Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96

GENERAL RULINGS 1) All action modifiers for a given action are retained until the action is completed, even if the action is blocked. For example, Uncontrollable Rage will provide its bonus even if the action is blocked. 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, and a Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be part of the new sect instead of the old one. Remember that the extra capacity granted by a new Praxis Seizure is inherent to the title and dependent on the vampire's clan. Losing the title will cause the capacity to disappear, and changing the Prince's clan to or from the appropriate clan will cause it to gain or lose that extra capacity. REVERSALS None. ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES 1) Blood Hunt is a directed action. 2) Once Shackles of Enkidu is used, it is controlled by the Methuselah who controls the vampire who used it; changing the controller of the vampire changes who controls the Shackles. 3) Change of Target does not untap a blocking minion who was already tapped. Neither does Obedience or Elder Impersonation. 4) Dreams of the Sphinx only increases your hand size until the end of the current turn. 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not the master phases of other Methuselahs. CARD RULINGS 1) Change of Target, Obedience, and Elder Impersonation will not untap a minion who blocked while tapped. 2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's ability. 3) If Return to Innocence is modified by Day Operation, and the action is successful, the acting Methuselah chooses whether the acting vampire will go into torpor before he or she is burned, since both effects would otherwise happen at the same time. 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

On 8 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to > lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince > who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be princes. > and a > Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a > vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a > Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be > part of the new sect instead of the old one. I don't like how the sect ruling overlooks card text (Non-camarilla). > 4) Dreams of the Sphinx only increases your hand size until the end of the > current turn. Good call. > 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not > the master phases of other Methuselahs. Good for Temptation, but Phobia becomes _far_ too weak. Perhaps this should be reconsidered... @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >GENERAL RULINGS >2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to >lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince >who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, and a >Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a >vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a >Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be >part of the new sect instead of the old one. >Remember that the extra capacity granted by a new Praxis Seizure is inherent >to the title and dependent on the vampire's clan. Losing the title will cause >the capacity to disappear, and changing the Prince's clan to or from the >appropriate clan will cause it to gain or lose that extra capacity. Bad move on the "Card text applies only in certain situations" ruling. Now we'll never get to the bottom of all of this. 0) You're saying that "Non-Camarilla" is not a function of card text, but rather, a function of clan. But "Cannot Commit Diablerie" is a function of card text, not of clan? 1) A Giovanni with a Writ Seizes Praxis (bacoming a Cam Prince). Then loses the Writ. By the above, he would still be a prince, but this was not the way you claimed it should work earlier. 2) The clan only applies at certain times (namely, for clan-friendly Praxes, but not for Justicarship). Does this mean that the clan shift will or will not affect miscellaneous clan-specific cards (like Aching Beauty, Love Affair, Malk Derangement, Powerbase: Berlin, et cetera)? >CARD RULINGS >2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's >ability. You mean "can burn cards that are being played ..." (or are we going back to the pre-Nov'94 ruling that Sudden Reversal can burn a card in play? :-) So, if Bindusara Impersonates a Malkavian, and takes a Master-Card action to place a Haven Uncovered card on her Prey's vampire via a Madness Network action on her Prey's turn, then her Prey cannot Sudden Reversal that because it is being done on her own turn, right? -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Backing into a fan, the firefly http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | was delighted to no end! Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to >> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince >> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, >This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be >princes. There are three options for what happens when a vampire changes sects: 1. She loses all abilities of the old sect. 2. She loses no abilities of the old sect. 3. She loses any abilities from column A, and none from column B. Losing all abilities creates too much weirdness, and having a laundry list creates too many headaches. It is therefore best and simplest to say the vampire loses none of the abilities, regardless of what the backstory might have to say on the matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The Corrupter wrote: > > On 8 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > > 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not > > the master phases of other Methuselahs. > > Good for Temptation, but Phobia becomes _far_ too weak. Perhaps this > should be reconsidered... It's miserable for both Phobia and Temptation! Setite theft decks do not have anywhere near enough time to accumulate enough counters to do anything if the Counter-cards only work during your master phase. The only way to speed up the Temptation effect is if the Setites take actions to enter combat with the other vampires, who are much more likely to be _better_ at combat than the Setites. Phobia is useless. I've already stripped it out of my theft deck because the one minion affected can only be blocked safely after way too long a wait. Right now I don't see any reason why it would be used at all, as an action that would be better spent bleeding or voting. Five turns against a rush combat deck looks _really_ bad. A decent rush deck should be able to torporize enough vampires to make Phobia useless by the time it accumulates four counters. Serpentis strategies are easily countered by opponents who know what the cards can do, and possess commonly played cards. Blood Doll seriously slows down Temptation. Heidelberg Castle used correctly prevents your opponent from taking any actions with a stolen vampire, or slows down the theft time. Setites and the Setite cards tend to be extremely weak against certain types of decks. They really don't deserve to be made even weaker against all decks.

