Vendetta
Reaction
Brujah antitribu
Only usable when you are successfully bled for more than 2 pool
Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1 strength in
combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah antitribu may
enter combat with this vampire as a (D) action. Burn this card if this
minion goes to torpor.
***
Is it supposed to say minion instead of vampire in the card text? It
certainly makes the most sense if it is a simple typo.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Rob Grau kirjoitti:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Take a minion that bleeds 1, give it a laptop and do a computer hacking
bleed. Or, take a minion with bleed of 2, give it a laptop, do a
computer hacking bleed, and get archoned.
I think he means that the card isn't consistently worded:
Vendetta
Type: Reaction
Requires: Brujah antitribu
Only usable when you are successfully bled for more than 2 pool.
Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1 strength in
combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah antitribu may
enter combat with this vampire as a (D) action. Burn this card if this
minion goes to torpor.
First it mentions minion twice then only that second to last sentence
specifically mentions vampire.
[ quoted text not captured ]> ***[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, there are a bunch of cards that specifically use the word "vampire"
in some parts of the text, so only vampires are affected by that text.
With Vendetta, everything applies if an ally is the one who bled you,
except you can't rush him.
Whether it was "supposed to say" something different probably doesn't
matter, since Vendetta's MRP says this and there isn't really any good
reason to change it.
Rob Grau schreef:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd assume the following: Intended was minion, and by oversight
cardtext became vampire. However the difference is so trivial, it will
not be changed, because changing card text will be less beneficial than
keeping it as is (confusion/annoyance/errata record vs. trival
difference).
B
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Trivial"?
Haha, my imbued will bleed you like crazy, and you can't rush me back,
you weak Brujah Antitribu you! Further evidence that Imbued are
broken, broken, broken! It's a conspiracy, I tell you...
chris
insert obligatory smiley
hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think he means that the card isn't consistently worded:
That's correct. Based on context, seems like it should say minion
everywhere. I'm assuming the fact that it says 'vampire' in the third
sentence was an oversight, but I'd like that confirmed.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Bram Vink wrote:
> Rob Grau schreef:
>
>> I'd assume the following: Intended was minion, and by oversight
> cardtext became vampire. However the difference is so trivial, it will
> not be changed, because changing card text will be less beneficial than
> keeping it as is (confusion/annoyance/errata record vs. trival
> difference).
There is a difference between the terms 'vampire' and 'minion', which
is why I asked the question originally about whether the term 'vampire'
was a typo.
Even if there isn't any errata, I'm still curious about the card
designer's original intent.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
[ quoted text not captured ]
Looks like a typo, smells like a typo.
Could be intent however, as it stands now it means that athough you
can't rush the non-vampire minion with vendetta on it, that minion can
never get rid of the card as no one but vamps go to torpor. Marginally
useful for cheap beat up on imbued if you can catch/ rush them I
suppose.
Sutekh_23
[ quoted text not captured ]
Typo.
IIRC, it originally said "vampire" everywhere is says minion. That was expanded
to minion. The expansion should have affected every instance of "vampire", but
one was missed.
It plays as printed, however.
LSJ wrote:
> IIRC, it originally said "vampire" everywhere is says minion. That was expanded
> to minion. The expansion should have affected every instance of "vampire", but
> one was missed.
>
> It plays as printed, however
Huh. So you get +1 hand damage vs the minion with the Vendetta on them.
And the Vendetta burns if the minion goes to torpor. Yet you only can
enter combat with the minion via the Vendetta if the minion with the
Vendatta is a Vampire? That is strange and absurdly inconsistient. Any
chance it could just be deemed a misprint and make it work in all ways
vs a "minion"?
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Strange, I'll grant.
Inconsistent? With what? It is consistent with card text.
Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
correction vs. leave it alone?
> >> It plays as printed, however
> >
> > Huh. So you get +1 hand damage vs the minion with the Vendetta on them.
> > And the Vendetta burns if the minion goes to torpor. Yet you only can
> > enter combat with the minion via the Vendetta if the minion with the
> > Vendatta is a Vampire? That is strange and absurdly inconsistient. Any
> > chance it could just be deemed a misprint and make it work in all ways
> > vs a "minion"?
>
> Strange, I'll grant.
> Inconsistent? With what? It is consistent with card text.
>
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
Issue a correction. It was a mistake. And one that weakens the card a
non-negligable amount
Brachah was corrected after a mistake... if not then since newest text
prevails she'd have POT even with an old PRE version
Rob
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:SdJ%g.2880$T_1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue
> a correction vs. leave it alone?
