SAB: Summary of Official Errata, Clarifications, Rulings, and Statements

Sabbat ------ Includes Rulings, Errata, Clarifications and Statements from: Rules Team Rulings Through: 11/13/96 and Answers from Jon Wilkie Through: 11/30/96 -------------------------------------------------- Prisci members (Priscus) Cannot vote in the main vote - only in the Prisci vote. [JON 961113] Wild Hunts Can only be called by Meths who control Sabbat vampire(s). [JON 961118] ============================================================================ CARD-SPECIFIC RULINGS War Ghoul - Ally (Tzi) (3): If you have no other allies and no retainers in play when War Ghoul is recruited, then you burn War Ghoul to satisfy card text. [RTR 961113] ============================================================================ Rules indented with "# " are commented out - they have been overturned and are no longer part of the official Errata/Clarification/etc. [JON] Jon Wilkie (Scalpel) - WotC Net Representative [RTR] Ruling, Errata, Clarification, or Statement from Official WotC Rules Team Ruling (aka Design Team Ruling, aka Rules Group Answers). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker

In article <57usj6$5...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, "L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> writes >Wild Hunts > Can only be called by Meths who control Sabbat vampire(s). [JON 961118] Doesn't everything skank up here just a little bit. Surely, the Camarilla vampires are going to call a Blood Hunt anyway. It doesn't realy matter to them that the acting vmapire is a Pander or a Lasombra (or whatever). If only the sect that controls the vampire can call a blood hunt then what would happen if WotC ever released an Anarch expansion - woohoo, free diablerie, no form of Hunt (whatever it might be called) because the Anarchs have no structure. Also, why, if this ruling stays in place, does it not work the other way. Why would Sabbat vampires be able to call Blood Hunts on Camarilla vampires if they can't do it the other way. Just thinking about it logically, the Sabbat might not do so on the grounds that they are about a third of the size of the Camarilla and wouldn't want to risk all out war with them (just a minor point). And further, what happens to the Non-Camarilla but non-sabbat vampires eg Giovanni, Ravnos etc. Do they have any say in Bloodhunts, do they have the ability to call them, the ability to call Wild Hunts, the ability to vote in either of the two, can either (or neither) be called on them? I mean, if you want to start talking about broken rules, this one is pretty broken. If I know that other people are going to be playing Camarilla decks and I have a Sabbat vampire in my deck (got out through Recruitment, for example, just to make sure) I can go around committing diablerie like there's no tomorrow. and your telling me that the Camarilla can't do shit about it? Like, they don't have archons or anything? They just ignore the Sabbat do they? Then why aren't the Sabbat about TEN MILLION times more powerful and numerous than the Camarilla. I'll tell you why, it's because the Camarilla do actually do stuff about them, not just sit around not calling Blood Hunts on them. James Coupe.

>Justin wrote: > In article <57usj6$5...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, "L. Scott Johnson" > <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> writes > >Wild Hunts > > Can only be called by Meths who control Sabbat vampire(s). [JON 961118] > I mean, if you want to start talking about broken rules, this one is > pretty broken. If I know that other people are going to be playing > Camarilla decks and I have a Sabbat vampire in my deck (got out through > Recruitment, for example, just to make sure) I can go around committing > diablerie like there's no tomorrow. and your telling me that the > Camarilla can't do shit about it? Like, they don't have archons or > anything? They just ignore the Sabbat do they? Then why aren't the > Sabbat about TEN MILLION times more powerful and numerous than the > Camarilla. I'll tell you why, it's because the Camarilla do actually do > stuff about them, not just sit around not calling Blood Hunts on them. > James Coupe. Calm down. The Bloodhunt/Wildhunt thing is stupid. It is exactly the same thing. It doesn't matter who calls it- Methuselahs call it. If you have a Sabbat vampire, you can call your Bloodhunt by a spiffy new name. If you don't have a Sabbat vampire, then you have to call it by the old name. It does the exact same thing. Independents have to call it Bloodhunts, too. (It's shorter than having to say "Well, Scapelli and the boys are gonna tell that young Brujah that he shouldn't have drunk our boy Cristofero last night, and give him a family welcome.") Regardless of sect, the same effect occurs. -Nathan Harada ___________________________________________________________ I am going to burn down the world I am going to tear down everything that cannot stand alone I am going to turn ideals to shit I am going to shove hope up your ass I am going to reduce everything that stands to rubble And then I am going to burn the rubble And then I am going to scatter the ashes And then maybe SOMEONE will be able to see SOMETHING as it really is WATCH OUT -- Mel Lyman __________________________________________________________________