Hi. This is long. A summary for those who don't want to slog through it is at the end. Nathan Harada wrote: > > >The Corrupter wrote: > > > On 8 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > > > > 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not > > > the master phases of other Methuselahs. > > > > Good for Temptation, but Phobia becomes _far_ too weak. Perhaps this > > should be reconsidered... > > It's miserable for both Phobia and Temptation! Setite theft decks do > not have anywhere near enough time to accumulate enough counters to do > anything if the Counter-cards only work during your master phase. The > only way to speed up the Temptation effect is if the Setites take actions > to enter combat with the other vampires, who are much more likely to be > _better_ at combat than the Setites.And, as I believe I've mentioned before, Settites are almost useless in combat, especially w/ phobia being hosed by the above ruling. What the heck; both it and Temptation clearly stated each master phase, and although that can be annoying, neither of them struck me as particularly abusive as written. > Phobia is useless. I've already stripped it out of my theft deck because > the one minion affected can only be blocked safely after way too long a wait. > Right now I don't see any reason why it would be used at all, as an action > that would be better spent bleeding or voting. Five turns against a rush > combat deck looks _really_ bad. A decent rush deck should be able to torporize > enough vampires to make Phobia useless by the time it accumulates four counters. Of course, this is WHY phobia never struck me as abusive... > Serpentis strategies are easily countered by opponents who know what > the cards can do, and possess commonly played cards. Blood Doll seriously > slows down Temptation. Heidelberg Castle used correctly prevents your > opponent from taking any actions with a stolen vampire, or slows down the > theft time.And when Temptation is reduced to one counter each of YOUR master phases, these problems are only aggravated until it becomes almost totally useless. > Setites and the Setite cards tend to be extremely weak against certain types > of decks. They really don't deserve to be made even weaker against all decks.Actually, Settites are already weaker and moer vulnerable against almost all decks as it is. Of four master cards which require Settites; Temple hunting ground, opium den, Grand Temple of set, and Realm of the black sun; two are cards which are almost required for the new clans(the huntin ground and stealth card), and the other two cost pool and can be burned as D actions. And Grand Temple of Set takes pool from you, and master phase actions, all of which are wasted if a stealth/bleed or rush deck decides to burn it. Just from that, I would say the Settites are underpowered(I've bitched about serpentis before; the only really useful cards in it from my pov were Form of corruption{unreliable, since your prey needs to gain the edge repeatedly}, and Temptation, which made a start on keeping settites and serpentis reasonable. Most of the rest, quite frankly, made it to my wallpaper list). But there's more. Have you counted how many cards there are out there which hose the Settites specifically? Let's start from the top; not even counting the generic non-cam hosers, there's children of osiris(burn blood to untap), Corruption's purge(burn blood or go to torpor), Akhenaten, The sun pharoh(does 3 aggravated hand damage vs Settites, and bleeds for 2), Seeds of corruption(Which has double the effect at normal and 1.5 times the effect at superior; burning more blood), Murat's special ability, Radeyah's Special, Damaskenos' special, the 6-cap Tremere's(whose name I've forgotten) special, and then there's the Jackal(both assamites and Settites, but the assamites can deal w/ the stealth better), and all the piles of anti non-cam cards; Protect thine own, Cornelius Ottavo's ability, Closed session(junk, admittedly), etc... To be frank, the Settites do not deserve the treatment that they have been getting. They have more specific hosers than any other clan in the game(The assamites have what could be construed as three; the Toreador have the same), and although they aren't quite as harsh as the malkavian hosers, except for Akhenaten, who completely totals Settite decks, they are REALLY excessive. I may even have missed some of the hosers, since there are so many. Serpentis before the rulings on Temptation and Phobia struck me as an unfocused, underpowered displine for the Settites; with average to useless combat cards and okay combat prep, it's theft ability was the only thing that made me see it as worth playing w/ in a settite deck(political, bleed, just not combat; that requires piles of out of clan vampires). As it stands now, I feel that either one plays with Temptation and Phobia as written, or consigns the idea of a non-combat settite deck which uses serpentis to the dustbin. I mean, what's left? Form of the serpent? Lure of the serpent, which is a far mastery w/out the stealth? I can't think of ANYTHING to do w/ the remaining serpentis cards in a focused, non-combat settite deck. And I've come up w/ some pretty wild ideas in my time(Ventrue combat. It worked. Kind of). I've ranted for a while already, but I'm going on for a bit more. First; cards which hose specific strategies through directly affecting all cards of a certain type or allowing negative effects to be focused on only cards of that type or amplifying unpleasantness(i.e., all the hosers I named above) should not be needed in a truly balanced game. There's nothing wrong with having a few of them, for people who can't deal with other strategies effectively, but there should never be such a volume of them, or any which overwhelmingly throw the game(AI. 'nuff said). Second; Reasons for hosers. Supposing that there was a reason for all the cards which make Settites unhappy, what would it be? That as a clan, either they or their powers are overpowered or unbalanced to the point where other cards need to crush them to balance the game? Maybe so; proceeding from that assumption, which cards as written would be unpleasant enough to make people care? Why, those theft cards; Temptation, for temporary 'borrowing' of larger vamps, Corruption, for the allies and weenies, Form of Corruption(make sure your prey gains the edge), and Grand Temple of Set... for those foolish enough not to burn it. Presence and obfuscate do well together, but not nearly as well as dominate/obfuscate. Perhaps the people at WotC were trying to make up for the malkavians by making sure that any other clan w/ stealth and bleed got hosed. However, Presence is worse than dominate for S&B for a number of reasons: 1) Actions, not action modifiers. Your prey will be able to see the bleed coming a mile away, and invest intercept when it counts. This does make a huge difference. 2)No inherent stealth or 'this vampire cannot block' in presence. Dominate has bonding and seduction. Presence has marijava ghoul(takes an action and two blood to get), which helps, and Majesty. But this is S&B, not untap bleed. 3) The settites are not Toreador. This seems intuitive, but it means that they pay blood for aire of elation to get...a threats? I've stopped playing with threats in all of my bleed decks; the same principle applies here, except that tbere are no other presence bleed modifiers, so one is stuck. In summation the above has stated that the Settites have too many hosers; an over generalized clan displine w/ only a few useful cards for them BEFORE it was hamstrung by the ruling; a okay Stealth and bleed capacity which nonetheless fails to make up to the malkavian standard; pitiful combat ability, and a theft ability which takes far, far too long, and is much too risky, unless Temptation is played as written, not as ruled. I find it absurd that WotC finds it necessary to first include all those cards just to cause pain to Settite decks, makes the clan's primary discipline unfocused, with about half wallpaper and half good cards, and THEN feels that those few good cards need to be reduced in power from middling high to the wastepaper bin which most other Serpentis cards are consigned to(at least for settite decks). What gives? Should I go out and burn all of my settites and serpentis cards as totally useless and unplayable?(I'm not serious, of course. But sometimes I wonder whether the people supporting V:tES at WotC have heard of game balance recently.) Anyone who feels that the above is totally wrong: feel free to have your opinion. Just don't let me know; right now I'm in a tizzy and apt to become less coherent and polite than even the above may show me as. Alec Chang

