I could not find an answer to this one on the newsgroup, so here it
goes:
Can I retrieve a Revolutionary Council (that requires a Baron) with
Garibaldi-Meucci? (implying that every Baron is an Anarch).
I guess not (as it's not explicit in card text), but worth the shot.
Thanks,
Dan
Dragos wrote:
> I could not find an answer to this one on the newsgroup, so here it
> goes:> Can I retrieve a Revolutionary Council (that requires a Baron) with
> Garibaldi-Meucci? (implying that every Baron is an Anarch).
Yes.
Google: "baron requires anarch author:LSJ"
Second hit.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Dragos wrote:
> I could not find an answer to this one on the newsgroup, so here it
> goes:
>
> Can I retrieve a Revolutionary Council (that requires a Baron) with
> Garibaldi-Meucci? (implying that every Baron is an Anarch).
You can and should.
> I guess not (as it's not explicit in card text), but worth the shot.
It's been repeatedly stated that "requires an anarch" is implicit in
"requires a Baron."
Matt Morgan
> It's been repeatedly stated that "requires an anarch" is implicit in
> "requires a Baron."
>
> Matt Morgan
This is because it's a sect-based title, such as Prince, Arch Bishop,
etc. To be a Baron implies being an anarch, just as being a prince
would imply Camarilla. There are traits, such as Black Hand, that are
not sect-exclusive, but not named titles I believe. Are there any non-
independent (except for anarch) vampires with titles like "two
votes" (as opposed to untitled with one or more votes)?
Brandon
[ quoted text not captured ]
Anarchs are not a Sect. They are Independent. Baron is a Title that by
definition requires the Trait Anarch.
Anarchs can call Reckless Agitation or Free States Rant.
There are only 3 Sects in vtes:
Camarilla
Sabbat
Laibon
All other vampires are Independent. "Sectless" if you will.
Tiago
In message <a574fe04-db37-40c4...@d23g2000yqc.googlegroup
s.com>, Brum <tiago...@gmail.com> writes:
>There are only 3 Sects in vtes:
>Camarilla
>Sabbat
>Laibon
>
>All other vampires are Independent. "Sectless" if you will.
No. Independent is a sect. It is the default sect. They are not
sectless.
Any effect operating on vampires being the same sect (e.g. Coterie
Tactics) will see two Independent vampires as being of the same sect -
because it's a sect. An Independent Setite creating a Water of Duat
after an Invitation Accepted will pass on its Independent sect, because
it's a sect. And so on.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In message <7d2487eb-78af-4754...@b38g2000prf.googlegroup
s.com>, brandons...@yahoo.com writes:
>Are there any non-
>independent (except for anarch) vampires with titles like "two
>votes" (as opposed to untitled with one or more votes)?
No. All printed vampires with a 1 vote, 2 vote, 3 vote... title are
printed as independent.
LSJ has previously indicated that any non-Independent vampire with a
title will have a proper title.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> No. Independent is a sect. It is the default sect. They are not
>sectless.> No. All printed vampires with a 1 vote, 2 vote, 3 vote... title are
> printed as independent.
Let me introduce you to my friend Ted..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxGKUujCBJs
:P
Brandon
On Dec 2, 6:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <a574fe04-db37-40c4-a492-bcc8edabb...@d23g2000yqc.googlegroup>
> s.com>, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> writes:
> >There are only 3 Sects in vtes:
> >Camarilla
> >Sabbat
> >Laibon
>
> >All other vampires are Independent. "Sectless" if you will.
>
> No. Independent is a sect. It is the default sect. They are not
> sectless.
>
True. My meaning was closer to the RPG then the CCG.
You are right. 4 sects indeed.
Stupid of me to make such a mistake. Not enough coffee on my system, I
guess. :)
On Dec 1, 3:24 pm, brandonsantac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Are there any non-
> independent (except for anarch) vampires with titles like "two
> votes" (as opposed to untitled with one or more votes)?
This can happen, but they never come printed that way. Per the
rulebook, only independent vampires that start with votes are
considered titled. Presumably, card text could over-rule this, e.g.
"Camarilla. 2 votes (titled)", but this is never done. Note,
however, that these nameless titles are not sect-specific, and the
vampire retains them when he changes sects.
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. Aziz loses his "two votes" title when he becomes a Baron (or gains
any other title).
But if he becomes Sabbat, Camarilla, or Laibon and doesn't gain
another title, he keeps his "two votes" title.
-witness1
Blooded Sand wrote:
> On Dec 3, 8:35 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:>> On Dec 3, 2:26 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 8:11 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:>>>> On Dec 1, 3:24 pm, brandonsantac...@yahoo.com wrote:>>>>> Are there any non-
>>>>> independent (except for anarch) vampires with titles like "two
>>>>> votes" (as opposed to untitled with one or more votes)?>>>> This can happen, but they never come printed that way. Per the
>>>> rulebook, only independent vampires that start with votes are>>>> considered titled. Presumably, card text could over-rule this, e.g..>>>> "Camarilla. 2 votes (titled)", but this is never done. Note,
>>>> however, that these nameless titles are not sect-specific, and the
>>>> vampire retains them when he changes sects.>>> Wait a minute.... Aziz the Anarch Baron has 4 votes? really? Hmmmm...
>>> I think I like.......>> No. Aziz loses his "two votes" title when he becomes a Baron (or gains
>> any other title).>>> But if he becomes Sabbat, Camarilla, or Laibon and doesn't gain
>> another title, he keeps his "two votes" title.
>>
>> -witness1>
> Witness, not gonna restate the question cos I'm lazy ;)
>
> please read the other post I just made?
Witnesses answer is correct, and serves to answer the question from the other
post, as well.
On Dec 2, 1:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <a574fe04-db37-40c4-a492-bcc8edabb...@d23g2000yqc.googlegroup
>> s.com>, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> writes:
> >There are only 3 Sects in vtes:
> >Camarilla
> >Sabbat
> >Laibon
>> >All other vampires areIndependent. "Sectless" if you will.>
> No. Independent is a sect.
It is certainly a sect designation. But, per the rulebook, it is not
a "major sect" (whatever that means). There are 3 major sects.
Independent is defined, in the rulebook, as not belonging to a major
sect. So, at the very least, they are "major sect-less"
> It is the default sect.
Actually, Camarilla is the default sect.
> They are not sectless.
Just major-sect-less.
> Any effect operating on vampires being the same sect> (e.g.CoterieTactics) will see two Independent vampires as> being of the same sect - because it's a sect.
