LSJ !! Diablerie and sudden death

hi ! something happened during a tournament yesterday. My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation in play with Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri with Theo Bell. I blocked with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor with 5 aggravated from a gas powered chainsaw. His turn ended. I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla segregation. Then i went to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the Angry. During the diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which means grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid of the Camarilla segregation" Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their complaints. But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states "Any Methuselah may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla vampire he or she controls during his or her minion phase." I can't see anything prohibiting me from burning Thomas steed the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the camarilla segregation. So LSJ ?? =) reyda (!salubri rules anyway ;) )

"Reyda" wrote > My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation > in play with Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri > with Theo Bell. I blocked with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor > with 5 aggravated from a gas powered chainsaw. His turn ended. > I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla segregation. Then i went > to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the Angry. During the > diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which means > grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid > of the Camarilla Segregation." > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their > complaints. The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states > "Any Methuselah may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla > vampire he or she controls during his or her minion phase." > I can't see anything prohibiting me from burning Thomas Steed > the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the > camarilla segregation. You must complete the diablerie, and resolve it, before any other effects can take place. This will prohibit you from burning the vampire for the Camarilla Segregation until after the Bloodhunt. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3dbf75a48d2504843ac...@mygate.mailgate.org... > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > hmmm, but Tapping the Ventrue headquarters during a blood hunt is allowed ? Emiliano, vekn prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3dbf75a48d2504843ac...@mygate.mailgate.org... > "Reyda" wrote (snip) >> "okay, as no one will > > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid > > of the Camarilla Segregation." > > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them > > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could > > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their > > complaints. > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com I'm sorry but the link to this previous post provides no useful explanation for the case stated here. > > But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states > > "Any Methuselah may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla > > vampire he or she controls during his or her minion phase." > > I can't see anything prohibiting me from burning Thomas Steed > > the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the > > camarilla segregation. > > You must complete the diablerie, and resolve it, before any other > effects can take place. This will prohibit you from burning the > vampire for the Camarilla Segregation until after the Bloodhunt. There is one problem here : the diablerie vote occurs after i gain blood from the torporized vampire, and after i choose or decline to search my library/hand/ash heap for a master discipline card. There is nothing stating i can't burn my vampire during this step of the diablerie. because of the fuss made by other players, i wasn't able to explain everything to the judge but it think there is no problem burning my vamp during this step. if someone has a better answer (except pierre tran van), feel free to post it here =) thanks reyda

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3ca70bbe$0$25447$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net... > hi ! > > something happened during a tournament yesterday. > > My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation in play with > Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri with Theo Bell. I blocked > with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor with 5 aggravated from a gas powered > chainsaw. His turn ended. I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla > segregation. Then i went to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the > Angry. During the diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which > means grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will support me > in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid of the Camarilla > segregation" > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them referred to > the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could happen once the blood > hunt was called. The judge agreed to their complaints. Not every other players, since I never said I didn't agree. I had many reasons to agree with you, I couldn't get out a Sabbat Vamp because of Cam Seg. But since I never saw this case before, and the voices were getting loud, I just called the Judge. And he took a decision, that's his job! Thanks, Sylvain, you reacted fastly. And remember, no game needs to enrage players, every situation can be resolved *CALMLY*, without any anger. Keep the Faith! Miller Delmardigan Sabbat Priscus http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > "Reyda" wrote > > grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing > > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will > > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid > > of the Camarilla Segregation." > > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them > > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could > > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their > > complaints. > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com Correct. -- 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/

tetragrammaton wrote: > "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > > hmmm, but Tapping the Ventrue headquarters during a blood hunt is allowed ? Yes, per the rules on blood hunt. [6.5.6] [ quoted text not captured ]

"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7UFp8.101196$1S3.3...@twister1.libero.it>... > "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3dbf75a48d2504843ac...@mygate.mailgate.org... > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > > > > hmmm, but Tapping the Ventrue headquarters during a blood hunt is allowed ? > > Emiliano, vekn prince of Rome. Hi m8s, I think that yes, u can tap the Ventrue Head to gain the votes in the Diablerie vote . See u ! [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA77014...@white-wolf.com... > The Lasombra wrote: > > "Reyda" wrote > > > grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing > > > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will > > > support me in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid > > > of the Camarilla Segregation." > > > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them > > > referred to the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could > > > happen once the blood hunt was called. The judge agreed to their > > > complaints. > > > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > > Correct. The diablerie vote occurs after i gain blood from the torporized vampire, and after i choose or decline to search my library/hand/ash heap for a master discipline card. There is nothing stating i can't burn my vampire during this step of the diablerie. please explain =) reyda

Reyda wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] See the post cited. Diablerie is atomic. You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA7BF66...@white-wolf.com... > > > > > > > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > > > > > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > > > > See the post cited. > Diablerie is atomic. > You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step. > But the Blood Hunt... isn't that supposed to be considered a referendum, just like any other referendum (except that it doesn't occur as part of an action)? Like someone said above, you can tap the Ventrue Headquarters. Also, you can lobby for people to vote for you, you may burn the Edge for a vote, you may use any effects that grant you votes, as long as they don't require an action to be happening. Right? So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the diablerie to burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a skill card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem to be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum...

