2 questions

Hello all, Well I searched Google to discover it is legal to have two blood dolls on the same minion. However the relevant posts never said I could use both. (I know it seems silly to allow 2 to be played on a minion and then not be able to use both). So if I have multiple blood dolls on the same vampire, can I remove multiple blood from the vampire (or add to) during my master phase. And the second question: As an assamite's blood curse comes from card text, am I correct in assuming that an assamite that has clan impersonated or joined another clan by another means is not affected by the blood curse removing effects of Tajid? Does this also mean that after Tajid has been played that an assamite that clan impersonates to another clan is hit again with the blood curse? Thanks, -John

"John" <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:L4Ef8.172703$A44.10...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... > > > So if I have multiple blood dolls on the same vampire, can I remove multiple > blood from the vampire (or add to) during my master phase. > Of course. Each blood doll allows you to move one blood. > And the second question: > As an assamite's blood curse comes from card text, am I correct in assuming > that an assamite that has clan impersonated or joined another clan by > another means is not affected by the blood curse removing effects of Tajid? > Does this also mean that after Tajid has been played that an assamite that > clan impersonates to another clan is hit again with the blood curse? > No. There is a strange mechanic with Blood Curse that is different from every other similar trait (like Sterile, Scarce, etc., all of which are card text which stay with the vampire). The Blood Curse affects Assamites only, and affects all Assamites, even those without the Blood Cursed card text (it does not affect Tariq, and it does not affect any Assamites when Tajdid has been played... these two exceptions are due only to specific card text). Any Assamite that changes clans loses the Blood Curse. Any vampire that becomes an Assamite gets the Blood Curse. Don't ask me why it's like that (I think it's because the rulebook mentions off-hand that Assamites cannot commit diablerie and then LSJ said that that line in the rulebook made "Blood Cursed" simply reminder text), and I don't like the fact that it's like that.... but that's the way it is.

Chris Berger wrote: > No. There is a strange mechanic with Blood Curse that is different from every other > similar trait (like Sterile, Scarce, etc., all of which are card text which stay with > the vampire). There is one other: Caitiff (clanless). > The Blood Curse affects Assamites only, and affects all Assamites, > even those without the Blood Cursed card text (it does not affect Tariq, and it does > not affect any Assamites when Tajdid has been played... these two exceptions are due > only to specific card text). Any Assamite that changes clans loses the Blood Curse. > Any vampire that becomes an Assamite gets the Blood Curse. > > Don't ask me why it's like that (I think it's because the rulebook mentions off-hand > that Assamites cannot commit diablerie and then LSJ said that that line in the > rulebook made "Blood Cursed" simply reminder text), and I don't like the fact that > it's like that.... but that's the way it is. It's like that so that Tajdid can function appropriately. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <3C7F6260...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> Don't ask me why it's like that (I think it's because the rulebook mentions off-hand >> that Assamites cannot commit diablerie and then LSJ said that that line in the >> rulebook made "Blood Cursed" simply reminder text), and I don't like the fact that >> it's like that.... but that's the way it is. > >It's like that so that Tajdid can function appropriately. It is also helpfully what a number of players consider more intuitive for vampire creation. (Embrace, Third Tradition etc.) -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C7F6260...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > No. There is a strange mechanic with Blood Curse that is different from every other > > similar trait (like Sterile, Scarce, etc., all of which are card text which stay with > > the vampire). > > There is one other: Caitiff (clanless). I'm not sure what you mean, here. That the property of Caitiffness disappears if the Caitiff Clan Impersonates to another clan? And is inherited by "create vampire" effects? (Though the latter isn't strictly analogous to the Blood Curse since the Curse is a secondary effect from being an Assamite.) thanks, Josh

[ quoted text not captured ] Assamites are Blood Cursed (by the rules). Caitiff are clanless (by the rules). [ quoted text not captured ]