I'm not sure that follows. Two penniless people have the same wealth,
but that does make them wealthy. Two bloodless vampires have the same
blood, but that does not make them vampires with blood. Similarly, I
do not see why two sectless vampires could not be regarded as having
the same sect.
Admittedly, your interpretation would be consistent with some of the
"same clan" rulings effecting Caitiff.
> An Independent Setite creating a Water of Duat
> after an Invitation Accepted will pass on its
> Independent sect, because it's a sect.
Ah. That's a bad example. Using similar logic, you could prove that
Caitiff are a clan. This is the one area where the "same clan"
rulings went in the Caitiff's favor.
In message <f0a49c12-e8c2-41dd...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroup
s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes:
>On Dec 2, 1:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:>> No. Independent is a sect.>
>It is certainly a sect designation. But, per the rulebook, it is not
>a "major sect" (whatever that means).
But is still a sect. See, for example, 10.5:
"All anarchs are Independent; becoming an anarch changes the
vampire's sect to Independent if he was not Independent
already."
See also:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a1eca567fc7b564
There are three sects: Camarilla, Sabbat, and Independent.
Every vampire has a sect.
This was prior to the existence of the Laibon, obviously.
The "major sects" correspond to the backstory. Independent isn't, in
the backstory, a sect the same way that Camarilla is a sect - while the
Brujah and Ventrue theoretically co-operate with each other, there's no
similar level of co-operation between the Daughters of Cacophony and the
Giovanni. Hence it's not a major sect in the backstory. In VTES,
however, it's still a sect, and functions identically to other sects.
>> It is the default sect.>
>Actually, Camarilla is the default sect.
No it isn't. A clanless vampire without a sect designator is
Independent, for example.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9ff745cd46fcf730
vampires without a sect designation (like
allies posing as vampires) are independent.
This also affected Call the Great Beast who, when printed, didn't
specify his sect.
>> Any effect operating on vampires being the same sect
>> (e.g.CoterieTactics) will see two Independent vampires as
>> being of the same sect - because it's a sect.>
>I'm not sure that follows.
It does. Independent is a sect. They have the same sect.
>> An Independent Setite creating a Water of Duat
>> after an Invitation Accepted will pass on its
>> Independent sect, because it's a sect.>
>Ah. That's a bad example. Using similar logic, you could prove that
>Caitiff are a clan. This is the one area where the "same clan"
>rulings went in the Caitiff's favor.
Except that that was an explicit overriding ruling, whereas this is
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <vgEfgsS$e5NJ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe
[ quoted text not captured ]
... just the normal rules on sect being applied.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Dec 4, 3:41 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <f0a49c12-e8c2-41dd-a74c-68791c7f7...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroup>
> s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes:
> >On Dec 2, 1:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> >> No. Independent is a sect.
>
> >It is certainly a sect designation. But, per the rulebook, it is
> >not a "major sect" (whatever that means).
>
> But is still a sect.
In some sense, yes. It is a "sect" when the word "sect" is used to
mean "sect designation". "Independent" is a sect designation that
signifies. "This vampire does not belong to a major sect".
Explicitly ... per the rulebook.
> See, for example, 10.5:
>
> "All anarchs are Independent; becoming an anarch
> changes the vampire's sect to Independent if he was
> not Independent already."
I can also say "All anarchs are bloodless, becoming an anarch changes
the vampires blood to bloodless if he was not bloodless already."
This sentence would not be understood to mean that bloodless vampires
have blood. Neither would it be understood to mean that Independent
vampires have a sect.
Or how about:
"All anarchs are caitiff, becoming an anarch changes the vampires clan
to caitiff if he was not caitiff already."
Unless, of course, "sect" is taken as a synonym for "sect
designation". All vampires have a sect (meaning sect designation) but
not a sect (meaning "major" sect). Similarly, all vampires have a
blood level; and all vampires have a clan designation (even Caitiff).
We already know that a vampire can change clans to Caitiff without
Caitiff being a clan. Why could they not change sects to independent
without Independent being a sect.
But if you want a passage, from the rulebook, that actually supports
the position that "Independent" is a sect (in some sense), the one you
are looking for is from section 10 (2d paragraph):
"Each vampire's sect is given in its card text ...."
This suggests that all vampires "have a sect" at least in the sense
that they "have a sect designation", but not in the sense that they
belong to a "major sect". But in other parts of the rulebook, the
term is clearly used in the sense of "major sect". For instance:
"Some of the various clans of vampires have grouped
themselves into sects."
Which should read "All of the various clans ...", except that here,
the word "sect" is clearly used in a way that excludes Independents.
> See
>also:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a1e...> There are three sects: Camarilla, Sabbat, and
> Independent. Every vampire has a sect.
Sure. Every vampire has a "sect" where "sect" is defined as "a sect
designation". But this cannot change the fact the term is not
consistently used this way in the rulebook itself. The term is
sometimes used to mean "major sect", which excludes independents, as
quoted above.
> This was prior to the existence of the Laibon, obviously.
>
> The "major sects" correspond to the backstory. Independent
> isn't, in the backstory, a sect the same way that Camarilla is a> sect - [...]
The rulebook explicitly agrees with the back story.
> [...] while the> Brujah and Ventrue theoretically co-operate with each other,
> there's no similar level of co-operation between the Daughters
> of Cacophony and the Giovanni.
Note that the Daughters and the Giovanni will now be able to play
Coterie Tactics together (unless LSJ should decide to rule against it,
perhaps on the precedent of the "same clan" rulings for Caitiff).
> Hence it's not a major sect in
> the backstory.
Nor in the rulebook (explicitly), though it is perhaps a (non-major)
sect in some other sense.
One wonders -- if they do not belong to a major sect, would they
belong to a minor sect? Thematically, a minor sect might consist of
all members of the same clan that were not anarch (the sect would
actually be smaller than the clan). Such an approach might make sense
for cards like "coterie tactics", but, in the interest of keeping
things simple, I doubt the design team will go that route.
> In VTES,
> however, it's still a sect, and functions identically to other sects.
This has never been put to the test. To my knowledge, no card has
ever been printed that put to the test the conceptual differences
incorporated into the rulebook -- unless you count "Scourge" and
"Coterie Tactics", which have only just been released. And even these
don't fully test the distinctions.
To really test the notion, you'd need a card analagous to
consanguinous boon, which asks you to "choose a sect" or perhaps, to
"choose a major sect".
> >> It is the default sect.
>
> >Actually, Camarilla is the default sect.
>
> No it isn't. A clanless vampire without a sect designator is
> Independent, for example.