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote: [From the end of his article] > Anyone who feels that the [below] is totally wrong: feel free to have > your opinion. Just don't let me know; right now I'm in a tizzy and > apt to become less coherent and polite than even the above may show me as. Well, I'm likely to let you know my opinion anyway... :) In general, while I feel the recent (mis)ruliing was a disservice to the FoS, it can be reruled. If not, I'm not sure I agree with much of your assessment. [Re: FoS and their being weak.] > Have you counted how many cards there are out there which hose the > Settites specifically? Few players play with a hoser in their deck. Strategy hosers are occasianally seen, but clan hosers are rarely seen. > Let's start from the top; not even counting > the generic non-cam hosers, there's children of osiris(burn blood to > untap), Easily removed with Stealth. Majesty escapes those who are blocked. > Corruption's purge(burn blood or go to torpor), A vote not likely to be in many vote decks, against a deck with presence and inborn votes. > Akhenaten, The sun pharoh(does 3 aggravated hand damage vs Settites, > and bleeds for 2), Costs 4 pool and an action to get out. Costs an action to use his Burn a Setite power, in combat with a clan that can make all aggravated normal. Decent, but not awful. > Seeds of corruption(Which has double the effect at normal and 1.5 > times the effect at superior; burning more blood) The only really excellent FoS hoser, this will likely occupy a particular FoS for 3 actions, if they are the only one removing it. Seeing as FoS can steal weenies, have stealth themselves, and can majesty away, removing this card really isn't too difficult, even against Tremere intercept (majesty escape, mummify if they are using Fast Reactions). >, Murat's special ability, Weak. > Radeyah's Special, A good one (enter combat with Setites). That put's the count at 3. > Damaskenos' special, Weak and unlikely. > the 6-cap Tremere's(whose name I've forgotten) special, Elisabetta Romano's +1 bleed vs. Setite's is a common 0 pt. ability. > and then there's the > Jackal(both assamites and Settites, but the assamites can deal w/ the > stealth better), Jackal is mediocre. Few decks would include it. > and all the piles of anti non-cam cards; Protect > thine own, Cornelius Ottavo's ability, Closed session(junk, > admittedly), etc... > To be frank, the Settites do not deserve the treatment that they have > been getting. They have more specific hosers than any other clan in > the game(The assamites have what could be construed as three; the > Toreador have the same), and although they aren't quite as harsh as > the malkavian hosers, except for Akhenaten, who completely totals > Settite decks, they are REALLY excessive. I may even have missed some > of the hosers, since there are so many. The hosers are not really that big of a deal. 3 of them are worth thinking about. The rest are difficult to include in decks. I don't feel their hosers are excessive. > Serpentis before the rulings > on Temptation and Phobia struck me as an unfocused, underpowered > displine for the Settites; with average to useless combat cards and okay > combat prep, it's theft ability was the only thing that made me see it > as worth playing w/ in a settite deck(political, bleed, just not > combat; that requires piles of out of clan vampires). As it stands > now, I feel that either one plays with Temptation and Phobia as > written, or consigns the idea of a non-combat settite deck which uses > serpentis to the dustbin. I mean, what's left? [snipped quips on cards] > I've ranted for a while already, but I'm going on for a bit more. > First; > cards which hose specific strategies through directly affecting all > cards of a certain type or allowing negative effects to be focused on > only cards of that type or amplifying unpleasantness(i.e., all the > hosers I named above) should not be needed in a truly balanced game. > There's nothing wrong with having a few of them, for people who can't > deal with other strategies effectively, but there should never be such > a volume of them, or any which overwhelmingly throw the game(AI. > 'nuff said). Definately agreed. > Second; Reasons for hosers. Supposing that there was a reason for all > the cards which