>
One vote in favor of issuing a correction. If its a typo, original intent
should be preserved.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
>> Huh. So you get +1 hand damage vs the minion with the Vendetta on them.
>> And the Vendetta burns if the minion goes to torpor. Yet you only can
>> enter combat with the minion via the Vendetta if the minion with the
>> Vendatta is a Vampire? That is strange and absurdly inconsistient. Any
>> chance it could just be deemed a misprint and make it work in all ways
>> vs a "minion"?>
> Strange, I'll grant.
> Inconsistent? With what? It is consistent with card text.
>
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
I'd say issue a correction. I have lots of reasons, but the most important
one is:
"Pants."
Ankur
[ quoted text not captured ]
I say: Correct it.
a) This was what you intended in the first place, and
b) I see too many cards already that are not usable when Imbued are
concerned.
Regards,
Hardy Range
Prince of Bochum, Germany
R0b1et wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> > correction vs. leave it alone?
>
> Issue a correction. It was a mistake. And one that weakens the card a
> non-negligable amount
Actually, the typo doesn't really weakens the card (while it does make
it weirder). It gives !Brujah +1 strength against all kinds of minions
(and not only vampires), even if it does not grant you the enter combat
(D) action if the minion is not a vampire.
Just out of curiosity: why couldn't Vendetta be reworded to "minion"
everywhere, instead of "vampire" everywhere? (Other than sticking to
original intent, I mean).
It could make the card more usable. Of course, its burn clausule would
have to be reworded too, to something like "burn this card when this
minion goes to torpor or is burned".
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Brazil VTES NC
[ quoted text not captured ]
I thought it was usually RT Policy to "leave it alone" if it's not a significant
change, until/unless the card is once again reprinted.
i.e. if you chose to change Vendetta, why not also change Adaptability?
(Adaptability reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/46f8e99a98140e0a
)
But then again, how many allies bleed for more than 2?
Besides Political Ally, it takes some effort to do so (permanents, or Computer
Hack + Strike with Conviction, or whatever).
If Vendetta *is* "corrected", it's not going to make a significant difference
anyway.
So I have a vote for "indifferent".
On Oct 25, 9:00 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Strange, I'll grant.
> Inconsistent? With what? It is consistent with card text.
It is inconsistient with itself across scentences. I mean, yeah, it
could intentionally reference "minion" in two places and then only
reference "vampire" in between (which is, as previously noted, an
error), but it makes not much sense to keep it like this. It is clearly
a typo and making it officially a typo makes the card marginally more
useful, which it could use. Especially as I got, like, 8 of them in my
3rd booster packs :-)
-Peter
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:SdJ%g.2880$T_1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would vote for leaving it alone. The card is not played in competition
now and will continue to not be played even if altered for original intent.
It does not rise to the level of being a worthwhile erratum to disseminate.
(For people who have not yet tried to use Vendetta, the requirement that the
bleed is at least 3 means it's hardly ever going to apply against Imbued,
and only rarely against a lot of vampire-based decks too, and having to
leave your !Brujah untapped to play the card and then use actions for rushes
later, plus the fact that it doesn't do anything to help you against the
current bleed of 3... well, let's just say there's some serious punching of
one's own anatomy involved.)
Josh
lucubratio sleeps with the fishes
LSJ wrote:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
I vote for a correction as it makes it slightly more playable.
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:1161784526.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
When you say "marginally more useful", please realize that we're talking
EXTREMELY marginally. Political Ally is the only ally that bleeds for 3
inherently. Brigitte Gebauer, Kherebutu, Qetu the Evil Doer, Reanimated
Corpse, and Thadius Zho, Mage can bleed for 3 with Computer Hacking (or a
Laptop or whatever) - do you see these guys doing that a lot? I sure don't.
Imbued can bleed for 3 if they get a Laptop and then use Strike with
Conviction, but not without a permanent (Strike and Computer Hacking do not
combine).
The card is extremely weak, but it wouldn't be improved enough to make a
difference by granting the rush against allies as well as vampires. How
many people who are voting for changing the card have actually put it in
their decks and tried to use it? If you don't already know from experience
how useless it is - and how useless it's going to remain - I don't think you
should be eligible to vote for such a marginal change to a card that's going
to continue languishing in people's boxes no matter what. :-)
To be sure, the card should not have been reprinted in 3rd. But the fact
that wallpaper cards are in print isn't enough reason to make changes to
card-text for such TINY improvements in their wallpaperness.
Josh
experiencing the surreality of arguing about... vendetta!
(what's next, a discussion about liberty club intrigue? or car bomb?)