A clanless vampire without a sect desigator generally Camarilla. I
have lots of cards like that. Dan Murdock, Hasina Kesi, Igo the
Hungry ...
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9ff7...> vampires without a sect designation (like
> allies posing as vampires) are independent.
>
> This also affected Call the Great Beast who, when printed,
> didn't specify his sect.
These rulings were made for thematic reasons. Where a clanless
vampire is not Caitiff, it is a good bet that it is not Camarilla.
Independent is not the default sect for vampires. It is the default
sect for clanless vampires who are not Caitiff.
> >> Any effect operating on vampires being the same sect
> >> (e.g.CoterieTactics) will see two Independent vampires as
> >> being of the same sect - because it's a sect.
>
> >I'm not sure that follows.
>
> It does. Independent is a sect. They have the same sect.
Independent may be a sect, but it still does not follow from your
reasoning. Two sectless vampires have the same sect, in the sense
that two bloodless vampires have the same blood. And, of course, if
"sect" is construed as meaning "sect designation" as distinct from
"major sect", then they certainly have the same sect designation.
> >> An Independent Setite creating a Water of Duat
> >> after an Invitation Accepted will pass on its
> >> Independent sect, because it's a sect.
>
> >Ah. That's a bad example. Using similar logic, you could
> >prove that Caitiff are a clan. This is the one area where the
> > "same clan" rulings went in the Caitiff's favor.
>> Except that that was an explicit overriding ruling, [...]
Over-riding what?
On Dec 4, 11:57 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> To really test the notion, you'd need a card analagous to
> consanguinous boon, which asks you to "choose a sect" or
> perhaps, to "choose a major sect".
Oops. Just remembered "Mata Hari" ... establishing that cards
requiring an Independent vampire are cards that "require a sect."
jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:41 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:>> In message <f0a49c12-e8c2-41dd-a74c-68791c7f7...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroup
>>
>> s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes:>>> On Dec 2, 1:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:>>>> No. Independent is a sect.>>> It is certainly a sect designation. But, per the rulebook, it is
>>> not a "major sect" (whatever that means).>> But is still a sect.>
> In some sense, yes. It is a "sect" when the word "sect" is used to
> mean "sect designation".
It is a sect anywhere the word "sect" is used in VTES.
"Independent" is a sect designation that
> signifies. "This vampire does not belong to a major sect".
> Explicitly ... per the rulebook.
You're conflating "major sect" to mean "sect".
Sect doesn't equal major sect. The adjective is not redundant.
Not being a major sect doesn't keep "Independent" from being a sect any more
than not being a big toe keeps my pinky toe from being a toe.
In message <d9ddf522-a2be-4799...@t39g2000prh.googlegroup
s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes:
>> >> It is the default sect.
>>
>> >Actually, Camarilla is the default sect.
>>
>> No it isn't. A clanless vampire without a sect designator is
>> Independent, for example.>
>A clanless vampire without a sect desigator generally Camarilla. I
>have lots of cards like that. Dan Murdock, Hasina Kesi, Igo the
>Hungry ...
These vampires all have sect designators, either by errata/ruling (when
it first came up), reprints (which is pretty much all of them except Dan
and Mariana, I think), or 10.1 of the rulebook. Check the official
texts on the White Wolf website, and they all have appropriate sect
designators.
The default sect is still Independent, however - and, as LSJ has
helpfully confirmed, it really is a sect, your interesting meanderings
notwithstanding. When a vampire - or anything pretending to be a
vampire - would appear to be sectless, it takes the Independent sect.
It's just that a whole bunch of vampires were created before sects were
explicitly printed on cards. They, like a lot of other things, were
changed when later sets were printed to bring them into line with
designer intent.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Dec 4, 8:57 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:41 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> > In message <f0a49c12-e8c2-41dd-a74c-68791c7f7...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroup
> > s.com>, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com writes:
> > >On Dec 2, 1:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> > >> No. Independent is a sect.
>
> > >It is certainly a sect designation. But, per the rulebook, it is
> > >not a "major sect" (whatever that means).
>
> > But is still a sect.
>
> In some sense, yes. It is a "sect" when the word "sect" is used to
> mean "sect designation". "Independent" is a sect designation that
> signifies. "This vampire does not belong to a major sect".
> Explicitly ... per the rulebook.
So Independent is still a sect, as has been stated numerous times. I'm
unsure what you're attempting to argue. "Major sect" is used for RP
flavour. It has no bearing on the actual mechanics of the game.
> > See, for example, 10.5:
>
> > "All anarchs are Independent; becoming an anarch
> > changes the vampire's sect to Independent if he was
> > not Independent already."
>
> I can also say "All anarchs are bloodless, becoming an anarch changes
> the vampires blood to bloodless if he was not bloodless already."
> This sentence would not be understood to mean that bloodless vampires
> have blood. Neither would it be understood to mean that Independent
> vampires have a sect.
No, this logic is flawed. Your example is presenting two states; With
Blood and Bloodless. These would fall under an overall trait we could
call "Blood State", much like "Sect" has Camarilla, Sabbat,
Independent and Laibon.
Now you can re-parse your sentence to read: "All anarchs are
Bloodless; becoming an anarch changes the vampire's Blood State to
Bloodless if he was not Bloodless already."
or, to redirect your logic back into the original context. "All
anarchs are Independent; becoming an anarch changes the vampire's
Camarilla to Independent if he was not Independent already." This
doesn't make sense.
The rule clearly defines that Independent is a sect for game purposes,
otherwise, you could not _change_ your sect from one to another. If
Independent wasn't a sect, it would be simpler to write "All Anarchs
are Independent and have no sect."
> Or how about:
>
> "All anarchs are caitiff, becoming an anarch changes the vampires clan
> to caitiff if he was not caitiff already."
I'm not sure what is being argued with this statement, or what point
is trying to be proved or disproved.
> Unless, of course, "sect" is taken as a synonym for "sect
> designation". All vampires have a sect (meaning sect designation) but
> not a sect (meaning "major" sect). Similarly, all vampires have a
> blood level; and all vampires have a clan designation (even Caitiff).
>
> We already know that a vampire can change clans to Caitiff without
> Caitiff being a clan. Why could they not change sects to independent
> without Independent being a sect.
Because the rules specificallly state that Caitiff is not a clan.
There is no rule stating the Independent is not a sect.
> But if you want a passage, from the rulebook, that actually supports
> the position that "Independent" is a sect (in some sense), the one you
> are looking for is from section 10 (2d paragraph):
>
> "Each vampire's sect is given in its card text ...."