make Settites unhappy, what would it be? That as a > clan, either they or their powers are overpowered or unbalanced to the > point where other cards need to crush them to balance the game? Maybe > so; proceeding from that assumption, which cards as written would be > unpleasant enough to make people care? Why, those theft cards; > Temptation, for temporary 'borrowing' of larger vamps, Corruption, for > the allies and weenies, Form of Corruption(make sure your prey gains the > edge), and Grand Temple of Set... for those foolish enough not to burn it. Yes, but very few of the cards that hurt Setites are effective. Those that are are typically quite dealable in a Setite deck. > Presence and obfuscate do well together, but not nearly as well as > dominate/obfuscate. I disagree. See below. > Perhaps the people at WotC were trying to make up > for the malkavians by making sure that any other clan w/ stealth and > bleed got hosed. However, Presence is worse than dominate for S&B for > a number of reasons: > 1) Actions, not action modifiers. Your prey will be able to see the > bleed coming a mile away, and invest intercept when it counts. This > does make a huge difference. Agreed. But if they attempt to block, they know a majesty could be waiting for them. With Golden Tenets, that means a possible evil vote or stealing card. For non-GT, add in another bleed as well. > 2)No inherent stealth or 'this vampire cannot block' in presence. > Dominate has bonding and seduction. Presence has marijava ghoul(takes > an action and two blood to get), which helps, and Majesty. But this > is S&B, not untap bleed. Just because there is one flavor of S&B doesn't mean there isn't another. Followers of Set aren't Malks. Sure, they can't Seduce or Bond, but they can Majesty. Since they have stealth, they can try again (in non-GT) or do something else at stealth. > 3) The settites are not Toreador. This seems intuitive, but it means > that they pay blood for aire of elation to get...a threats? I've > stopped playing with threats in all of my bleed decks; the same > principle applies here, except that tbere are no other presence bleed > modifiers, so one is stuck. Despite a one-blood cost, just the threat of another 2 pool loss is enough for most people to be afraid to just let it through. Just as you say Setites are not Toreador, remember, they are not Malkavian either. They cannot bleed for as much as a Malk, but they can gain back pool at an alarming rate (gaining, if stealthing through, some 2 to 3 pool a turn from bleeds alone). > In summation the above has stated that the Settites have too many > hosers; an over generalized clan displine w/ only a few useful cards > for them BEFORE it was hamstrung by the ruling; a okay Stealth and > bleed capacity which nonetheless fails to make up to the malkavian > standard; They are not Malks. This comparison is equivalent to saying "Brujah do not live up to the easy torporing ability of the Gangrel". Apples and Oranges, Brujah and Gangrel, Followers of Set and Malkavians. They aren't the same thing. > pitiful combat ability, and a theft ability which takes far, > far too long, and is much too risky, unless Temptation is played as > written, not as ruled. I find it absurd that WotC finds it necessary > to first include all those cards just to cause pain to Settite decks, > makes the clan's primary discipline unfocused, with about half > wallpaper and half good cards, and THEN feels that those few good > cards need to be reduced in power from middling high to the wastepaper > bin which most other Serpentis cards are consigned to(at least for > settite decks). After rethinking, I agree that Temptation is fine as written, but I disagree with your overall assessment of Serpentis. Only Eyes of the Serpent (and now Phobia) seem trashy. > What gives? Should I go out and burn all of my settites and serpentis > cards as totally useless and unplayable?(I'm not serious, of course. > But sometimes I wonder whether the people supporting V:tES at WotC > have heard of game balance recently.) I think they did a fine job, and with the exception of this recent ruling on Phobia (I could live with Temptation, though I do not think it would be to powerful if it was every phase) find their treatment of Game Balance relatively fair. [ quoted text not captured ]