LSJ wrote:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
It seems most players agree that Vendetta isn't a useful card in
constructed or draft environments. The card will never see gameplay
except by newbies or as a joke.
So, here's a radical idea... As long as we're changing the text, how
about making the card actually playable? In addition to the
minion/vampire fix, I think that adding a "usable by a tapped vampire"
clause would be a good help to making it useful.
I'd rather have a "legal proxy" of a playable card than a worthless yet
correctly-worded card.
-Matt H.
On Oct 25, 10:32 am, "Joshua Duffin"
<joshduffin.REM...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
> EXTREMELY marginally. Political Ally is the only ally that bleeds for 3
> inherently. Brigitte Gebauer, Kherebutu, Qetu the Evil Doer, Reanimated
> Corpse, and Thadius Zho, Mage can bleed for 3 with Computer Hacking (or a
> Laptop or whatever) - do you see these guys doing that a lot? I sure don't.
> Imbued can bleed for 3 if they get a Laptop and then use Strike with
> Conviction, but not without a permanent (Strike and Computer Hacking do not
> combine).
Fair enough.
> The card is extremely weak, but it wouldn't be improved enough to make a
> difference by granting the rush against allies as well as vampires. How
> many people who are voting for changing the card have actually put it in
> their decks and tried to use it? If you don't already know from experience
> how useless it is - and how useless it's going to remain - I don't think you
> should be eligible to vote for such a marginal change to a card that's going
> to continue languishing in people's boxes no matter what. :-)
Heh. I'm using it currently ('cause, ya know, I got 8 in 3rd Ed
boosters and have a deck that they work ok in). They aren't
*completely* useless. At least once, I used them to mark Arika after
hearing a Special Report that she was coming to bleed me for 5 and then
failing. It didn't save me. But it was at least kind of like it worked
out like a vaguely useful card--if I wasn't ousted, I would have had
permanent rush on her!
> To be sure, the card should not have been reprinted in 3rd. But the fact
> that wallpaper cards are in print isn't enough reason to make changes to
> card-text for such TINY improvements in their wallpaperness.
Sure. I mean, like, I'm not real invested in Vendetta getting errataed
or anything. It is just such a stupid typo and offends my sense of
logic more than anything else.
-Peter
Clément wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: why couldn't Vendetta be reworded to "minion"
> everywhere, instead of "vampire" everywhere? (Other than sticking to
> original intent, I mean).
I *obviously* misread LSJ's explanation on the typo and his fix
proposal. Sorry for that.
> It could make the card more usable. Of course, its burn clausule would
> have to be reworded too, to something like "burn this card when this
> minion goes to torpor or is burned".
Or it could just stay as it is because if this minion is an ally and
this minion burns, the card is also burned with him. Obviously. Sorry
again.
Anyway, I support the fix. I always thought Vendetta has a good
concept. If it gets better, even if marginally so, I appreciate it.
Abraço,
Luiz "shouldn't post while having another 1000 things in mind" Mello
or
Luiz "should pay more attention to what he's replying to" Mello
or even yet
Luiz "should go back to work and stop this" Mello
Brazil VTES NC
LSJ wrote:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
Leave it. No need for more errata for a card that when "fixed" will
still be cornercase and wallpaper. As often as possible, I say leave
the card as printed. Errata to un-wallpaper cards I think is silly.
Errata to tone down broken cards is more important.
Leave it be.
best -
chris
Mongrel (MDH) wrote:
> It seems most players agree that Vendetta isn't a useful card in
> constructed or draft environments. The card will never see gameplay
> except by newbies or as a joke.
>
> So, here's a radical idea... As long as we're changing the text, how
> about making the card actually playable? In addition to the
> minion/vampire fix, I think that adding a "usable by a tapped vampire"
> clause would be a good help to making it useful.
>
> I'd rather have a "legal proxy" of a playable card than a worthless yet
> correctly-worded card.
Matt speaks the truth here. I was surprised that Vendetta got
reprinted. I was shocked that it was reprinted without the "usable by a
tapped vampire" text that it needs to be playable.
I second Matt's suggestion.
John Eno
Kushiel wrote:
> Mongrel (MDH) wrote:
> > So, here's a radical idea... As long as we're changing the text, how
> > about making the card actually playable? In addition to the
> > minion/vampire fix, I think that adding a "usable by a tapped vampire"
> > clause would be a good help to making it useful.
> >
> > I'd rather have a "legal proxy" of a playable card than a worthless yet
> > correctly-worded card.
>
> Matt speaks the truth here. I was surprised that Vendetta got
> reprinted. I was shocked that it was reprinted without the "usable by a
> tapped vampire" text that it needs to be playable.