>
> This suggests that all vampires "have a sect" at least in the sense
> that they "have a sect designation", but not in the sense that they
> belong to a "major sect". But in other parts of the rulebook, the
> term is clearly used in the sense of "major sect". For instance:
>
> "Some of the various clans of vampires have grouped
> themselves into sects."
>
> Which should read "All of the various clans ...", except that here,
> the word "sect" is clearly used in a way that excludes Independents.
I don't have access to the rulebook currently, but I'm suspecting this
leads into discussion of Camarilla and Sabbat? The sentence on its own
doesn't exclude anything outside of context. I will grant that sect is
being used in two contexts in the rules, but then so are a lot of
terms.
> > [...] while the
> > Brujah and Ventrue theoretically co-operate with each other,
> > there's no similar level of co-operation between the Daughters
> > of Cacophony and the Giovanni.
>
> Note that the Daughters and the Giovanni will now be able to play
> Coterie Tactics together (unless LSJ should decide to rule against it,
> perhaps on the precedent of the "same clan" rulings for Caitiff).
Yes, I think that was the point of correcting the original statement
to ensure that it was known that Independent is a sect in itself, and
so Coterie Tactics could be used by them.
> > Hence it's not a major sect in
> > the backstory.
>
> Nor in the rulebook (explicitly), though it is perhaps a (non-major)
> sect in some other sense.
>
> One wonders -- if they do not belong to a major sect, would they
> belong to a minor sect? Thematically, a minor sect might consist of
> all members of the same clan that were not anarch (the sect would
> actually be smaller than the clan). Such an approach might make sense
> for cards like "coterie tactics", but, in the interest of keeping
> things simple, I doubt the design team will go that route.
Thematically, a sect is actually a grouping of vampires with similar
goals and philosophies. The "Major Sects" are all subdivided into
numerous sects themselves. Black Hand is itself a sect, as are the
Noddists, Loyalists and Harmonists, all within the Sabbat. Anarchs are
their own sect as well, though I'm sure they're loathe to admit it.
But to get into this kind of detail is unnecessarily complex for a
game like VTES.
> > In VTES,
> > however, it's still a sect, and functions identically to other sects.
>
> This has never been put to the test. To my knowledge, no card has
> ever been printed that put to the test the conceptual differences
> incorporated into the rulebook -- unless you count "Scourge" and
> "Coterie Tactics", which have only just been released. And even these
> don't fully test the distinctions.
Embrace has proven this, by the nature that the Sabbat Ezekiel will
create Independent Embraces. If sect was meant to only refer to the
Major Sects (excluding Independents), how could this card work?
> To really test the notion, you'd need a card analagous to
> consanguinous boon, which asks you to "choose a sect" or perhaps, to
> "choose a major sect".
The reason we see so few is that by their very nature, Independent
clans do not have a over-arching governing structure akin to the
Camarilla or Sabbat, and to a lesser extent, the Laibon.
The 'reasoning' behind Coterie Tactics is that the term Coterie is
applied to a small group of vampires that work together for a common
purpose. In RP terms, it's the group of players, and helps give a
common framework for characters to work together, even if they would
normally be more at odds with each other. For the card, it would seem
too restrictive to have it be the same clan, since a Coterie can have
vampires from any clan in it. But likewise, it wouldn't (usually) make
sense for a Sabbat vampire to be working with a Camarilla one, and so
having no restriction on the card makes it too broad an application,
and breaks the 'theme' of the card. What we're left with is Sect. This
breaks the RP a little when dealing with Independents, since they have
little reason to work together (such as the Giovanni/Daughters
example ... though using Daughters to help intercept seems a recipe
for failure *grins*), but no more so than the potential of a Shotgun
wielding Hell Hound on a Hawg.
> > >> It is the default sect.
>
> > >Actually, Camarilla is the default sect.
>
> > No it isn't. A clanless vampire without a sect designator is
> > Independent, for example.
>
> A clanless vampire without a sect desigator generally Camarilla. I
> have lots of cards like that. Dan Murdock, Hasina Kesi, Igo the
> Hungry ...
These all have Camarilla sect designations. They're simply not printed
on the original Jyhad cards, since at the original printing, no
concept of Sect entered the design stage, since all the vampires were
of the same sect.
All Caitiff are clanless vampires, but it does not follow that all
clanless vampires are Caitiff. Caitiff are a subset of clanless
vampires. Those who are not Caitiff default to the Independent sect,
unless card text states otherwise.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9ff7...
> > vampires without a sect designation (like
> > allies posing as vampires) are independent.
>
> > This also affected Call the Great Beast who, when printed,
> > didn't specify his sect.
>
> These rulings were made for thematic reasons. Where a clanless
> vampire is not Caitiff, it is a good bet that it is not Camarilla.
>
> Independent is not the default sect for vampires. It is the default
> sect for clanless vampires who are not Caitiff.
Because all clans have a designated default sect already, including
the independent clans. So unless a vampire is clanless, it's default
sect is already defined. See base Lucita creating an Embrace, which
would translate just as well to Ezekial creating an Embrace.
> > >> Any effect operating on vampires being the same sect
> > >> (e.g.CoterieTactics) will see two Independent vampires as
> > >> being of the same sect - because it's a sect.
>
> > >I'm not sure that follows.
>
> > It does. Independent is a sect. They have the same sect.
>
> Independent may be a sect, but it still does not follow from your
> reasoning. Two sectless vampires have the same sect, in the sense
> that two bloodless vampires have the same blood. And, of course, if
> "sect" is construed as meaning "sect designation" as distinct from
> "major sect", then they certainly have the same sect designation.
No, a sectless vampire would be a vampire without a sect. Two sectless
vampires would be two vampires without a sect. Lack of something does
not mean that the two can then be grouped together, other than under
the banner of having no sect. If "sectless" was a sect, then the
vampires couldn't be without a sect, other than being a poorly named
sect. Your Bloodless transposition does not equate here, since 0 Blood
is a subset of all the potential Blood States.
Major Sect is a created construct, there is nothing in the rules that
defines Major vs. Minor sects, as they do not exist in VTES. It's
useful in helping to understand the more cohesive sects such as the
Sabbat and Camarilla, and why they have all these cards based on their
sect. But as far as the mechanics of the game go, "sect" and "sect
designation" are the same thing, and are what cards refer to.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
On Dec 4, 1:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > In some sense, yes. It is a "sect" when the word "sect" is
> > used to mean "sect designation".