Okay...I realize that this may have already been answered, but I didn't see it, I want to thrown in my two cents, and then I pray that L. Scott will see fit to correct whoever is in error. Justin <Jus...@bgrace.demon.co.uk> writes: >In article <57usj6$5...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, "L. Scott Johnson" ><sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> writes >>Wild Hunts >> Can only be called by Meths who control Sabbat vampire(s). [JON 961118] >Doesn't everything skank up here just a little bit. >Surely, the Camarilla vampires are going to call a Blood Hunt anyway. >It doesn't realy matter to them that the acting vmapire is a Pander or a >Lasombra (or whatever). >If only the sect that controls the vampire can call a blood hunt then >what would happen if WotC ever released an Anarch expansion - woohoo, >free diablerie, no form of Hunt (whatever it might be called) because >the Anarchs have no structure. It is a bit much to expect that V:TES will reflect the spirit of the RPG, but I feel that if sects are only able to call bloodhunts etc. on their own, this is more accurate than anything else. Consider...while the Sabbat is not strictly more powerful, they are more militaristic and (I believe) have approximately equal numbers, at least in North America due to their unrestricted creation policies. The Cam or the Sabbat (or Anarchs for that matter) are simply not going to be able to hunt down who has no ties in their area of influence. A Sabbat War Party (not the card...) has no reason to stick around in town after they've completed a mission of diablerie, and thus would be unaffected by any Blood Hunt that would be called. She could retreat to a place of safety and not be bothered by the decrees of some far-off power. Same works the other way around. >Also, why, if this ruling stays in place, does it not work the other >way. Why would Sabbat vampires be able to call Blood Hunts on Camarilla >vampires if they can't do it the other way. Just thinking about it >logically, the Sabbat might not do so on the grounds that they are about >a third of the size of the Camarilla and wouldn't want to risk all out >war with them (just a minor point). >And further, what happens to the Non-Camarilla but non-sabbat vampires >eg Giovanni, Ravnos etc. Do they have any say in Bloodhunts, do they >have the ability to call them, the ability to call Wild Hunts, the >ability to vote in either of the two, can either (or neither) be called >on them? No answer here...that one has confused me a little too. >I mean, if you want to start talking about broken rules, this one is >pretty broken. If I know that other people are going to be playing >Camarilla decks and I have a Sabbat vampire in my deck (got out through >Recruitment, for example, just to make sure) I can go around committing >diablerie like there's no tomorrow. and your telling me that the >Camarilla can't do shit about it? Like, they don't have archons or >anything? They just ignore the Sabbat do they? Then why aren't the >Sabbat about TEN MILLION times more powerful and numerous than the >Camarilla. I'll tell you why, it's because the Camarilla do actually do >stuff about them, not just sit around not calling Blood Hunts on them. >James Coupe. Okay...I think that White Wolf (once again, I know I'm bringing in RPG stuff, but it can't be helped in context...) has said that while the Sabbat is less powerful, they possess about 1/3 the territory that the Camarilla does, but they have a larger proportion of vampires relative to their holdings. (Although I could be mistaken...) Anyway, they are pretty firmly dug in, and whatever any Storyteller may do, strike/assassination missions into Sabbat territory are probably not generally successful (or popular for that matter). Besides this, there are Archons in V:TES, who can, I believe, "attack any vampire as a D action". So go pound on a few Sabbat if you want to, with your couple of Archon vote cards. I don't think that the Sabbat can vote those down, but I haven't read the erratta on them recently... Finished. Xian

Just my two cents: A Bloodhunt is a Wildhunt is a Bloodhunt. For the purposes of VTES, everybody calls a Bloodhunt as described in the VTES rulebook. The name Wildhunt is just a thematic change; for all intents and purposes, treat it as a Bloodhunt. This certainly simplifies things, and if you look at the Sabbat cards, several mention Bloodhunts, but none mention Wildhunt. I'm guessing that little blurb in the rule sheet was thrown in by the continuity director. -- ________________ Gravity is ______ ___@^^^^\ / \ a harsh mistress. / \ @ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ > (^^^^^\ _______ ___/ \---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz / \_____________/ \__________________________________/