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA7BF66...@white-wolf.com... > > The diablerie vote occurs after i gain blood from the torporized vampire, > > and after i choose or decline to search my library/hand/ash heap for a > > master discipline card. There is nothing stating i can't burn my vampire > > during this step of the diablerie. > > See the post cited. > Diablerie is atomic. > You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step. So what should i do then ? Can i go diablerize with the "sacrifice" vampire and immediatly burn it when the action succeeds ?

[ quoted text not captured ] ... before resolving the diablerie? Sure. That would be very similar to doing it before takingthe action at all, except that you may be able to cycle some stealth cards in the meantime. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > The judge was correct. LSJ [11-03-2002] posted as much here: > > > > > > > > > > "Update: Diablerie is atomic - you cannot play effects within it." > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C8C926C.9B234E5C%40white-wolf.com > > > > > > See the post cited. > > Diablerie is atomic. > > You cannot interrupt it to, for example, burn your vampire during that step. > > > But the Blood Hunt... isn't that supposed to be considered a referendum, just > like any other referendum (except that it doesn't occur as part of an action)? Yes. 6.5.6 > Like someone said above, you can tap the Ventrue Headquarters. Also, you can Yes. 6.5.6 > lobby for people to vote for you, you may burn the Edge for a vote, you may use > any effects that grant you votes, as long as they don't require an action to be > happening. Right? Yes. 6.5.6 > So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a > referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or > reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the diablerie to > burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no > interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a skill > card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem to > be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum... Just the ruling cited. [ quoted text not captured ]

Can i burn my vampire for the Camarilla segregation during combat, providing it happens during my minion phase ?

can i burn a disarm on my vampire by spending two blood during a diablerie ?

Reyda wrote: > > Can i burn my vampire for the Camarilla segregation during combat, providing > it happens during my minion phase ? Sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

Reyda wrote: > > can i burn a disarm on my vampire by spending two blood during a diablerie ? No. Diablerie is atomic. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA8464C...@white-wolf.com... > Reyda wrote: > > > > can i burn a disarm on my vampire by spending two blood during a diablerie ? > > No. Diablerie is atomic. Understood. Can you clarify the exact occurence of event when Vamp A diablerize Vamp B please ? can you list the effects that can be used (Ventrue HQ, Quentin etc... ? ) reyda

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA843D0...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a > > referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or > > reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the diablerie to > > burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no > > interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a skill > > card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem to > > be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum... > > Just the ruling cited. > The ruling cited says that diablerie is an "atomic action", and you made one ruling then reversed it within a space of about a day. I don't think reasonable consideration was put into exactly what was meant by "atomic action." The ruling stated apparently does not allow the playing of effects during the Blood Hunt. We all know that you can play effects during the Blood Hunt. Are you going to give us a list of which effects are playable during a Blood Hunt and which are not?

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CA843D0...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > So, during the Blood Hunt, can't you do anything else you could do during a > > > referendum, with the exception that you can't play action modifiers or > > > reactions, since no action is occuring? You can't "interrupt" the > diablerie to > > > burn your vampire, of course. So, the steps must be followed with no > > > interruptions: move blood and equipment, burn the opposing vampire, get a > skill > > > card, call a Blood Hunt. Once the Blood Hunt is begun, there doesn't seem > to > > > be anything restricting you from using effects during the referendum... > > > > Just the ruling cited. > > > The ruling cited says that diablerie is an "atomic action", and you made one > ruling then reversed it within a space of about a day. I don't think > reasonable consideration was put into exactly what was meant by "atomic > action." OK. You may be right. > The ruling stated apparently does not allow the playing of effects > during the Blood Hunt. We all know that you can play effects during the Blood > Hunt. Are you going to give us a list of which effects are playable during a > Blood Hunt and which are not? Playable: votes, as stated before and in 6.5.6 as cited before. Not playable: the rest [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Exact occurence: exactly as per 6.5.5 and 6.5.6 Effects that can be used: Edge for vote, PA for vote, Ventrue HQ, ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA8B6C3...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > ... I don't think > > reasonable consideration was put into exactly what was meant by "atomic > > action." > > OK. You may be right. > > > The ruling stated apparently does not allow the playing of effects > > during the Blood Hunt. We all know that you can play effects during the Blood > > Hunt. Are you going to give us a list of which effects are playable during a > > Blood Hunt and which are not? > > Playable: votes, as stated before and in 6.5.6 as cited before. > Not playable: the rest > So, instead of saying that you are not allowed to play effects between the successful diablerie and the beginning of the subsequent Blood Hunt... the rule is now: you cannot play any effects between the successful diablerie and the end of the Blood Hunt. Except you can play effects that give you votes. Or also effects that cancel other vampire's votes. ??? Doesn't that seem a little bit more artificial and confusing than it needs to be?