>
> It is a sect anywhere the word "sect" is used in VTES.
Sure. You're the boss of that. Whenever I see the word "sect" on a
card or rule, I shall assume it means what I think of (thematically)
as a "sect designation".
> "Independent" is a sect designation that> > signifies. "This vampire does not belong to a major sect".
> > Explicitly ... per the rulebook.
>
> You're conflating "major sect" to mean "sect".
Was I? I thought I was pointing out the differential terminology
precisely because of the likelihood of a differential meaning in at
least some contexts.
> Sect doesn't equal major sect. The adjective is not
> redundant.
>
> Not being a major sect doesn't keep "Independent" from
> being a sect any more than not being a big toe keeps my
> pinky toe from being a toe.
This is because "toe" and "big toe" have firmly established meanings.
There is little possibility, therefore, that "toe" will be used in one
context or by one person to mean the exact same thing as "big toe"
when used in another context or by another person.
But here, earlier in this thread, Brum used the word "sect",
consistently with normal usage under the VtM source material, and he
meant pretty much the exact same thing that you mean when you say
"major sect". His usage is also closer to certain isolated usages
found in the current rulebook:
"Some of the various clans of vampires have grouped
themselves into sects." (section 10)
Shouldn't that be "ALL of the various clans ...."? Sounds like the
word "sect" was intended to have a slightly different meaning in this
context.
"Each sect represents clans with similar philosophies and
goals." (Section 10)
Hmm ... sounds like that also leaves out the Independent, unless we
count saying "we don't want to join no major sect" as having similar
philosophies and goals.
"Each sect has its own codes of conduct and its own
political structure and titles." (Section 10)
Hmm. That also seems to leave out the Independents. Independent
titles are not sect specific (unless you count Anarch titles, which
don't really belong to a sect, because Anarchs are not a sect).
The phrase "major sect" is itself rather incongruous with the official
rules-usage of "sect". It implies, not that the independents are "a
sect" (minor or otherwise) but rather than Independents are a category
that includes all possible non-major sects [and/or sectless vampires].
Of course, all of the above is more "flavor text" than "rule text",
possibly explaining the inconsistent usage.
On Dec 4, 2:04 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> These vampires all have sect designators, either by
> errata/ruling (when it first came up), reprints (which is
> pretty much all of them except Dan and Mariana, I think),
> or 10.1 of the rulebook. Check the official texts on the
> White Wolf website, and they all have appropriate sect
> designators.
I don't see how a "default" status can be established at all, without
a rule or a ruling somewhere. If you are going to argue that the
rule from 10.1 proves that Camarilla is *not* a default, then your
thinking is entirely alien to mine.
> The default sect is still Independent, however - and, as LSJ
> has helpfully confirmed, it really is a sect, your interesting
> meanderings notwithstanding. When a vampire - or
> anything pretending to be a vampire - would appear to be
> sectless, it takes the Independent sect.
This is true where (1) the vampire is not a crypt card; (2) the
vampire has no Clan Designation (including Caitiff designation) (all
of which have their own rules-based defaults) and no basis for
determining such; and (3) is not an embrace or progeny sired by a
Caitiff.
So yes, Independent is the default for non-crypt, non-caitiff clanless
vampires.
In message <36259de9-8972-4b16...@a12g2000pro.googlegroup
s.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes:
>On Dec 4, 2:04 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:>> These vampires all have sect designators, either by
>> errata/ruling (when it first came up), reprints (which is
>> pretty much all of them except Dan and Mariana, I think),
>> or 10.1 of the rulebook. Check the official texts on the
>> White Wolf website, and they all have appropriate sect
>> designators.>
>I don't see how a "default" status can be established at all, without
>a rule or a ruling somewhere.
It's already been provided in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9ff745cd46fcf730
vampires without a sect designation (like
allies posing as vampires) are independent.
Vampires with sect designators use those (which is all crypt vampires,
and all clanned vampires take their clan's default sect where that's not
established e.g. Third Tradition). Vampires without sect designators
are Independent - that's the default, that's how defaults work.
>This is true where (1) the vampire is not a crypt card; (2) the
>vampire has no Clan Designation (including Caitiff designation) (all
>of which have their own rules-based defaults) and no basis for
>determining such; and (3) is not an embrace or progeny sired by a
>Caitiff.
In the unlikely situation that crypt card were printed somehow without a
clan or sect on it, it would be independent, the same as other vampires
taking the default sect. It's just that no crypt cards meet that
qualification - nor are ever likely to. You could possibly imagine a
Storyline that messed with that as an idea, though, although it would
probably be explicitly pointed out in the Storyline's rules to avoid
many people asking the same question.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thrall of Arika wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:57�am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "All anarchs are caitiff, becoming an anarch changes the vampires clan
> > to caitiff if he was not caitiff already."
>
> I'm not sure what is being argued with this statement, or what point
> is trying to be proved or disproved.
Such a line would not prove that Caitiff are a clan. Therefore, the
precisely analogous quote from 10.5 does not prove that Independent is
a sect. Other things may prove that (like the fact that LSJ says so),
but it cannot be inferred from the quoted text in section10.5.
<snip>
> > Which should read "All of the various clans ...", except that here,
> > the word "sect" is clearly used in a way that excludes Independents.
>
> I don't have access to the rulebook currently, but I'm suspecting this
> leads into discussion of Camarilla and Sabbat?
It is the first sentence of section 10, which covers Camarilla,
Sabbat, Laibon, Independent, and even Anarchs.
> The sentence on its own
> doesn't exclude anything outside of context. I will grant that sect is
> being used in two contexts in the rules, but then so are a lot of
> terms.
Yes. But such inconsistent usage was precisely the subject of my
post.
<snip>
> Embrace has proven this, by the nature that the Sabbat Ezekiel will
> create Independent Embraces. If sect was meant to only refer to the
> Major Sects (excluding Independents), how could this card work?
Presumably it would work the same way Embrace works when played by
clan-less vampires. The "same clan" of a "no clan" sire is a "no
clan" progeny. In a similar context, the "same major sect" as a "no
major sect" sire would be "no major sect" progeny.
jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 1:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> You're conflating "major sect" to mean "sect".>
> Was I? I thought I was pointing out the differential terminology
> precisely because of the likelihood of a differential meaning in at
> least some contexts.
Yes. You keep citing that passage of the rulebook as supporting your claim that
Independent is not a sect, when, in fact, Independent is a sect by the rules and
that section doesn't say or indicate otherwise. The only way to arrive at your
interpretation is to treat "major sect" as "sect".