Or removal of the "more than 2" clause.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
<snip>
I think the card would be fixed with a text like this:
Only usable when you are successfully bled. Usable by a tapped vampire.
Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1 strength in
combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah antitribu may
enter combat with this vampire as a (D) action. Burn this card if this
minion goes to torpor.
Regards,
Spæctro
"Spectro" <thiago...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1161806796.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> <snip>
>
> I think the card would be fixed with a text like this:
>
> Only usable when you are successfully bled. Usable by a tapped
> vampire. Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1
> strength in combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah> antitribu may enter combat with this **vampire** as a (D) action. Burn> this card if this minion goes to torpor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Spæctro
>
**Any particular reason that you preserved the original error in your
fix?
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
I've done some thinking about it, because "usable by a tapped vampire"
isn't enough to make the card interesting. It just makes the card a
bit easier to play.
Here's my idea for new card text:
"Only usable when you are successfully bled for more than 2 pool.
Usable by a tapped vampire.
Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1 strength in
combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah antitribu may
enter combat with any minion of this minion's clan or creed as a (D)
action.
Burn this card if this minion goes to torpor or becomes incapacitated."
A few notes:
- I feel that the core concept of the card is ability to get revenge
on a nasty bleed against you. So I don't want to change the original
card condition. Bleeds for 3 or more are not too uncommon.
- The clan-wide (or creed-wide) addition makes card effect table-wide
and can even affect cross-table dynamics if other players have the
offending clan in play. Once the Vendetta is in play, the affected
player may face repeated rushes from their prey's !Brujah vamps and may
consider intentionally knocking out their Vendetta'd minion to burn the
card.
- I'm not certain that my text is too cumbersome or not. Changes for
clarity are welcome. Making it vampire/clan-only would help clarity,
but to keep my rep as an imbued-hater I had to make it usable on them.
:)
-Matt H.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think it would be best left alone.
As pointed out, there's been plenty of other cards come by that could
have done with a minor bit of errata to make them more playable that
have been skipped over until reprinting. I don't see why Vendetta is
special enough to step outside the normal order of things.
I thought that the policy, generally, was something like errata
overpowered cards to stop the game being broken, but underpowered cards
had to wait until reprinting with updated text to get 'fixed'. Which
seems sensible enough to me (for a cost/benefit point of view, where
errata-ing things is considered a 'cost' due to all the problems that
comes with it).
If you start with Vendetta, then you'll have a list as long as this
newsgroup of people wanting their pet cards upgraded, with the Vendetta
precedent used as justification for their view.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
LSJ wrote:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
I'd lean toward correcting the card because we know it's a typo and
what the original intent was. I think it reflects that I'm a little
bit of a perfectionist.
I'm perfectly fine with the fact that the card may not carry enough
weight to bother fixing. That's okay, too.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
LSJ schreef:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Leave it alone for clarity issues.
Use errata for the things that have game effects they shouldn't. Not
for trivialities like these.
Card text being correct is a good thing.
B
On Oct 25, 6:00 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh. So you get +1 hand damage vs the minion with the Vendetta on them.
> > And the Vendetta burns if the minion goes to torpor.
>> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
Correct it. While we're at it, whats the point of sending minions(non
vampires) to torpor? Are we meant to assume that we should read that
as 'incapacitated' as well, or is it simply irrelevant if the minion is
not a vampire?
G
talonz wrote:
> While we're at it, whats the point of sending minions(non
> vampires) to torpor?
Non-vampires cannot be sent to torpor.
See also the rules on allies playing cards as vampires.
> Are we meant to assume that we should read that
> as 'incapacitated' as well, or is it simply irrelevant if the minion is
> not a vampire?
The latter.
See also Tension in the Ranks.
"Mongrel (MDH)" <mon...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1161808830.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> I've done some thinking about it, because "usable by a tapped vampire"
> isn't enough to make the card interesting. It just makes the card a
> bit easier to play.
>
> Here's my idea for new card text:
>
> "Only usable when you are successfully bled for more than 2 pool.
> Usable by a tapped vampire.
>
> Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1 strength in
> combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah antitribu may
> enter combat with any minion of this minion's clan or creed as a (D)
> action.
>
> Burn this card if this minion goes to torpor or becomes incapacitated."
I think this is a perfectly cromulent design for a card. I am no longer
enthusiastic about altering existing cards' text to make them useful,
though. The more it's possible to play the game correctly by reading the
actual physical cards, the better. I know it's already nigh-impossible if
you own any old cards at all, but it now seems to me (all these years later)
that every little bit of additional change does hurt.
