Praxis seizure and Caitiff

Hi again, I remember a couple of weeks ago, it was mentionned that Caitiff vampires could call Praxis Seizure on themselves. Was that a creation of in mind, or reality? Cause if I look at the rules, only Camarilla vampires could call such votes. And the glossary mentions that Camarilla involves only seven clans known by all of us. And for Caitiff well, they're clanless. Right? Please tell me that I've dreamed this!

GP...@videotron.ca writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Caitiff are clanless but are considered Camarilla vampires - unlike the kindred of the Sabbat or independent clans. Something along the lines of, "Well, they may be weak, thin-blooded, and clanless vampires but they're *OUR* weak, thin-blooded, and clanless vampires!" Weird but true. Fred

fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > GP...@videotron.ca writes: >> Cause if I look at the rules, only Camarilla vampires could call >> such votes. And the glossary mentions that Camarilla involves only >> seven clans known by all of us. And for Caitiff well, they're >> clanless. Right? > > Caitiff are clanless but are considered Camarilla vampires - > unlike the kindred of the Sabbat or independent clans. Something > along the lines of, "Well, they may be weak, thin-blooded, and > clanless vampires but they're *OUR* weak, thin-blooded, and clanless > vampires!" Yep. Caitiff can call Praxis Seizure votes. Also note that there is no clan restriction on being a Prince, even in the RPG and LARP, since it isn't a clan title. If a Lasombra Antitribu wanted to be Prince of Washington D.C., for example... I've been in LARPs wherein any vampire was instantly the target of assassinations, either by anarchs or power mad vampires. In those cases, a (thoroughly Dominated) Caitiff was chosen to wear the bullseye until the culprits were caught. What Caitiff cannot be, however, are Justicars and Primogen because those _are_ clan titles. Noal McDonald -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes: >What Caitiff cannot be, however, are Justicars and Primogen because >those _are_ clan titles. What is a primogen, exactly? Fred

> > >What Caitiff cannot be, however, are Justicars and Primogen because > >those _are_ clan titles. > > What is a primogen, exactly? > A Clan Elder, who acts as a member of the Primogen Council (sort of like City Council) to advise the Prince of a City X_Zealot [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: > >> >What Caitiff cannot be, however, are Justicars and Primogen because >> >those _are_ clan titles. >> >> What is a primogen, exactly? >> >A Clan Elder, who acts as a member of the Primogen Council (sort of like >City Council) to advise the Prince of a City So each Camarilla clan in each city nominates one of its members to the Primogen Council? Thus, a fully staffed counil would have exactly 7 members (as the Camarilla is constituted in Jyhad, that is)? Fred

>So each Camarilla clan in each city nominates one of its members to the >Primogen Council? Thus, a fully staffed counil would have exactly 7 >members (as the Camarilla is constituted in Jyhad, that is)? Well, it would sort of be nice if it was that simple. The whole Primogen thing is a bit messed up. In some cases (like when the Prince is powerful), he essentially gets to choose all of the Primogen members. He can have any number, and choose whomever he wants (I think I recall a sourcebook containing a Setite Primogen, and everyone knew he was a Setite!). A Prince could technically have a Primogen Council of 5 Malks if he really wanted. But then the rest of Camarilla politics also come into play. To some degree, I suppose outside forces can place a vampire into the position of Primogen. And though the Prince has power over the Primogen Council, he must be careful lest he have too much power (remember the fate of Prince Marissa of Washington D.C.). In any case, a Prince has to be careful with choosing Primogen, or he may offend some clan (like Prince Benison did with Clan Brujah, causing an Archon to come "investigate"). Halcyan 2

On 1 May 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes: > > >What Caitiff cannot be, however, are Justicars and Primogen because > >those _are_ clan titles. > > What is a primogen, exactly? I didn't catch this first time round. A primogen is an adviser to the prince, technically. However, there is no reason why a Caitiff cannot be a Primogen, *in V:TES*. (V:tM is a different matter.) -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "But I don't have the right to be with you tonight, so please leave me alone with no saviour in sight. I will sleep safe and sound with nobody around me."