On Dec 4, 12:27 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com>
wrote:
> This breaks the RP a little....but no more so than the> potential of a Shotgun wielding Hell Hound on a Hawg.
I couldn't resist after reading Chris' comment. This monstrosity
spits out RP-breaking tech though it doesn't do anything else well
(including survive). Why am I tempted to build it anyway?
Deck Name : Dr. Seuss' Dawgs on Hawgs
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 4 max: 9 average: 6.66667
------------------------------------------------------------
5x Jibade el-Bahrawi 9 CEL DEM FOR PRE aus Ishtarri:4
3x Jennifer "Flame61" 4 ven vis Imbued:4
1x Agru Kabera 6 FOR cel nec pre Ishtarri:4
1x Honorine Ateba 6 FOR PRE cel nec Ishtarri:4
1x Mina Grotius 6 FOR NEC cel Harbinger:3
1x Shasa Abu Badr 5 PRE cel for Ishtarri:4
Jibade recruits at 2 stealth on the cheap.
Jennifer pays less for weapons (Combat Shotguns ain't cheap!)
Most of the other minions can generate +bleed and can Freak/March
Library [67 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [17]
3x Compel the Spirit *// recur dead dogs
2x Embrace, The *// Jibade is stealthy, so why not?
6x Enchant Kindred *// probably should be more
2x Entrancement *// re-steal Jennifer if needed
4x Summoning, The *// recruit 2 dogs in 1 turn tech!
Action Modifier [11]
3x Forced March
5x Freak Drive
1x Strange Day
2x Uncontrolled Impulse
Action Modifier/Reaction [1]
1x Ishtarri Kholo *// cheap votes
Ally [9]
1x Gregory Winter *// burn minions dogs bit
4x Hellhound
1x Mylan Horseed (Goblin)
1x Repo Man *// gear up the dogs
1x Vagabond Mystic
1x Young Bloods *// cause it's good?
Conviction [3]
1x React with Conviction
1x Second Sight
1x Strike with Conviction
Equipment [10]
3x Combat Shotgun
3x Hawg
1x Kduva's Mask
3x Leather Jacket *// needed by self-respecting Hawg riders
Event [1]
1x Unmasking, The
Master [14]
1x Ancestor Spirit
3x Blood Doll
2x Charisma
1x Frontal Assault *// humorous dog offense
1x Mbare Market, Harare
1x Mob Connections *// wise-guy dogs?
1x Necromancy
1x Perfectionist
2x Powerbase: Tshwane *// discount the guns
1x Vast Wealth *// on Jennifer
Political Action [1]
1x Autarkis Persecution *// last-gasp pool prayer
Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Thu Dec 04 17:10:41 2008]
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:31:24 -0800 (PST), Darby Keeney wrote:
>On Dec 4, 12:27 pm, Thrall of Arika wrote:>> This breaks the RP a little....but no more so than the
>> potential of a Shotgun wielding Hell Hound on a Hawg.>I couldn't resist after reading Chris' comment. This monstrosity
>spits out RP-breaking tech though it doesn't do anything else well
>(including survive). Why am I tempted to build it anyway?>Deck Name : Dr. Seuss' Dawgs on Hawgs>Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 4 max: 9 average: 6.66667
>------------------------------------------------------------
>5x Jibade el-Bahrawi 9 CEL DEM FOR PRE aus Ishtarri:4
>3x Jennifer "Flame61" 4 ven vis Imbued:4
>1x Agru Kabera 6 FOR cel nec pre Ishtarri:4
>1x Honorine Ateba 6 FOR PRE cel nec Ishtarri:4
>1x Mina Grotius 6 FOR NEC cel Harbinger:3
>1x Shasa Abu Badr 5 PRE cel for Ishtarri:4
Where's Reg Driscoll? This deck could be better as 2/3, if you really
want Hawgs with your Dawgs.
Can't get the equipment on the HellHounds otherwise.....
(with out playing a Nod or three...)
[ quoted text not captured ]
How about a couple of copies of Nod to rearrange your equipment if you
don't go with Reg Driskoll?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Dec 4, 4:31 pm, Darby Keeney <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 12:27 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This breaks the RP a little....but no more so than the
> > potential of a Shotgun wielding Hell Hound on a Hawg.
>
> I couldn't resist after reading Chris' comment. This monstrosity
> spits out RP-breaking tech though it doesn't do anything else well
> (including survive). Why am I tempted to build it anyway?
Ha ha!
It's my usual example of the mechanics of VTES breaking 'reality'.
It's all perfectly legal, if you can get the equipment on the Hell
Hound, but does make one do a double-take when they think about it.
Other themes to try:
Street Samurai Dawgs - Berettas, miscellaneous swords and Sports Bike
Special Ops Dawgs - Sniper Rifles and IR Goggles/Light Intensifying
Goggles
Reservoir Dawgs - Assault Rifles, Flak Jacket/Kevlar Vest, Improvised
Flamethrower
> Deck Name : Dr. Seuss' Dawgs on Hawgs
<Awesome deck snipped>
You need some Nods in there, to shift the Shotguns over to your Dawgs!
And yes, it's often hard to not put in some Leather Jackets when you
have Hawgs in a deck (another source of RP-breaking).
Chris, Dawg of Arika
On Dec 4, 6:51 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Yes. You keep citing that passage of the rulebook as> supporting your claim that Independent is not a sect, [...]
Please! Nowhere do I claim that independent is not a sect.
I did however state, accurately, that Independent was not a "major
sect", according to the rulebook.
I called attention attention to what I perceived, and still perceive,
as certain ambiguities, variations and inconsistencies in the usage of
the word "sect". Obviously, the truth of any statement is going to
depend on what is meant and understood by the words used.
On Dec 4, 1:18 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Each sect has its own codes of conduct and its own
> political structure and titles." (Section 10)
>
> Hmm. That also seems to leave out the Independents. Independent
> titles are not sect specific (unless you count Anarch titles, which
> don't really belong to a sect, because Anarchs are not a sect).
Liason is an Independent sect specific title.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ooh! Cool card (Rise of the Nephtali). I don't have that one yet.
But it would would be more correct to say Liaison is a possible future
Independent sect-specific title --- if Gehenna starts happening. In a
similar sense, "Fall of the Sabbat" demonstrates that the Sabbat does
not exist, and "Invitation Accepted" proves that Settites are a
Camarilla clan.
On Dec 4, 5:30 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <36259de9-8972-4b16-8210-2b69d2cef...@a12g2000pro.googlegroup> >I don't see how a "default" status can be established at all, without
> >a rule or a ruling somewhere.