Josh Duffin wrote: >> I'm not sure what you mean, here. That the property >> of Caitiffness disappears if the Caitiff Clan Impersonates >> to another clan? And is inherited by "create vampire" >> effects? (Though the latter isn't strictly analogous >> to the Blood Curse since the Curse is a secondary effect >> from being an Assamite.) It just occurred to me that I see no reason, under the rules, that a caitiff playing the Embrace would produce a caitiff. Following card text (same clan as acting vampire) would produce only a clanless vampire. No provision seems to exist to determine what the sect would be. Unless I am missing something... Clanless vampires are not presumed to be caitiff, as determined by precedents like Shock Troops, Abomination, Call the Great Beast. "Caitiff" apparently represents a designation similar to a clan designation, and appears in the place of a clan designation. But no term exists for vampire categories that woud include Caitiff and Clans. Might it be correct to assume, that while Caitiff is not a clan, it is still a "clan-designation", and that cards like Embrace should be read to say "same clan-designation as acting vampire"? -- John Whelan

Nystulc wrote: > It just occurred to me that I see no reason, under the rules, that a caitiff > playing the Embrace would produce a caitiff. Following card text (same clan as > acting vampire) would produce only a clanless vampire. No provision seems to > exist to determine what the sect would be. Unless I am missing something... Caitifness is inherited by the Embrace, just as clan is. The rules do not cover this. The ruling is made to match intent and, conveniently enough, player intuition. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Nystulc wrote: >> It just occurred to me that I see no reason, under the rules, that a >caitiff >> playing the Embrace would produce a caitiff. Following card text (same >clan as >> acting vampire) would produce only a clanless vampire. No provision seems >to >> exist to determine what the sect would be. Unless I am missing >something... > >Caitifness is inherited by the Embrace, just as clan is. >The rules do not cover this. >The ruling is made to match intent and, conveniently enough, player >intuition. OK, then, but now for a related question. What is the default sect of a new vampire, if there is no clan-designation or caitiff-designation can be assigned to it? For example, when an Abomination, or a Great Beast, or a Shock Troop plays the Embrace? I assume this does not vary based on whether the acting vampire has a writ of acceptance or not?

Nystulc wrote: > What is the default sect of a new vampire, if there is no clan-designation or > caitiff-designation can be assigned to it? For example, when an Abomination, or > a Great Beast, or a Shock Troop plays the Embrace? "clanless", of course. > I assume this does not vary based on whether the acting vampire has a writ of > acceptance or not? Nothing ever does. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C81075B...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Nystulc wrote: >> What is the default sect of a new vampire, if there is no clan-designation or ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ >> caitiff-designation can be assigned to it? For example, when an Abomination, or >> a Great Beast, or a Shock Troop plays the Embrace? > >"clanless", of course. And what sect are unspecified clanless vampires? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C81075B...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >Nystulc wrote: > >> What is the default sect of a new vampire, if there is no clan-designation or > ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ > >> caitiff-designation can be assigned to it? For example, when an Abomination, or > >> a Great Beast, or a Shock Troop plays the Embrace? > > > >"clanless", of course. > > And what sect are unspecified clanless vampires? Independent. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: >Nystulc wrote: >> What is the default sect of a new vampire, if there is no clan-designation >or >> caitiff-designation can be assigned to it? For example, when an >Abomination, or >> a Great Beast, or a Shock Troop plays the Embrace? > >"clanless", of course. Sure. But I was asking about sect. Each clan has its default sect to which its embraces are assigned, but I am aware of no default sect for "clanless". A related question would be an Abomination or Shock Trooper who clan impersonates a Gangrel, and then burns the Impersonation. What sect does he then become.

I wrote: >Sure. But I was asking about sect. Each clan has its default sect to which >its embraces are assigned, but I am aware of no default sect for "clanless". Oops. I just saw your answer to James Coupe. Thanks. >A related question would be an Abomination or Shock Trooper who clan >impersonates a Gangrel, and then burns the Impersonation. What sect does he >then become. Based on your answer to Mr.Coupe, I would guess the answer is Independent, even in the case of a Shock Trooper. Right?

Nystulc wrote: > >A related question would be an Abomination or Shock Trooper who clan > >impersonates a Gangrel, and then burns the Impersonation. What sect does he > >then become. > > Based on your answer to Mr.Coupe, I would guess the answer is Independent, even > in the case of a Shock Trooper. Right? Right. See also Lucita (when this sort of thing first came up). [ quoted text not captured ]