Our local playgroup had quite a debate tonight as to the effect of a
passing Diversity. We all thought it was a good idea to have someone
else parse the text. Here's the cardtext:
Diversity
Political Card - Worth 1 vote
Callted by any vampire at +1 stealth
Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains X pool, where X is
the number of different clans to which his or her ready vampires
belong.
My interpretation was that a Methuselah had to have at least two clans
to gain any benefit from this card -- one needs *different* clans to
get pool, having just a single clan under control isn't "diverse." So
under my reading, Methuselahs with a single clan under control would
get zero pool, those with two would get two, three = three, etc.
Others disagreed, stating that a those who control a single clan
should get 1 pool, or that having just two clans meant that you only
gained one pool, since you only really had 1 *different* clan.
The key disagreement stems from ones definition of "different." So
what is the effect of this card? Boon to all or boon to just those
who control multiple clans? Was my interpretation correct?
Ultimately my decision was to say "screw it" and cause my own vote's
referendum to fail since I didn't need the pool anyway. But it would
be nice to know the answer, in case I wanted to call this vote again
some other night.
cmb
cmb wrote:
> Our local playgroup had quite a debate tonight as to the effect of a
> passing Diversity. We all thought it was a good idea to have someone
> else parse the text. Here's the cardtext:
>
> Diversity
> Political Card - Worth 1 vote
> Callted by any vampire at +1 stealth
> Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains X pool, where X is
> the number of different clans to which his or her ready vampires
> belong.
>
So far, i interpreted that if you just control clan A you gain 0 pool
(0 different clan controlled),
if you control clan A e clan B different you gain 1 pool
(1 different clan controlloed), if you control A - B - C different
you gain 2 pool, and so on.
regards
Emiliano, v;ekn Prince of Rome
Tetragrammaton expounded:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would be absolutely astonished if that was the intent. Even if I
thought that was a valid interpretaion of the text (which I don't), they
would have been much clearer about it.
You gain 1 pool per clan. The "different" is just clarifying text.
NB IANLSJ and some of his rulings are incomprehensible to me (well seem
illogical anyway) so I may be wrong.
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<2hb2n4F...@uni-berlin.de>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't believe so. I am fairly certain that "X" comes from the total
number of clans. If you control 1, you gain 1. If you control 2, you
gain 2. I believe the word "different" is added so that you can't
claim that 5 Malkavians belong to 5 clans, even if those clans are all
the same. It would probably be better read it as "distinct."
Eric Simon
Prince of Chicago
Anarch Newsletter Writer
> > > Our local playgroup had quite a debate tonight as to the effect of a
> > > passing Diversity. We all thought it was a good idea to have someone
> > > else parse the text. Here's the cardtext:
> > >
> > > Diversity
> > > Political Card - Worth 1 vote
> > > Callted by any vampire at +1 stealth
> > > Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains X pool, where X is
> > > the number of different clans to which his or her ready vampires
> > > belong.
> > >
> >
> > So far, i interpreted that if you just control clan A you gain 0 pool
> > (0 different clan controlled),
> > if you control clan A e clan B different you gain 1 pool
> > (1 different clan controlloed), if you control A - B - C different
> > you gain 2 pool, and so on.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Emiliano, v;ekn Prince of Rome
>
> I don't believe so. I am fairly certain that "X" comes from the total
> number of clans. If you control 1, you gain 1. If you control 2, you
> gain 2. I believe the word "different" is added so that you can't
> claim that 5 Malkavians belong to 5 clans, even if those clans are all
> the same. It would probably be better read it as "distinct."
I'd say so too.
So, if you control only Caitiff, you gain zero ?
Orpheus
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<2hb2n4F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> So far, i interpreted that if you just control clan A you gain 0 pool
> (0 different clan controlled),
> if you control clan A e clan B different you gain 1 pool
> (1 different clan controlloed), if you control A - B - C different
> you gain 2 pool, and so on.
But one might also logically infer this:
If you control Clans A and B, clan B is different from clan A, but
clan A is also different from clan B, thus 2 "different" clans --> 2
pool. This interpretation is only possible b/c the card text
establishes no referent for judging difference (it's not, for example,
clans different from the clan of the acting minion).
A related question, also relevant to this card (stemming from an odd
wording in the rulebook): if you have a Caitiff and any other clan,
do you gain any pool? (Since Caitiff are "technically" clanless, are
they *actually* clanless with regard to this card? The spirit of the
card certainly would include them, but the actual card text...probably
not. Alas for the unwanted ones!) However, since a minion from "any
other clan" is by definition different from a Caitiff, you might gain
1 pool. (A player has minions of clans Caitiff + clan X; clan X,
being different from Caitiff, but Caitiff being clanless = 1 pool gain
for having 1 vampire of a *different* clan.)
So...um...how does this card work? ;)
cmb
> If you control Clans A and B, clan B is different from clan A, but
> clan A is also different from clan B, thus 2 "different" clans --> 2
> pool. This interpretation is only possible b/c the card text
> establishes no referent for judging difference (it's not, for example,
> clans different from the clan of the acting minion).
>
If you control clan A and I control clan B, I have a "different" clan.
> A related question, also relevant to this card (stemming from an odd
> wording in the rulebook): if you have a Caitiff and any other clan,
> do you gain any pool? (Since Caitiff are "technically" clanless, are
> they *actually* clanless with regard to this card?
Yes, that's what "technically" means.
Note that Pander IS considered a Clan.
Eric Simon wrote:
> "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<2hb2n4F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>cmb wrote:
>>>>>Our local playgroup had quite a debate tonight as to the effect of a
>>>passing Diversity. We all thought it was a good idea to have someone
>>>else parse the text. Here's the cardtext:
>>>
>>>Diversity
>>>Political Card - Worth 1 vote
>>>Callted by any vampire at +1 stealth
>>>Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains X pool, where X is
>>>the number of different clans to which his or her ready vampires
>>>belong.> I am fairly certain that "X" comes from the total
> number of clans.
Of different clans, yes. Having two Toreador clan members only counts as 1
different clan, not 2, of course.
> If you control 1, you gain 1. If you control 2, you
> gain 2. I believe the word "different" is added so that you can't
> claim that 5 Malkavians belong to 5 clans, even if those clans are all
> the same. It would probably be better read it as "distinct."
Correct. "Distinct" would mean the same thing, yes.
If you control 3 Toreador, then the number of vampires from different clans
you control is 1 (the second Toreador is the same clan as the first, and
the third Toreador is the same clan as the first).
If you control no ready vampires, then the number of ready vampires
from different clans you control is 0.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/