>
> It's already been provided in this thread.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9ff7...> vampires without a sect designation (like
> allies posing as vampires) are independent.
I was not asking you to provide it again. I already acknowledged that
default rule. I was commenting on your claim that other default rules
don't qualify as default rules, because of your apparent belief that
an established rule or ruling disqualifies them from being a "default
rule". You seem to believe, for instance, that if its in the
rulebook, it can't be a default rule.
> In the unlikely situation that crypt card were printed somehow without a
> clan or sect on it, it would be independent, the same as other vampires
> taking the default sect.
In the unlikely event that a (new) crypt card were printed without a
sect, it would receive errata giving it a sect, most likely in
accordance with the original intent. In the meantime, I expect
players and judges would go by the clan-based defaults established in
Section 10.
In the even more unlikely intent that a crypt card were erroneously
printed without clan OR sect, then (pending the issuance of errata)
players and judges would still go by intent, to the extent that intent
could be determined (from clues such as disciplines, card text, card
background, distributions of clans in the set, etc.).
But yes, if a clanless non-caitiff crypt card were intentionally
printed, and the sect were accidentally left off, it would be presumed
to be independent. But that's a very narrow "default". It's not the
default for vampires -- its the default for clanless non-caitiff
vampires
On Dec 4, 6:35 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I did however state, accurately, that Independent was not a "major
> sect", according to the rulebook.
>
> I called attention attention to what I perceived, and still perceive,
> as certain ambiguities, variations and inconsistencies in the usage of
> the word "sect". Obviously, the truth of any statement is going to
> depend on what is meant and understood by the words used.
So your whole weird ass esoteric argument is based on a little WoD
flavoring text added to a game that has no "ambiguities, variations
and inconsistencies in the usage of the word 'sect'." Hell, you're
making up your own semantical ideas to reinforce such an outlook:
"But it would would be more correct to say Liaison is a possible
future
Independent sect-specific title --- if Gehenna starts happening. In
a
similar sense, "Fall of the Sabbat" demonstrates that the Sabbat does
not exist, and "Invitation Accepted" proves that Settites are a
Camarilla clan."
Future what? If I have a Liason in play then I have a vampire with an
Idependent sect-specific title. Just like if I have a Baron in play I
have a vampire with an Idependent sect-specific title. "Anarchs are
not a sect" no shit, but independent is (major or not) and if I change
my sect I lose my Barony. You are using WoD flavoring to support your
perceivance of V:TES's WoD flavoring to be at odds with itself. If a
problem arises come here for a ruling otherwise just vocally record
your posts and play them back to entertain yourself.
On Dec 6, 12:08 am, robertscy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> So your whole weird ass esoteric argument is based on a
> little WoD flavoring text added to a game that has no
> "ambiguities, variations and inconsistencies in the usage
> of the word 'sect'." Hell, you're making up your own
> semantical ideas to reinforce such an outlook:
If this is how you feel, I suggest you not waste any of your time
talking to me. I am interested in "semantical ideas" and "weird ass
esoteric argumenta". Perhaps you are not. If you just want to know
what the current rule is, ask LSJ.
> "But it would would be more correct to say Liaison is a
> possible future Independent sect-specific title --- if
> Gehenna starts happening. In a similar sense, "Fall of
> the Sabbat" demonstrates that the Sabbat does not exist,
> and "Invitation Accepted" proves that Settites are a
> Camarilla clan."
>
> Future what? If I have a Liason in play then I have a
> vampire with an Idependent sect-specific title.
Sure. And if I have an Invitation Accepted in play, the Settites are
a Camarilla Clan. The cards can contradict the rules. It's called
the Golden Rule for Cards. Hence, the cards don't really help us
interpret what was intended by any version of the rulebook,
particularly when discussing language inherited over many prior
editions.
> Just like if I have a Baron in play I
> have a vampire with an Idependent sect-specific title.
>"Anarchs are not a sect" no shit, but independent is
> (major or not) and if I change my sect I lose my Barony.
Right. And this is a better point than the Liaison point, because it
comes from the rules, not from the cards.
However, if you are interested, like me, in where this language came
from and what it may have originally meant, it might matter to you
that this language (about each sect having their own political
structure) goes back at least as far as the Sabbat War rulebook. (I
suspect it may go back as far as the Sabbat rulebook, but sadly I do
not have a copy). At the time, the independents did not have, per
these rules, any sect-specific title that this text could have been
referring to.
Most of the language that I previously noted, as reflecting a
different understanding of "sect", comes from this text.
One interesting difference, in the Sabbat War rulebook, was that
"independent" was not capitalized, as it is now, (unless it occurred
at the beginning of a sentence, or as the first work in a vampire's
card text).
In section 6.3.4, we have this line:
"The two main sects of vampires, the Camarilla and the Sabbat, have
their own distinct power structure and titles (see Vampire Sects, sec.
10)."
Turning to Section 10, we find the line which remains preserved almost
verbatim in the current text: "Each sect has its own codes of conduct
and its own political structure ..." In its original context, it is
clear that "each sect" was originally meant to refer only to the
Camarilla and the Sabbat, and not to independent vampires.
Also, under section 10.3 Independents, we have this:
"Other clans [,,,] are not aligned with either sect; they
are called independent."
The current rulebook has replaced this with:
"Other clans are not aligned with any of the major
sects; they are called Independent."
On Dec 6, 6:14 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Go read a VtES rulebook and it will be different again.
Yes. And I'm interested in that too. Sadly, that's another rulebook
where I apparently neglected to save a copy (I still have Jyhad,
though).
> What's your
> point? That the rulebook has changed?
Well, yes. I am allowed to be interested in that, aren't I?
On Dec 6, 2:56 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> However, if you are interested, like me, in where this language came
> from and what it may have originally meant, it might matter to you
> that this language (about each sect having their own political
> structure) goes back at least as far as the Sabbat War rulebook. (I
> suspect it may go back as far as the Sabbat rulebook, but sadly I do
> not have a copy). At the time, the independents did not have, per
> these rules, any sect-specific title that this text could have been
> referring to.