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > A primogen is an adviser to the prince, technically. > However, there is no reason why a Caitiff cannot be > a Primogen, *in V:TES*. Actually, there is a very good reason. There are two ways conceivable for a Caitiff to attempt to be Primogen. The only card that can create Primogen in VTES is "Of Noble Blood" and the text reads: Choose a vampire with a capacity above 5. Put this card on that vampire. The vampire is now a Primogen of his or her clan. Not usable on Caitiff. Notice the last sentence. Which means that if a Caitiff wanted to attempt this action, they would have to have several discipline masters and have a Clan Impersonation. The last two sentences of the card pretty much state ("usable" as opposed to "playable") that if the vampire drops said Clan Impersonation, he also loses the title. The other possibility is if an existing Primogen attempts a Clan Impersonation. However the first line of the card reads, "Choose a clan when this card is played." Since Caitiff _isn't_ a clan, it's not a valid choice. Therefore, there is no legal way to create a Caitiff Primogen in VTES. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > The vampire is now a Primogen of his or her clan. Not usable on Caitiff. > > Notice the last sentence. Which means that if a Caitiff wanted to > attempt this action, they would have to have several discipline masters > and have a Clan Impersonation. The last two sentences of the card > pretty much state ("usable" as opposed to "playable") that if the > vampire drops said Clan Impersonation, he also loses the title. The point is arguable. The second sentence prevents it from becoming one when it is a Caitiff. The first declares something which may or may not be consistently checked. It is difficult to say. However, the point remains that there is no reason why a Caitiff cannot be a Primogen. There may be no way of doing it in the current card set, but a vampire who was a Primogen and a Caitiff would in no way break the rules, or require any special handling. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > The point is arguable. The second sentence prevents it from > becoming one when it is a Caitiff. The first declares something > which may or may not be consistently checked. It is difficult > to say. No, it's not diifcult at all. The last line states quite clearly that the card is not usable by a Caitiff. It's not just a limit of who the card can be played on. > However, the point remains that there is no reason why a Caitiff > cannot be a Primogen. There may be no way of doing it in the > current card set, but a vampire who was a Primogen and a Caitiff > would in no way break the rules, or require any special handling. I don't recall that there was any specific rule that prevents a Caitiff from being a Justicar either. :P A Primogen, like a Justicar, is a clan elder. You can't be a clan elder without a clan. I hope that LSJ never has to specify that in the rules set, but if he does, I'd certainly support him. Now stop trying to be difficult, James. Noal --- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > No, it's not diifcult at all. The last line states quite clearly that > the card is not usable by a Caitiff. It's not just a limit of who the > card can be played on. By what built in definition of "usable" are you working? There is none that I know of, hence the confusion. It is arguable that it is synonymous with playable. It is also arguable in an entirely different way. > I don't recall that there was any specific rule that prevents a Caitiff > from being a Justicar either. :P A Primogen, like a Justicar, is a clan > elder. You can't be a clan elder without a clan. The rules specify nothing regarding that a Primogen must be a clan elder. Indeed, one could look at the influence Joseph Pander had in the Sabbat, without a clan, as precedent from an analogous point of view. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> No, it's not diifcult at all. The last line states quite clearly >> that the card is not usable by a Caitiff. It's not just a limit >> of who the card can be played on. > > By what built in definition of "usable" are you working? There is > none that I know of, hence the confusion. Oh for gods' sake, knock it the hell off. The last sentence says, "Not usable by a Caitiff." Which means that a Caitiff can not use it. Period. That restriction applies even if they weren't a Caitiff when the card was played. They can't use it on a house. They can't use it with a mouse. They can't use it, Sam I Am. > It is arguable that it is synonymous with playable. Only if you want to rewrite the English dictionary. She's your queen. Explain it to her first. If she buys that "usable" and "playable" are synonyms, then fine. Otherwise, use any standard thesaurus. I'm willing to bet that "usable" and "playable" aren't synonyms in any of them. > Indeed, one could look at the influence Joseph Pander had in the > Sabbat, without a clan, as precedent from an analogous point of > view. Apples and oranges. Sabbat doesn't have clan titles. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > Oh for gods' sake, knock it the hell off. > > The last sentence says, "Not usable by a Caitiff." Depending on which post you're writing. You've also quoted it as saying not usable on a caitiff. Which are two very different things. > Which means that a > Caitiff can not use it. Depending on the interpretation of "use". You may care to believe I'm trying to rewrite the dictionary. I've actively argued with LSJ over the Terror Frenzy "burn blood" / "pay" distinction. I say that pay means pay. Apparently, it means burn. But this is Jyhad, not the OED. > Only if you want to rewrite the English dictionary. She's your queen. > Explain it to her first. Why? We're not working with British English e.g. maneuver > synonyms, then fine. Otherwise, use any standard thesaurus. I'm willing > to bet that "usable" and "playable" aren't synonyms in any of them. I'd have been willing to bet the same about pay and burn. *shrug* You seem to have forgotten to divorce Jyhad from Real Life (tm). > > Indeed, one could look at the influence Joseph Pander had in the > > Sabbat, without a clan, as precedent from an analogous point of > > view. > > Apples and oranges. Sabbat doesn't have clan titles. Indeed. But one does not have to be clanned to gain respect. What are you going to do if a Prince invites a Caitiff to join the Primogen council? Tell him to knock it off? And anyway, in V:TES, there is nothing stating the Primogens are clan based titles, save for one line on Of Noble Blood which could be read as an exception in that case anyway, IIRC. You also still miss the point that there is nothing in the *rules* stopping a Caitiff being a Primogen. I have acknowledged that it is possible in the card set that it may not be possible, presently. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I've actively argued with LSJ over the Terror Frenzy "burn blood" / > "pay" distinction. I say that pay means pay. Apparently, it means > burn. But this is Jyhad, not the OED. Blood paid is blood burned, in all cases. [1.2.2] What you had been arguing was that "pay" implies a cost. I agree. [LSJ 24-MAR-2000] The problem with Terror Frenzy is that costs use "to", not "when". "When" implies that it is not a cost. With the contradiction present in card text, something had to change. It was decided that the best change (while possibly not the most obvious) was to change "pay" to just "burn" rather than changing "when playing" to "to play" - this done largely so that superior Terror Frenzy would not make allies unable to play combat cards at all. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

>> On Tue, 2 May 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: >> The last sentence says, "Not usable by a Caitiff." > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Depending on which post you're writing. You've also > quoted it as saying not usable on a caitiff. Which > are two very different things. My mistake there. I meant "on" not "by". Fingers getting ahead of my brain. (no comments from the peanut gallery, please *wry grin*) But I don't think that makes as significant difference as you think it does. The logic I'm using is, "If it's on a Caitiff, he can't use it." > You may care to believe I'm trying to rewrite the dictionary. I've > actively argued with LSJ over the Terror Frenzy "burn blood" / > "pay" distinction. I say that pay means pay. Apparently, it means > burn. But this is Jyhad, not the OED. I argued on the same side of this issue as you, if you recall. > Why? We're not working with British English e.g. maneuver ??? How is it different in the U.K.? > I'd have been willing to bet the same about pay and burn. > *shrug* > You seem to have forgotten to divorce Jyhad from Real Life (tm). Hey now. *wry grin* I'm trying to impose the definitions of the words on to how they should be interpreted to mean. I don't see how that's unreasonable and requires me to divorce anything. > Indeed. But one does not have to be clanned to gain respect. > What are you going to do if a Prince invites a Caitiff to join > the Primogen council? Tell him to knock it off? Sure. With my good buddy, the Archon. *grin* "Guido, say hello to the nice Prince." *CRACK* > And anyway, in V:TES, there is nothing stating the Primogens > are clan based titles, save for one line on Of Noble Blood > which could be read as an exception in that case anyway, IIRC. *nods* I already conceded that point. > You also still miss the point that there is nothing in the > *rules* stopping a Caitiff being a Primogen. No. I didn't miss it. As I said, I already conceded that point. My argument was with whether or not "Of Noble Blood" which is the only conceivable current way that one could legally do it. > I have acknowledged that it is possible in the card set > that it may not be possible, presently. And after we finish browbeating each other, I'm sure Scott will set us straight. *wry grin* If "Of Noble Blood" was added to the list of things that require the target to (contnuously) be a Camarilla clan, it would make things a lot cleaner...esp. in light of the obvious intent of the card. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8en233$e92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > I've actively argued with LSJ over the Terror Frenzy "burn blood" / > > "pay" distinction. I say that pay means pay. Apparently, it means > > burn. But this is Jyhad, not the OED. > > Blood paid is blood burned, in all cases. [1.2.2] > > What you had been arguing was that "pay" implies a cost. > I agree. [LSJ 24-MAR-2000] > > The problem with Terror Frenzy is that costs use "to", not "when". > "When" implies that it is not a cost. Ok, but how determine the "blood cost" or "burn blood" effect of Seeds of Corruption? Seeds reads " ....burns (1or2or3) additional blood FOR every action he or she performs". There's no "when" on the text nor there is a "to". So, what should be the correct interpretation of SoC "burn/cost" text? Aemilianus, Prince of Rome > > With the contradiction present in card text, something had to change. > It was decided that the best change (while possibly not the most > obvious) was to change "pay" to just "burn" rather than changing > "when playing" to "to play" - this done largely so that superior > Terror Frenzy would not make allies unable to play combat cards at > all. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: > http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep > [ quoted text not captured ]

> Yep. Caitiff can call Praxis Seizure votes. Also note that there is no > clan restriction on being a Prince, even in the RPG and LARP, since it > isn't a clan title. If a Lasombra Antitribu wanted to be Prince of > Washington D.C., for example... I've been in LARPs wherein any vampire > was instantly the target of assassinations, either by anarchs or power > mad vampires. In those cases, a (thoroughly Dominated) Caitiff was > chosen to wear the bullseye until the culprits were caught. > I was under the impression the only camarilla vampires could call Praxis Seizure votes. That means no sabbat. Does this above comment suggest that Lasombra can call praxis seizures or is it just talking about the RPG??? [ quoted text not captured ]

>I was under the impression the only camarilla vampires could call >Praxis Seizure votes. That means no sabbat. Does this above comment >suggest that Lasombra can call praxis seizures or is it just talking >about the RPG??? The quote was talking about the RPG. Anyone, it refers to Lasombra Antitribu, not Lasombra. The Anti's are those Lasombra that have chosen to follow Montano and follow the principles of the Camarilla, though they stay "in the shadows" so to speak. Thus there are very few of them. Halcyan 2

On Tue, 2 May 2000, LSJ wrote: > "when playing" to "to play" - this done largely so that superior > Terror Frenzy would not make allies unable to play combat cards at > all. Which seems a not unreasonable possibility. After all, they are only mortals. Could a Terrified mortal really screw him self up enough to strike a Lucky Blow and Pull your Fangs? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > > Why? We're not working with British English e.g. maneuver > > ??? How is it different in the U.K.? manoeuvre, showing the origins of modern English via Anglo-Norman, with an oe dipthong (non-technical explanation, one of those letters where the two are squashed together) I habitually spell it maneuver, now, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 May 2000, Halcyan 2 wrote: > The quote was talking about the RPG. Anyone, it refers to Lasombra Antitribu, > not Lasombra. The Anti's are those Lasombra that have chosen to follow Montano > and follow the principles of the Camarilla, though they stay "in the shadows" > so to speak. Thus there are very few of them. Though it can also refer to Lasombra who follow neither Sabbat nor Camarilla, AIUI. And there are very few of them. But a damn sight more of them than Tzimisce antitribu (of which there are very few indeed). [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Ok, but how determine the "blood cost" or "burn blood" effect of Seeds > of Corruption? > Seeds reads " ....burns (1or2or3) additional blood FOR every action he > or she performs". > There's no "when" on the text nor there is a "to". > So, what should be the correct interpretation of SoC "burn/cost" text? Seeds of Corruption [AH] - Action (tha) (2) * The vampire burns blood for Seeds of Corruption when the action is attempted. [LSJ 19971013] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.html

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000504...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2 May 2000, LSJ wrote: > > "when playing" to "to play" - this done largely so that superior > > Terror Frenzy would not make allies unable to play combat cards at > > all. > > Which seems a not unreasonable possibility. After all, they are only > mortals. Could a Terrified mortal really screw him self up enough to > strike a Lucky Blow and Pull your Fangs? Yes, becuse terror frenzy invokes the Beast which is lurking in heart of every vampire but not every mortal. It doesn't affect allies because allies do not have to deal with the beast (except for the Blood Brother Ambush and that is a temporary ally). Allies don't Frenzy and therefore should have no fear of this card. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Especially saying that 90% of the Tzimisce clan now resides as part of New York City. Note: I did not say resides in. I said they're a part of. In case anyone's keeping tab, the Tzimisce antideluvian IS New York City. Richard in Richardson "My energy's spent at last, and my armor is destroyed. I've used up all my weapons and I'm helpless and bereved. Scars are all I made of. I'm not sure if we're ever gonna be free." -- Blue Oyster Cult, Veteren of 1000 Pyschic Wars