So I wouldn't mind seeing your card printed as "Blood Feud" at some point,
but I don't really want Vendetta changed to be better. Unless (a) there's
an exchange program, or (b) we can have everyone who owns Vendetta write in
the changes on their own copies with a Sharpie or something. (Only really
feasible if the wording changes very little. :-)
> - I'm not certain that my text is too cumbersome or not. Changes for
> clarity are welcome. Making it vampire/clan-only would help clarity,
> but to keep my rep as an imbued-hater I had to make it usable on them.
> :)
Solid. I think the text is pretty clear and certainly not overly lengthy
(should easily fit on a card as far as I can see).
Josh
no need for flavor text
LSJ wrote:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
Does anyone really use this card now? No. Will anyone actually use
this card if you issue a correction? No. Why bother?
However, if you *do* issue a correction, for the love of all that is
unholy, PLEASE ***never*** reprint this cornercase card again! I think
one thing you can get us all to agree to is that we all own enough
copies already. If reprinting the card is the ultimate step in the
issuing of a correction, then NO, do not correct it.
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> I think this is a perfectly cromulent design for a card. I am no longer
> enthusiastic about altering existing cards' text to make them useful,
> though. The more it's possible to play the game correctly by reading the
> actual physical cards, the better. I know it's already nigh-impossible if
> you own any old cards at all, but it now seems to me (all these years later)
> that every little bit of additional change does hurt.
I do understand what you're saying. For every bit of changed card
text, VTES becomes an exercise in rote memorization. I actually ran
into this issue at the NAC this year, where someone was using a Sabbat
copy of Living Manse and tried to play it as written (burn to end
combat 'any time'). Lucky for me, I did remember that the updated text
says "burn before range is chosen..." I did have to call the judge over
to confirm, but I really don't blame my opponent for failing to
memorize the details of every card's corrected text updates.
However, in the case of cards like Vendetta, it barely sees any game
play at all, even in draft. (even in sealed I'd guess most players will
cull it from the starter.) So it would be nice if we could make it a
useful proxy rather than dead weight in everyone's card boxes.
As a counter-example, I would love to see a functional card text
revision to Rotshreck that would make it actually understandable to a
new player. I'm really, really sick of explaining that card to new
players. But Rotshreck is already in widespread use, so after 12 years
I think we're just plain stuck with it.
> So I wouldn't mind seeing your card printed as "Blood Feud" at some point,
> but I don't really want Vendetta changed to be better.
Perhaps with a name that would not be confused with the 3E !Malk,
Bloodfeud. :)
Still, releasing a new card would probably be a more feasible method
for WW. But it won't solve the problem of dead weight in my card box.
-Matt H.
/embiggening the crappiest card
Mongrel (MDH) wrote:
> As a counter-example, I would love to see a functional card text
> revision to Rotshreck that would make it actually understandable to a
> new player. I'm really, really sick of explaining that card to new
> players. But Rotshreck is already in widespread use, so after 12 years
> I think we're just plain stuck with it.
Rötschreck's text has already been revised for clarity. The current card text is
clear. If you have a suggestion to improve the clarity (while maintaining the
current functionality and fitting in the space allotted), please share.
Mongrel (MDH) schreef:
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
<snip>
> As a counter-example, I would love to see a functional card text
> revision to Rotshreck that would make it actually understandable to a
> new player. I'm really, really sick of explaining that card to new
> players. But Rotshreck is already in widespread use, so after 12 years
> I think we're just plain stuck with it.
>> /embiggening the crappiest card
Now thatoversights in card text are mentioned, things that might be
fixed, etc. Before vendetta should ever be even thought about
errataing, some slight errata should still be made to the card which
still is worth the honorable mention in this bit, being played only by
newbies, and working counterintuitivily and VERY likely not per
designer intent.
Three cheers for Guard Duty.
Rötschreck has been correct for a long time, though :)
B
Bram Vink wrote:
> Mongrel (MDH) schreef:> Three cheers for Guard Duty.
yeah!
reprint that sucker, but with fixed text to make it, you know, usable.
by someone. at some point.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Anyone else got an opinion one way or the other with regards to: issue a
> correction vs. leave it alone?
Vendetta
Type: Reaction
Requires: Brujah antitribu
Usable by a tapped vampire.
Only usable when you are successfully bled for more than 2 pool.
Put this card on the acting minion. Brujah antitribu get +1 strength in
combat with the minion with this card. Any ready Brujah antitribu may
enter combat with this minion as a (D) action. Burn this card if this
minion leaves ready region.