Wait, all these arguments are for nothing? You've been going on and on
disputing Independent as not being a sect or a default sect but only a
sect designation, comparing LSJ's toes and bloodless Anarch vampires,
throwing statements like "Neither would it be understood to mean that
Independent
vampires have a sect." and "Independent is not the default sect for
vampires. It is the default sect for clanless vampires who are not
Caitiff." and now you claim you're just an historian who has observed
the evolution of the Jyhad rulebook and perceived some "ambiguities,
variations and inconsistencies in the usage of the word 'sect' ", that
in no way affects gameplay since there are none, because...well, you
like to hear yourself talk. Why didn't you just start a thread that
was curious about the origins of rulebook words that may have been an
interesting discussion instead of some seemingly pointless nitpick on
a rules question topic that doesn't affect the game (or the answers
given in this thread) in any way.
On Dec 6, 1:15 pm, robertscy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Wait, all these arguments are for nothing?
I don't think they are about nothing, but they are not necessarily
about things that interest you. That's up to you, really.
> You've been going on and on
> disputing Independent as not being a sect or a default sect but only a> sect designation, [...]
I have repeatedly said that I was NOT disputing that Independent was a
sect (in game terms). I'm not sure why it is so impossible to believe
me. I've reread my posts, and it seems to me that I keep saying that,
and have never said anything that contradicts it.
In my original post, I pointed out that different usages of the word
"sect" appear in the current version of the rulebook. Obviously, one
of these usages should be standard for purposes of cards and rules.
It's not for me to say which that was, and I did not say which it
was. LSJ said what it was, and I never presumed to dispute him on the
point. That's obviously his job, not mine.
What I said, in fact, was that Independent WAS a "Sect", where Sect is
understood (in V:tM terms) as a "sect designation." Perhaps a better
definition of "Sect" would be "A major sect (Camarilla, Sabbat or
Laibon), or the status of not belonging to any major sect (called
'Independent')." This, in essence, is the meaning that LSJ has stated
will always be applied for purposes of interpreting cards and rules.
It is a perfectly workable definition, and I never argued against its
use.
This defines "sect" with reference to a different definition of
"sect":
"Sect: A group of kindred arguably united by common philosophies and
goals; some sects are major sects (Camarilla, Sabbat, Laibon); others
[presumably] are minor sects."
Under this definition, of course, independent is not a sect at all.
> comparing LSJ's toes and bloodless Anarch vampires,
> throwing statements like "Neither would it be understood to mean that> Independent vampires have a sect." [...]
I was discussing logic and language, and whether the rulebook language
was confusing or ambiguous. Brum claimed, earlier, that he was
confused by lack of coffee and by the language of the role-playing
game. It seemed to me that the rulebook played a role in his
confusion, and I decided to discuss the language used there. Note
that much this language probably dates back to before the current
design team. I was not disputing whether Independent was a "sect" in
game terms. I explicitly said so, many times.
> [...] and "Independent is not the default sect for> vampires. It is the default sect for clanless vampires who are not> Caitiff." [...]
Well, that obviously has NOTHING to do with whether Independent
vampires are a sect. Independent could be a default status even if it
wasn't a sect. Indeed, that would be highly logical; if no sect is
indicated, then it is logical to presume that the vampire has no
sect. That was simply a separate issue that James Coupe and I veered
off on.
> [...] and now you claim you're just an historian who has observed> the evolution of the Jyhad rulebook and perceived some "ambiguities,> variations and inconsistencies in the usage of the word 'sect' " [...]
Nobody forces you to be interested in the things I am interested in.
> , that
> in no way affects gameplay since there are none, because...well, you
> like to hear yourself talk.
Nobody forces you to read my posts.
> Why didn't you just start a thread that
> was curious about the origins of rulebook words that may have been an
> interesting discussion instead of some seemingly pointless nitpick on
> a rules question topic that doesn't affect the game (or the answers
> given in this thread) in any way.
Maybe I should do that. But I doubt it will stop the howls of outrage
from people like you.
On Dec 6, 11:24 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why didn't you just start a thread that
> > was curious about the origins of rulebook words that may have been an
> > interesting discussion instead of some seemingly pointless nitpick on
> > a rules question topic that doesn't affect the game (or the answers
> > given in this thread) in any way.
>
> Maybe I should do that. But I doubt it will stop the howls of outrage
> from people like you.
You come in here arguing and disputing when you apparently wanted to
discuss something about the rulebooks evolution. At least in the
Villein vs MT thread you are clear about the points you're making.
You're not discussing anything in here you just keep going around in
circles and butting heads like you're in a mosh pit and want people to
listen to whatever you're throwing at them.
On Dec 6, 4:10 pm, robertscy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You come in here arguing and disputing when you
> apparently wanted to discuss something about the
> rulebooks evolution.
I am also interested in the current rulebook, to the extent it
incorporates prior meanings and thematic meanings. And, of course, I
am also interested in the underlying thematics. Thematically,
Independent is not a "sect". Thematically, independent vampires
represent vampires who do not belong to any "major sect" but who might
belong to any one of several "minor sects", or who might not belong to
any sect at all. These themes are reflected in the rulebook.
Whenever the term "major sect" is used, this invokes the thematic
meaning rather than the "game term" meaning.
My interests might have been clearer, when I first posted, if I had
explicitly contrasted the "game-rule-meaning" with the "thematic
meaning". But it was not my place to say what the "game rule meaning"
was, nor was it my place to say that a single interpretation would be
consistently applied.
> At least in the
> Villein vs MT thread you are clear about the points you're
> making.
Well, I am glad you appreciated the Villein thread at any rate.
jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> But it would would be more correct to say Liaison is a possible future
> Independent sect-specific title --- if Gehenna starts happening. In a
> similar sense, "Fall of the Sabbat" demonstrates that the Sabbat does
> not exist, and "Invitation Accepted" proves that Settites are a
> Camarilla clan.
WHOA WHOA WHOA! It all makes sense now!
I didn't know that Andrew S. Davidson was back!
How have you been, Andrew? Coming to Origins in 2009?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
Kevin M. wrote:
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:>> But it would would be more correct to say Liaison is a possible future
>> Independent sect-specific title --- if Gehenna starts happening. In a
>> similar sense, "Fall of the Sabbat" demonstrates that the Sabbat does
>> not exist, and "Invitation Accepted" proves that Settites are a
>> Camarilla clan.>
> WHOA WHOA WHOA! It all makes sense now!
>
> I didn't know that Andrew S. Davidson was back!
>
> How have you been, Andrew? Coming to Origins in 2009?
:D
woo! reunion!
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
"In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up."
"Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat."
- James Coupe
In article <ghio00$kol$1...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org>
wrote:
> WHOA WHOA WHOA! It all makes sense now!
>
> I didn't know that Andrew S. Davidson was back!
>
> How have you been, Andrew? Coming to Origins in 2009?
Speak his name and he might appear...
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff