[LSJ] Requirement question

Hi, I have a question about the requirement of playing cards. Situation: A Vampire tries to employ a retainer that requires a discipline. Question: Does the employ action require the discipline or the retainer? In different words: Is the action to employ a Wolf Companion an action requiring Animalism or is the 'employ action' free of requirements, but to possess the retainer is? Some might think that this is obvious, but a few days ago we had quite a discussion about this topic. Thanks for your help, -Markus

In message <3A4F4C9A...@gmx.de>, Markus Schlein <Markus....@gmx.de> writes >Question: Does the employ action require the discipline or the retainer? The employ action requires the discipline. Holding the retainer does not. (For instance, you can get a retainer when you have an Animalism card on you but if an Assamite uses Strike: Burn a master discipline card, you still keep the wolf companion.) Also note that *all* the attributes of the retainer are set during the action. If you get better animalism, your wolf companion doesn't improve. If you get better obtenebration, your Shade doesn't improve. If you lose it, they don't get worse. >In different words: Is the action to employ a Wolf Companion an action >requiring Animalism or is the 'employ action' free of requirements, but >to possess the retainer is? The action requires animalism - this would give you benefits from Dartmoor, England, if you had that on the vampire, too. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "What's wrong with wanting more? If you can fly -- then soar! With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Markus Schlein <Markus....@gmx.de> writes > >Question: Does the employ action require the discipline or the > >retainer? > > The employ action requires the discipline. Holding the retainer does > not. (For instance, you can get a retainer when you have an > Animalism card on you but if an Assamite uses Strike: Burn a master > discipline card, you still keep the wolf companion.) > > Also note that *all* the attributes of the retainer are set during > the action. If you get better animalism, your wolf companion > doesn't improve. If you get better obtenebration, your Shade > doesn't improve. If you lose it, they don't get worse. Correct. > >In different words: Is the action to employ a Wolf Companion an > >action requiring Animalism or is the 'employ action' free of > >requirements, but to possess the retainer is? > > The action requires animalism - this would give you benefits from > Dartmoor, England, if you had that on the vampire, too. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Along the same lines... what would happen in a situation like this: Vampire A recruits a Raven Spy and is blocked. Vampire B plays Mask of 1000 Faces at superior to continue the action but does NOT have Animalism. Is this legal or is he required to also have at least basic Animalism? I assume not, because he would need to be eligible to take the action himself, similar to an Assamite not being able to use Amaranth. Cheers, WES "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:92ns4e$evr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <92qbr...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: > Along the same lines... what would happen in a situation like this: > > Vampire A recruits a Raven Spy and is blocked. Vampire B plays Mask > of 1000 Faces at superior to continue the action but does NOT have > Animalism. Is this legal or is he required to also have at least > basic Animalism? A vampire must have been able to play the action card (the retainer) and all of the action modifiers previously played on the attempted action to be able to take over the action with Mask of 1000 Faces. See the 6-23-98 Rules Team Ruling quoted here: http://lasombra.tripod.com/RTR6-23.htm "Mask of a Thousand Faces: Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion." Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://lasombra.tripod.com http://legbiter.tripod.com http://vekn_clans.tripod.com [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: > > Vampire A [employs] a Raven Spy and is blocked. Vampire B plays Mask > > of 1000 Faces at superior to continue the action but does NOT have > > Animalism. Is this legal or is he required to also have at least > > basic Animalism? > > A vampire must have been able to play the action card (the retainer) > and all of the action modifiers previously played on the attempted > action to be able to take over the action with Mask of 1000 Faces. Correct. And note: in the example, the vampire would have to have superior animalism if the employ action had been initially taken at the superior level - if he has normal animalism, then he cannot take over the action (the action wouldn't switch to being a normal action just because it was masked - there's no mechanism to change the level at which the card was played). Similarly, if the action is taken at the normal level and a vampire with superior animalism Masks, the action is still to employ a normal (1 life) Raven Spy. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]