A Simple Ally as a Vampire Rule?

With all the hoopla over the allies going to torpor business, wouldn't it just be FAR simpler to make a new ruling that doesn't produce this situation? The problem seems to be that "as a vampire" is unclear, because it doesn't specify which ally traits are retained, and which ones are lost. Apparently having life instead of blood, burning at zero life, etc. are retained, but treating aggravated damage as normal is not. Would it not be simpler to just say "can play cards a vampire of capacity X with basic Y can play" instead of "as a vampire"? Really, isn't that easier? It allows them to play any card a vampire of the right capacity, with the right discipline could play, and neatly sidesteps all concerns over the effects of the card. Nowhere does it say they are treated as a vampire, it doesn't make them suddenly vulnerable to things they were not vulnerable to before, and doesn't result in weird situations like Allies in torpor. I know similar ideas have been brought up, but I'm trying to proprose something even simpler, that only takes a single line to explain. JSpektr

jspektr wrote: > Would it not be simpler to just say "can play cards a vampire of > capacity X with basic Y can play" instead of "as a vampire"? See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CD29FE7.42F322B1%40white-wolf.com for the counter-argument to this proposal. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CDA6BD9...@white-wolf.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > Would it not be simpler to just say "can play cards a vampire of > > capacity X with basic Y can play" instead of "as a vampire"? > > See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CD29FE7.42F322B1%40white-wolf.com > for the counter-argument to this proposal. Perhaps I was unclear, but that counter-argument does not apply here. Give the ally the ability to play any card playable by a vampire that has X discipline and Y capacity. This means they can play cards refering specifically to vampires (I'm not sure what part of "playable by a vampire" is not clear?). I think you're trying to say that giving them the ability to play a card playable by a vampire means that if the card gives a benefit to "this vampire" then they would not get the benefit, because they are not "this vampire." That seems like needlessly splitting hairs. If you want to include "can play cards a vampire that has X discipline and Y capacity can play, all effects of that card are applied to this ally" then you could. That would overrule the "this vampire" text. If you really want to cover all your bases, I guess it could be "can play cards a vampire that has X discipline and Y capacity can play, all references to the acting vampire are considered to refer to this ally". That still seems awfully wordy, but far better (to me) than the existing ruling, as it stays true to the original designer's intent, keeps within the spirit of the game and the RPG, and requires less explaining. JSpektr

jspektr wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CDA6BD9...@white-wolf.com>... > > jspektr wrote: > > > Would it not be simpler to just say "can play cards a vampire of > > > capacity X with basic Y can play" instead of "as a vampire"? > > > > See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CD29FE7.42F322B1%40white-wolf.com > > for the counter-argument to this proposal. > > Perhaps I was unclear, but that counter-argument does not apply here. > > Give the ally the ability to play any card playable by a vampire that > has X discipline and Y capacity. This means they can play cards > refering specifically to vampires (I'm not sure what part of "playable > by a vampire" is not clear?). Yes, but it would have no effect, given that, by your proposal, the ally is not a vampire and the effect on the cards listed are "this vampire". > I think you're trying to say that giving them the ability to play a > card playable by a vampire means that if the card gives a benefit to > "this vampire" then they would not get the benefit, because they are > not "this vampire." That seems like needlessly splitting hairs. If you > want to include "can play cards a vampire that has X discipline and Y > capacity can play, all effects of that card are applied to this ally" > then you could. That would overrule the "this vampire" text. ? So the card is treating the ally as a vampire (for purposes of any "this vampire" text on the card)? What problem are you solving here? > If you really want to cover all your bases, I guess it could be "can > play cards a vampire that has X discipline and Y capacity can play, > all references to the acting vampire are considered to refer to this > ally". That still seems awfully wordy, but far better (to me) than the > existing ruling, as it stays true to the original designer's intent, > keeps within the spirit of the game and the RPG, and requires less > explaining. Yes, that suggestion has been made before. It'd be errata, but at least it serves a purpose and might be workable. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CDA6BD9...@white-wolf.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > Would it not be simpler to just say "can play cards a vampire of > > capacity X with basic Y can play" instead of "as a vampire"? Actually, it might be simpler still to say "can play any card requiring [discipline] as though the card referred to an ally instead of a vampire. If a card refers to his capacity, it is [capacity].

"jspektr" <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:196f2577.02050...@posting.google.com... > With all the hoopla over the allies going to torpor business, wouldn't > it just be FAR simpler to make a new ruling that doesn't produce this > situation? > My preference has always been that when an ally plays discipline cards "as a vampire", all instances of "this vampire" are considered to refer to "this minion." Simple, easy, doesn't require any of the strangeness that's been going on lately. Not that I'm gonna whine about it because, again, who cares? Allies suck, and the ones that can play discipline cards are almost uniformly overcosted. Personally, I would extend the "this minion" effect even to permanent cards that would go on the ally and always treat it as they would normally treat a vampire who played them, but that's not really a necessary effect.

firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote in message news:<80bafd85.02050...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well put, and more concise. LSJ has said this is under review, we can all hope the result is something like this, clear, concise and simple. That being said, we should try and break this suggestion now, so we can find any flaws *before* official rulings are made. JSpektr - has it been considered that maybe the rules team, with their very deep knowledge of the rules, is perhaps too close to the trees to see the forest? They don't seem to have anticipated the current uproar, over either the changes to allies or to Roteschreck/interupt effects. I don't mean to offend, but perhaps some perspective would go a long way towards avoiding such problems in the future.

On Fri, 10 May 2002 01:06:44 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: >My preference has always been that when an ally plays discipline cards "as a >vampire", all instances of "this vampire" are considered to refer to "this >minion." Simple, easy, doesn't require any of the strangeness that's been >going on lately. That's what I've been thinking too. Was this not the status quo ante? Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Negative question. So: Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]