Alec, I agree that the FoS don't really seem to be very scary. That may just be because I haven't seen them used well though. Serpentis looks like kind of a weak Animalism to me: a discipline that tries to have a little of lots of stuff without doing anything very well. I certainly don't think that the cards as rled are going to be able to do much for the clan. By the time they build up enough power to be useful the FoS may very well be dead. They should probably forget about using Serpentis much and put their Obfuscate and Presence to work. As Corrupter said, the use of enhanced bleeds at stealth that allow pool gain may be pretty effective. I think that might be the way I'd try to work them. But then I never play S&B decks unless I'm helping somebody test their deck. (That's probably why AI doesn't bother me. ;-] ) Hope the Rules team reverses this one so we can see how a theft deck will affect the environment. As it stands now I don't think they will be viable. Good luck with FoS. Doug Dunaway [ An artistically inept Torreador]

You couldn't have been more dead on in your analysis of the Setites and specifically Serpentis. The Setites did get hosed. If you look in the Dark Ages book and any other book that shows the levels of Serpentis you can see that the Setites got robbed. Tongue of the Asp for example. Steal 2 blood? Sure that's ok but in Storyteller that thing does aggravated damage, something that the Setites could really use. And what about this garbage about Heart of Darkness being able to be burned as a D action? That should be a permanent effect card. And where is that on skill they have? Breath of Baslisk (or however you spell it), that is a pretty wicked skill in the storyteller game that just never made it to V:Tes. But in the mean time until they fix Serpentis and make it worthwhile you can always try what I did and substitute Serpentis with Dominate. It seems like it works ok, at leats better than Serpentis. Everett Littles Cal Poly SLO Business MIS http://www.calpoly.edu/~elittles/park.html Clan Ravnos Home Page

Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to > >> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince > >> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, > >This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be > >princes. > > There are three options for what happens when a vampire changes sects: > > 1. She loses all abilities of the old sect. > 2. She loses no abilities of the old sect. > 3. She loses any abilities from column A, and none from column B. > > Losing all abilities creates too much weirdness, and having a laundry list > creates too many headaches. It is therefore best and simplest to say the > vampire loses none of the abilities, regardless of what the backstory might > have to say on the matter. > Alright. I have a couple of questions in response to this, and although I hate to bring up hypothetical issues, these might determine the viability of a Non-cam vote deck. Suppose a Non camarilla vampire uses a clan impersonation to become camarilla, say, a ventrue. Then that ex-non cam vampire plays a praxis seizure, becoming a prince. Then it takes the action to burn the clan impersonation. Does it lose the title? Under the current ruling, my first reaction would be no. In a Change of sect, the vampire loses no abilities of the old sect. Now, what happens w/ writ of acceptance? Suppose Hadrian Garick got a writ, then called himself prince of Seattle. Then a heidelburg castle is used to transfer the writ to another settite, who then calls themselves prince of, say, monaco. Does Hadrian still retain his title, since he is no longer camarilla? And although I never expect to see this happen in a game, what happens when a non-camarilla impersonates a camarilla clan, say ventrue, and becomes justicar, then returns to their original clan? Do they lose the title? Under the current ruling, I would say not. All of this is just speculation right now, but if that's the way things stand, making non-camarilla politics decks looks a lot easier than it used to be. Alec Chang

Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > GENERAL RULINGS > > 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to > lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince > who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, and a > Justicar who impersonates another clan does not lose his or her title. If a > vampire changes his clan to one that is part of a different sect (e.g., a > Giovanni impersonates a Camarilla clan), then he or she is considered to be > part of the new sect instead of the old one. > > Remember that the extra capacity granted by a new Praxis Seizure is inherent > to the title and dependent on the vampire's clan. Losing the title will cause > the capacity to disappear, and changing the Prince's clan to or from the > appropriate clan will cause it to gain or lose that extra capacity. > Hmmm... I'm not sure how this ruling floats with me.. but I don't see it making a difference in most games... > 4) Dreams of the Sphinx only increases your hand size until the end of the > current turn. > Thank God for this ruiling.. :) It still makes the card powerful, but not too powerful.... > 5) Phobia and Temptation only gain counters during your master phases, not > the master phases of other Methuselahs. Eeek... like the Setites needed to get any weaker... (sigh) > > 3) If Return to Innocence is modified by Day Operation, and the action is > successful, the acting Methuselah chooses whether the acting vampire will go > into torpor before he or she is burned, since both effects would otherwise > happen at the same time. > Ugh... I don't know whether I should cheer for this ruling or not.. i already makes a way-too-powerful combo even worse with Fame.... > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. > ACK! Now THAT sucks.. :) WyldStar [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote: > Thomas R Wylie wrote: [Re: GENERAL RULINGS] [Clan impersonation/losing sect or clan results] > Hmmm... I'm not sure how this ruling floats with me.. but I don't see it > making a difference in most games... I don't like how it ignores card text. This only serves to increase confusion. Easier to go by card text, in the long run. [snip] > > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. > ACK! Now THAT sucks.. :) I agree. Since B2W is not a strike, there is no reason it should care about range unless it specifically mentions it in card text. Does Drawing Out the Beast care? Do other, similar cards care? [ quoted text not captured ]

I completely agree. I thought I was doing something different when I made my settite deck with all those really cool new cards. With phobia being next to useless, compounded by the fact that tempation and Form of corruption being extremely rare, my deck became nothing more than a S&B with the added ability to M:CE. As a matter of principle, I don't do S&B. I aggravates me to no end that the Grand Temple of Set can be burned as a (D) action. You've just spent 2 pool and need to transfer blood to the temple only to have it burnt. This makes for a useless master card and a great way to bleed youself indirectly. Given all the limitations outlined by Alec Chang, I thoroughly agree that the Settites have been deal a raw deal. I would like to suggest the following changes to better balance the game: 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action. 2) Make the number of corruption cards needed to take control of a vampire equal its current blood (like temptation) as opposed to the capacity. 3) Make phobia add a counter for every Methusela's master as opposed to the controlling Methusela's. Cheers George

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, George Tran wrote: > Given all the limitations outlined by Alec Chang, I thoroughly agree > that the Settites have been deal a raw deal. I would like to suggest > the following changes to better balance the game: While I agree that they are weakened by the latest ruling, I hardly think they are to badly put out. > 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action. Probably better is to reduce the cost to 0 or to take over a vampire when you equal their current blood. In any case, it is stil a useful weenie grabber. > 2) Make the number of corruption cards needed to take control of a > vampire equal its current blood (like temptation) as opposed to the > capacity. FAR too powerful. Corruption is not meant to be a method of permanently stealing powerful vampires easily. Use it in bulk, with Whispers of the Dead, throw in Carlotta, or consign yourself to more weenies. > 3) Make phobia add a counter for every Methusela's master as opposed to > the controlling Methusela's. Here we agree. Phobia and temptation (which after I think about it needs it) should work as card text suggests. [ quoted text not captured ]