>It is a bit much to expect that V:TES will reflect the spirit of the >RPG, but I feel that if sects are only able to call bloodhunts etc. on >their own, this is more accurate than anything else. Consider...while >the Sabbat is not strictly more powerful, they are more militaristic and >(I believe) have approximately equal numbers, at least in North America >due to their unrestricted creation policies. The Cam or the Sabbat (or >Anarchs for that matter) are simply not going to be able to hunt down who >has no ties in their area of influence. A Sabbat War Party (not the >card...) has no reason to stick around in town after they've completed a >mission of diablerie, and thus would be unaffected by any Blood Hunt that >would be called. She could retreat to a place of safety and not be >bothered by the decrees of some far-off power. Same works the other way >around. I got this from Wizards last Friday. It's the new official Blood/Wild Hunt ruling (for now). I like the ruling (I have a bunch of Absolution of the Diabolist cards), but I'm not so sure about the amount of thought WotC put into the original Wild Hunt concept. Subj: Re:V:TES Blood/Wild Hunt Date: 97-01-10 12:50:53 EST From: WotC I just spoke with our rep to the V:TES team, and he told me that when the team decided that "Wild Hunt" would sound really cool for The Sabbat, they didn't realize that it wouldn't really work with existing "Blood Hunt" cards. So ignore my previous ruling: Any card that refers to a Blood Hunt in its text can have the words "Wild Hunt" substituted for "Blood Hunt." JD Wiker Customer Service Wizards of the Coast

jimp...@newreach.net (Jim Petty) writes: Thanks for checking, Jim. Given WotC's record in e-mail support, this is very refreshing (a sensible ruling from e-mail overturning a questionable ruling from the netrep). >Subj: Re:V:TES Blood/Wild Hunt >Date: 97-01-10 12:50:53 EST >From: WotC > [Wild Hunt === Blood Hunt] >I just spoke with our rep to the V:TES team, and he told me that when >the team decided that "Wild Hunt" would sound really cool for The >Sabbat, they didn't realize that it wouldn't really work with existing >"Blood Hunt" cards. Heck, it doesn't even work with the /new/ Blood Hunt cards. This is much worse than simply not working with the old cards. Mistakes like Gangrel Conspiracy (and Wild Hunt in general) are glaring indications that not enough (any?) playtesting was done. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Freedom means choosing http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | your burden. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Hephzibah Menuhin

jimp...@newreach.net (Jim Petty) writes: Okay...this was me originally... >>It is a bit much to expect that V:TES will reflect the spirit of the >>RPG, but I feel that if sects are only able to call bloodhunts etc. on >>their own, this is more accurate than anything else. Consider...while >>the Sabbat is not strictly more powerful, they are more militaristic and >>(I believe) have approximately equal numbers, at least in North America >>due to their unrestricted creation policies. The Cam or the Sabbat (or >>Anarchs for that matter) are simply not going to be able to hunt down who >>has no ties in their area of influence. A Sabbat War Party (not the >>card...) has no reason to stick around in town after they've completed a >>mission of diablerie, and thus would be unaffected by any Blood Hunt that >>would be called. She could retreat to a place of safety and not be >>bothered by the decrees of some far-off power. Same works the other way >>around. >I got this from Wizards last Friday. It's the new official Blood/Wild >Hunt ruling (for now). I like the ruling (I have a bunch of >Absolution of the Diabolist cards), but I'm not so sure about the >amount of thought WotC put into the original Wild Hunt concept. >Subj: Re:V:TES Blood/Wild Hunt >Date: 97-01-10 12:50:53 EST >From: WotC >I just spoke with our rep to the V:TES team, and he told me that when >the team decided that "Wild Hunt" would sound really cool for The >Sabbat, they didn't realize that it wouldn't really work with existing >"Blood Hunt" cards. >So ignore my previous ruling: Any card that refers to a Blood Hunt in >its text can have the words "Wild Hunt" substituted for "Blood Hunt." >JD Wiker >Customer Service >Wizards of the Coast I don't know whether this affects the sect Blood/Wild Hunt in general...any real ruling on the non-card-based thingy? Xian

On 15 Jan 1997 17:31:56 -0600, herr...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Christian S Herro) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sigh... [unofficial errata to WotC forwarded message] Category: What they _meant_ to say... I believe that what they were trying to say, although it wasn't made perfectly clear, was that the term "Wild Hunt" was meaningless and no longer existed in the rules. Both the Sabbat and Camarilla call Bloodhunts when vampires are diablerized. This would clear up the confusion on the issue, and doesn't really change all that much in the game. Alec Chang