to sell it to the cheap seats in the next >>>edition of the rulebook, but I don't think it will change how anyone >>>actually plays. >> >> It probably wouldn't hurt to have an explicit list of what is a title, >> if there's no explicit, objective rule from which one can make the >> determination spelled out anywhere. > > ? > Right. See above. The way you phrased the above, you sounded as if you doubted the change would accomplish much. I was just expressing my opinion that such things do make a difference at times, reducing frustration amongst those of us who comprise the thicker headed set. Fred

LSJ wrote: > dal...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > So to contrict you, it will change the way someone plays. :) > > And some people play that stolen blood in excess of blood supply > sends one to torpor. > > The point is that the rules already indicate that Priscus is a title. But unfortunately, elegant and concise (or confusing and incomplete depending on your POV) rules aren't easily understood by everyone. Some people need to be beaten over the head with lots of very explicit statements or they'll be unsure. Jeff

Arden McBathan wrote: > >These shapes require four lines to draw: a square, trapezoid, > rectangle > >and a parallelogram. The trapezoid is unique in that it does not have > >four right angles. The other quadrilaterals all have four right > angles. > > >I wonder if a rectangle is a quadrilateral? > > I wonder if a rectangle is a parallelogram? It sure is, but it's not > clear from (explicitly stated in) your definition. Didn't have to be, that wasn't the question.

[ quoted text not captured ] I suspect you're just using this geometry example to illustrate potential confusion when someone read VTES rules, but I have to clarify it. Quadrilateral: Planar object with 4 sides connecting 4 points. Trapezoid: Quadrilateral with exactly 1 pair of parallel sides. Parallelogram: Quadrilateral with two pairs of parallel sides. Rectangle: Parallelogram with sides adjoining at right angles. Square: Rectangle with equal length sides. I feel better now. :) Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] And: Rhombus: Quadrilateral with 4 sides of identical length. (Alternately: A parallelogram with all sides the same length. Even more alternately: "A diamond.") > I feel better now. :) Then let's not ruin your good mood by mentioning that tetrahedrons _also_ fit Robert's definition of requiring four lines to draw, yet aren't any of the shapes listed above (being non-planar)... :P But that was saved for the 3-D expansion set. > Jeff -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote > > Quadrilateral: Planar object with 4 sides connecting 4 points. > > Trapezoid: Quadrilateral with exactly 1 pair of parallel sides. > > Parallelogram: Quadrilateral with two pairs of parallel sides. > > Rectangle: Parallelogram with sides adjoining at right angles. > > Square: Rectangle with equal length sides. > > And: Rhombus: Quadrilateral with 4 sides of identical length. > (Alternately: A parallelogram with all sides the same length. Even more > alternately: "A diamond.") So are quadrilaterals squares then? It does matter how you write it. some perople will still ask.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, because some people are Dumb. I often encounter this class of people in my work, sadly. :P -John Flournoy

> Then let's not ruin your good mood by mentioning that tetrahedrons > _also_ fit Robert's definition of requiring four lines to draw, yet > aren't any of the shapes listed above (being non-planar)... :P > > But that was saved for the 3-D expansion set. Dude!!! Math! Rock hardcore. I's luv numburs. Ankur

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1116626070....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually no. But people are still dumb.

Robert Scythe wrote: > Arden McBathan wrote: > > > >These shapes require four lines to draw: a square, trapezoid, > > rectangle > > >and a parallelogram. The trapezoid is unique in that it does not > have > > >four right angles. The other quadrilaterals all have four right > > angles. > > > > >I wonder if a rectangle is a quadrilateral? FYI, a parallelogram does not necessarily have right angles.

On 22 May 2005 20:00:28 -0700, "Preston" <preston...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i think that may just have been his point, as he was trying to emphasise how sometimes people can misinterpret stuff through not having things fully elaborated. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > On 22 May 2005 20:00:28 -0700, "Preston" <preston...@hotmail.com> > scrawled: > > >>Robert Scythe wrote: >> >>>Arden McBathan wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>These shapes require four lines to draw: a square, trapezoid, >>>> >>>>rectangle >>>> >>>>>and a parallelogram. The trapezoid is unique in that it does not >>> >>>have >>> >>>>>four right angles. The other quadrilaterals all have four right >>>> >>>>angles. >>>> >>>> >>>>>I wonder if a rectangle is a quadrilateral? >> >> >>FYI, a parallelogram does not necessarily have right angles. > > > i think that may just have been his point, as he was trying to > emphasise how sometimes people can misinterpret stuff through not > having things fully elaborated. No. Or, rather, if it was, then it wasn't a good parallel, since the phrasing is in error (not even just ambiguous), as above. [ quoted text not captured ]

I must confess this thread is gone around in circles... and perhaps proving my point. :) I can now say I found it in the rules! :) Pricus is a title. Section 10.2 second paragraph. It is implied in the closing sentence that the other positions mentioned earlier are titles. I dont know if others suggested this before, but I have found this thread to be... confusing and... unconstructive. Much thanks to those how tried to help! Can we lay off the maths! For goodness sake, it is VTES! :) Andrew

LSJ wrote: > > i think that may just have been his point, as he was trying to > > emphasise how sometimes people can misinterpret stuff through not > > having things fully elaborated. > > No. Or, rather, if it was, then it wasn't a good parallel, > since the phrasing is in error (not even just ambiguous), as above. When I sent it I realized that the phrasing did not allow for the fact that the parallelagram does not need four right angles. It should have stated something to the effect that the trapezoid cannot have four right angles whereas the others could (or just take the parallelagram out). Yet the main parallel works in the fact that the grammar is the same as the rulebook phrasing for the 'title/quadrilateral' (non)ambiguity. I should not have rushed it, but the point of fact is that there is nothing wrong with the way the rulebook is written.

On 23 May 2005 03:35:26 -0700, dal...@iinet.net.au scrawled: >I must confess this thread is gone around in circles... and perhaps >proving my point. :) well, a circle definately isn't a quadrilateral. i think. right? guys? lsj? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > On 23 May 2005 03:35:26 -0700, dal...@iinet.net.au scrawled: > > >I must confess this thread is gone around in circles... and perhaps > >proving my point. :) > > well, a circle definately isn't a quadrilateral. i think. right? guys? > lsj? :) A circle has two sides.... An inside and an outside! I crack myself up. I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip your waitress. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

<X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:1116933124.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > salem wrote: > > On 23 May 2005 03:35:26 -0700, dal...@iinet.net.au scrawled: > > > > >I must confess this thread is gone around in circles... and perhaps > > >proving my point. :) > > > > well, a circle definately isn't a quadrilateral. i think. right? > guys? > > lsj? :) > > A circle has two sides.... > > An inside and an outside! And a top and a bottom (which are parallel!)