Sabbat
------
Includes Rulings, Errata, Clarifications and Statements from: Rules Team
Rulings Through: 11/13/96
and
Answers from Jon Wilkie Through: 11/30/96
--------------------------------------------------
Prisci members (Priscus)
Cannot vote in the main vote - only in the Prisci vote. [JON 961113]
Wild Hunts
Can only be called by Meths who control Sabbat vampire(s). [JON 961118]
============================================================================
CARD-SPECIFIC RULINGS
War Ghoul - Ally (Tzi) (3):
If you have no other allies and no retainers in play when War Ghoul is
recruited, then you burn War Ghoul to satisfy card text. [RTR 961113]
============================================================================
Rules indented with "# " are commented out - they have been overturned and
are no longer part of the official Errata/Clarification/etc.
[JON] Jon Wilkie (Scalpel) - WotC Net Representative
[RTR] Ruling, Errata, Clarification, or Statement from Official WotC Rules Team
Ruling (aka Design Team Ruling, aka Rules Group Answers).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Kirk: How's Ensign Pilsbury?
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | McCoy: He's Bread, Jim.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
[ quoted text not captured ]
Must just point out *again* the complete lack of logic in only allowing
Sabbat vampires to have wild hunts called on them by a Methuselah who
controls Sabbat vampires.
The Camarilla do get very annoyed when someone goes around commiting
diablerie, so they do call Blood Hunts on them
So, you're telling me that if Dragos is in combat with Democritus, sends
him to torpor and then uses Amaranth that he gets off scot free. the
Camarilla aren't going to be annoyed at having a Justicar killed, are
they?
And what about if a Camarilla clan member commits diablerie - would a
Methuselah who only controlled Sabbat vampires be unable to call a blood
hunt.
And when you throw Independent vampires into the mix (ie Giovanni) what
happens?
I would think it would be more logical to simply remove the idea of a
Wild Hunt or Blood Hunt difference, even for storytelling purposes.
I suggest:
*All vampires have Blood Hunts called on them, not Wild Hunts.
*All references to the words Wild Hunt (either past, present or future)
be replaced with the words Blood Hunt.
*Any Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt, regardless of the clan or sect of
the diabolist or whether they control any matching vampires (ie it
doesn't matter if the diabolist was a Sababt vampire or if I control any
Sabbat vampires).
----
James Coupe
Once again replying in the debate about Wild Hunts etc.
Bishop Vesey's Grammar <vese...@rmplc.co.uk> writes:
>Must just point out *again* the complete lack of logic in only allowing
>Sabbat vampires to have wild hunts called on them by a Methuselah who
>controls Sabbat vampires.>The Camarilla do get very annoyed when someone goes around commiting
>diablerie, so they do call Blood Hunts on them>So, you're telling me that if Dragos is in combat with Democritus, sends
>him to torpor and then uses Amaranth that he gets off scot free. the
>Camarilla aren't going to be annoyed at having a Justicar killed, are
>they?
Yes, they're going to be annoyed, but what can they do about it? If
Dragos wants to (and he does), he can retreat to Sabbat territory. The
game is not set up to exist in a specific territory or any such concrete
physical realm (aside from the entirety of the word as we know it), so
there are no specific limits on how far someone can run. For all we
know, Dragos could be running home to New York, where even Archons fear
to tread.
>And what about if a Camarilla clan member commits diablerie - would a
>Methuselah who only controlled Sabbat vampires be unable to call a blood
>hunt.
Why? What would he care? If he controls Camarilla vampires, he might
just care. Otherwise, they're destroying the enemies of the Sabbat.
>And when you throw Independent vampires into the mix (ie Giovanni) what
>happens?
I have no idea. A little help LSJ?
>I would think it would be more logical to simply remove the idea of a
>Wild Hunt or Blood Hunt difference, even for storytelling purposes.
Bah. It's legitimate, and I have no problems with Sabbat only / Cam only
hunts. Seems to me that's the way it should be.
[snip]
>---->James Coupe
Xian
> Christian S Herro wrote:
> > Bishop Vesey's Grammar <vese...@rmplc.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Must just point out *again* the complete lack of logic in only allowing
> >Sabbat vampires to have wild hunts called on them by a Methuselah who
> >controls Sabbat vampires.
Didn't someone just post a message that WotC had retracted
all references to Wild Hunts, and to use Blood Hunt in all cases?
I never accepted that version of the rules, and considered it just
a new name.
> >The Camarilla do get very annoyed when someone goes around commiting
> >diablerie, so they do call Blood Hunts on them
Yes. Everyone gets annoyed. It's unfair that Sabbat get to
call their Blood Hunts a funky new name, while Camarilla and
Independents have to use boring old Blood Hunt. 'Twas a foolish idea,
anyway, and the huge number of misprints and lack of clarification from
WotC made it (horribly) laughable.
> >I would think it would be more logical to simply remove the idea of a
> >Wild Hunt or Blood Hunt difference, even for storytelling purposes.
-Nathan Harada
>>I would think it would be more logical to simply remove the idea of a
>>Wild Hunt or Blood Hunt difference, even for storytelling purposes.>Bah. It's legitimate, and I have no problems with Sabbat only / Cam only>hunts. Seems to me that's the way it should be.
In my playgroup, we have a house rule to make things a little more realistic.
If a Camarilla vampire diablerizes a Sabbat vampire, there is no opportunity
for a blood hunt to be called. After all, one less Sabbat vampire for the
Camarilla to worry about. The Sabbat, however, may call a vote amongst
themselves on whether or not to call a wild hunt on the offender. If the vote
passes, all Sabbat vampires may take a +1 stealth (D) action to rush the
offender as if there were an irremovable Contract on his head. The same works
in reverse, if a Sabbat vampire diablerizes a Camarilla vampire.
Mind you, this is just a house rule, and incongruencies start to appear when
you introduce Independent clans into the deal. We just kind of leave the rules
as is when it comes to the Giovanni, Ravnos, and Settites. (discussion about
blood/wild hunts when it comes to Assamites is pointless at this time :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hey! I like it...
What you could do with the Independent clans is have them being able to whinge
and whine to the opposing sect, ie Sabbat if diablierized by Camarilla and vice
versa. Also, if they diablierize a Sabbat vampire, then the Sabbat get to call
a Wild Hunt, and if Camarilla vampire, a Blood Hunt. However if another
independent vampire diabliorizes an independent vampire... Tough! :-)
--
Jeffrey Endres Undergrad B. Eng (Aerospace Avionics)
Queensland University of Technology
"All human actions are equivalent ... and ...
all are on principle doomed to failure."
Jean-Paul Sartre (Being and Nothingness, Conclusion, sct. 2)
Ack! the sabbat ruling have expired ffrom this server or whatever! or
maybe they're not even here yet...i get some weird replies to stuff
that hasn't arrived yet...LSJ, could you PLEASE email me the sabbat
rulings? i'm running a tournament soon....(scary, huh?)
salem....
In article <herr0041....@gold.tc.umn.edu>, Christian S Herro
<herr...@gold.tc.umn.edu> writes
> The
>game is not set up to exist in a specific territory or any such concrete
>physical realm (aside from the entirety of the word as we know it)
Don't forget Arcadia - buh-ding-ding-ding (sounds like a Jamaican Steel
Drum player)
--
Pax Vobiscum
Justin Grace