If Settites got such a raw deal, how come I tend to win with them? How=20 come people panic when they find Settites as their predator? I don't play= =20 them as serious S&B. I play them as corrupters or voters and they work=20 both ways. Sure they aren't able to sweep every table, but if they were,=20 I wouldn't play with them. Hose cards. Our group (especially me) play with alot of clan hose cards.=20 They are particulariy useful for discouraging people from bringing=20 predictable decks to the table. If nobody was afraid of Settites, nobody=20 would put the Settite hosers in their decks. One of the aspects that I=20 like about V:TES is that it is not a one-shot game. Previous games=20 greatly affect the way one builds a deck and plays a game. Build yourself= =20 a Settite deck and throw it in just when when your prey is expecting your= =20 Gangrel.=20 The Settites may not be as 'good' as Gangrel or Malkavian, =C4ut perhaps=20 that is their strength. ;)

My, but you doo ramble, don't you? The reason for all the hosers is simple. Role-playing. EVERYONE hates the Followers of Set. Therefore, everyone goes out of their way, when the Followers of Set are around, to try to get rid of them. -- -- Nyarlathotep : The Crawling Chaos

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote: >> Thomas R Wylie wrote: >> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. > >> ACK! Now THAT sucks.. :) >I agree. Since B2W is not a strike, there is no reason it should care >about range unless it specifically mentions it in card text. Does >Drawing Out the Beast care? Do other, similar cards care? Looks like Crew SNAFU (WotC) has been working overtime on this one. Use the ruling, and simply play blood to water before range is chosen (since the second round /starts/ at close, and Blood to Water is usable any time before strike resolution). Or just ignore the ruling, use common sense, and get the same results. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at range as printed. Sorry for the confusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, George Tran wrote: > > > Given all the limitations outlined by Alec Chang, I thoroughly agree > > that the Setites have been deal a raw deal. I would like to suggest > > the following changes to better balance the game: > > While I agree that they are weakened by the latest ruling, I hardly think > they are to badly put out. > > > 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action. > Probably better is to reduce the cost to 0 or to take over a vampire > when you equal their current blood. In any case, it is stil a useful > weenie grabber. It needs a fix, since it's 6 pool and 4 turns to grab a 3 capacity vampire...if your prey hasn't burned it by then, causing you to lose pool. The Grand Temple of Set is a card powerful enough to require only one of three possible fixes. Of these, the unburnable as an D action is best, since the GToS costs pool. I don't think that any other master: unique location you pay pool for is burnable as a D action, except for Pere Lachaise. It forces your prey to rely on Arson, Bombs, and Rampages, (My Malks always had Arsons, my Nosfer and Brujah Rampages.) and it gives the Setites a fighting chance to steal a good vampire. Reducing the cost to 0 is another good fix, but it's still slow, and with the GToS burnable, most, if not all, of your minions will have to remain untapped in order to protect it. And as stated before, Setites don't protect very well. Making the GToS able to take the vampire when the pool on the card equals the vampire's current blood is, for the reasons affecting Corruption, making the GToS too powerful. Spending 3 pool to take a vampire with 1 blood of any capacity is possible. > > 2) Make the number of corruption cards needed to take control of a > > vampire equal its current blood (like temptation) as opposed to the > > capacity. > FAR too powerful. Corruption is not meant to be a method of permanently > stealing powerful vampires easily. Use it in bulk, with Whispers of the > Dead, throw in Carlotta, or consign yourself to more weenies. Agreed. > > 3) Make phobia add a counter for every Methusela's master as opposed to > > the controlling Methusela's. > Here we agree. Phobia and temptation (which after I think about it needs > it) should work as card text suggests. Agreed. As long as we're still on this thread, how about fixing Eyes of the Serpent? Making it S:CE all minions at superior makes it of general use, instead of a hand clogger that _might_ be useful if your prey or predator brings out a Renegade Garou, or Akhenaton, or a Muddled Vampire Hunter. And it's better to steal one of those allies than to S:CE.

Malcolm, Thanks for the information about the FoS decks. I am one of those who didn't see them being very useful ( but admitted I may not have seen them used well.) I hope they are successful and will invigorate the environment. Would you be willing to post your Settite decks to the newsgroup or e-mail them to me? I'm curious to see your approach and might try one myself. Do you play Temptation and Phobia as written or with the RTR errata? Thanks for the addition to the discussion. Doug Dunaway ( An Artistically Inept Torreador)

Nathan Harada <an64...@anon.penet.fi> writes: >The Corrupter wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, George Tran wrote: >> > 1) Removing the ability to burn the Grand Temple of Set as a D action. >> Probably better is to reduce the cost to 0 or to take over a vampire >> when you equal their current blood. In any case, it is stil a useful >> weenie grabber. > Of these, the unburnable as an D action is best, since the GToS >costs pool. I don't think that any other master: unique location you pay >pool for is burnable as a D action, except for Pere Lachaise. It forces your >prey to rely on Arson, Bombs, and Rampages, (My Malks always had Arsons, my >Nosfer and Brujah Rampages.) and it gives the Setites a fighting chance to >steal a good vampire. Master: Unique Location; N Pool; Burn/steal with a (D) action are commonplace in Dark Sovereigns: Forest of Shadows, Ravnos Cache, Powerbase: Berlin, Wasserschloss Anif, Oxford University, Powerbase: Rome. Most of these are wallpaper, and would be balanced (IMHO) by removing the Burn option or the Pool Cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 9 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >> 2) Changing a vampire's clan, title, or sect generally does not cause it to > >> lose any inherent benefits of his or her old position. For example, a Prince > >> who becomes a non-Camarilla vampire retains his or her title normally, > >This does not make much sense as Non-cam's are not allowed to be > >princes. > There are three options for what happens when a vampire changes sects: > 1. She loses all abilities of the old sect. > 2. She loses no abilities of the old sect. > 3. She loses any abilities from column A, and none from column B. > Losing all abilities creates too much weirdness, Examples? I can't think of any particular weirdness. > and having a laundry list > creates too many headaches. How is a new laundry list created We already have the old Non-Camarilla laundry list. > It is therefore best and simplest to say the > vampire loses none of the abilities, regardless of what the backstory might > have to say on the matter. From a Jyhad game standpoint (as opposed to a V:tM standpoint), it still makes less sense. A non-Camarilla member can't be prince. But if they become Camarilla they can be a prince. But if they lose their Camarilla status, then they can still be a prince. Isn't it just easier to say: If you are non-Camarilla, these are your restrictions, rather than the hullaballu above? Making vampire clan=vampire sect is also confusing. Saqqaf decides to impersonate a Nosferatu (clan impersonation) becomes Nossie Justicar, and then ends the impersonation, remaining Nosferatu Justicar? Now we have a non-Camarilla vampire (according to card text and card state) being a Justicar of a clan they don't belong to. Easier to work with card text. Saqqaf is non-Camarilla, and will be treated as such until a card explicitly overrides that. X Justicar is a position only holdable by X (Camarilla) clan. While of that clan, you qualify as Justicar. While not, you temporarily do not. Perhaps this ruling need to be rethought. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. >This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at >range as printed. Sorry for the confusion. But you can still use it before the Maneuver step of the second round, since that is certainly before strikes, and every round begins at close range. Just like Weather Control doesn't mention (or care) about range, because it is done at a time before range becomes meaningful. The errata/ruling/whatever is useless. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 14 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > >> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. > This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at > range as printed. Sorry for the confusion. You've just added to mine... B2W, What does it now do? The ruling said that it is not usable at range. Now you say that that ruling is errata to the card and it obviously works at range. What? [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : On 14 Jul 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: : : > >> > 4) Blood to Water is not usable at range. : : > This is actually errata to the card, not a ruling; obviously it works at : > range as printed. Sorry for the confusion. : You've just added to mine... : B2W, What does it now do? The ruling said that it is not usable at : range. Now you say that that ruling is errata to the card and it : obviously works at range. : What? I believe Tom is saying this: As written, it is perfectly acceptable to use tha card at range. The above statement, which was called a ruling, is more properly called errata, the difference being that rulings interpret what is said on the card whereas errata add new information to make the card work 'properly' (in the eyes of the Rules Team). Since that point, LSJ has pointed out that even if it _is_ errata, it isn't _enough_ errata to make the card work the way they apparently want it to. Since BtW isn't a strike, it can be played at any time during a combat round - including immediately as the round starts, before anyone has played maneuvers and combat is (evenif only temporarily) at close range. That clear things up? Still using Nicole's account... Shane H.W. Travis | Alone, adj.: ro...@duke.usask.ca | In bad company. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Oh yeah, one more pending item from The Age of Tom: The ruling on Bindusara vs. Suden Reversal is too broadly written: Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 07/08/96 Date: 1996/07/09 >CARD RULINGS >2) Sudden Reversal can burn cards that have been played with Bindusara's >ability. You mean "can burn cards that are being played ..." (or are we going back to the pre-Nov'94 ruling that Sudden Reversal can burn a card in play? :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | In theory there is no difference http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | between theory and practice. [ quoted text not captured ]