[ quoted text not captured ] You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to cancel a vampire's votes in mind? > little bit more artificial and confusing than it needs to be? Confusing and artificial? Sure. More than it needs to be? no. The atomic is necessary for the 1-4 of the diablerie. Breaking atomicity for 5 would be at least as artificial as the current. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Exact occurence: exactly as per 6.5.5 and 6.5.6 >Effects that can be used: Edge for vote, PA for vote, Ventrue HQ, >ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes. Anything else? How about PB: Madrid? Halcyan 2

>> So, instead of saying that you are not allowed to play effects between the >> successful diablerie and the beginning of the subsequent Blood Hunt... the >> rule is now: you cannot play any effects between the successful diablerie >and >> the end of the Blood Hunt. Except you can play effects that give you >votes. >> Or also effects that cancel other vampire's votes. ??? Doesn't that seem >a > >You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to cancel > >a vampire's votes in mind? The only thing I can think of is Astrid's special. She is allowed to *use* that in a Blood Hunt, right? Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Astrid can't cancel votes. But she can vote per normal, and other Tremere votes will be cast to match hers, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. Anything that gains votes and isn't restricted to "political actions". [ quoted text not captured ]

>> >You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to >cancel >> > >> >a vampire's votes in mind? >> >> The only thing I can think of is Astrid's special. She is allowed to *use* >that >> in a Blood Hunt, right? > >Astrid can't cancel votes. >But she can vote per normal, and other Tremere votes will be cast to match >hers, of course. Sorry. I tend to simply clump cancelling and changing votes into the same general group. In that case, is Astrid "using" her ability? Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Her ability functions, as stated above. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> >Exact occurence: exactly as per 6.5.5 and 6.5.6 >> >Effects that can be used: Edge for vote, PA for vote, Ventrue HQ, >> >ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes. >> >> Anything else? >> >> How about PB: Madrid? > >Sure. >Anything that gains votes and isn't restricted to "political actions". From the Online Rulebook: When a vampire commits diablerie, any Methuselah may call for a referendum to see if a blood hunt will be called on the diablerist. If the referendum passes, a blood hunt is called, and the diablerist is burned. This referendum is not an action, and no political action card is required. Since this is not an action, it cannot be blocked, and action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other. In a normal referendum, you could for example: #1. Tap the Barrens to discard (though of course you wouldn't draw up till after the referendum). #2. Tap the Fragment to draw two cards and discard (important if you're trying to look for a PA to discard for a vote). #3. Use effects such as Grendel's and Tusk's to look at the top card of your crypt/library. #4. Tap the Slaughterhouse to burn the top 2 cards of your prey's library. #5. Burn counters off of a Temptation to gain control of a vampire (useful if you suddenly realize you need that vampire's votes). #6. (Discussed earlier). Burn Disarm on a vampire by burning 3 blood and/or burn a vampire to burn Judgement: Camarilla Segregration. * Other examples are also possible. So since none of these effects "gain votes" (directly), they can't be used during a Blood Hunt though they can be used during a normal referendum? Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is far from the truth... Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is > far from the truth... Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CA8BB9B...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > So, instead of saying that you are not allowed to play effects between the > > successful diablerie and the beginning of the subsequent Blood Hunt... the > > rule is now: you cannot play any effects between the successful diablerie and > > the end of the Blood Hunt. Except you can play effects that give you votes. > > Or also effects that cancel other vampire's votes. ??? Doesn't that seem a > > You have some specific existing effect that could be played in a BH to cancel > a vampire's votes in mind? > Sorry. Somebody mentioned Quentin. But his ability is only usable during a political action. > > little bit more artificial and confusing than it needs to be? > > Confusing and artificial? Sure. > More than it needs to be? no. > > The atomic is necessary for the 1-4 of the diablerie. > Breaking atomicity for 5 would be at least as artificial as the current. > The atomic ruling in itself is confusing and artificial. However, lumping in the Blood Hunt as part of the diablerie makes it unclear why you cannot play, for example, Madrigal during the Blood Hunt vote. If, for example, a vampire is diablerized as an action (as opposed to with Amaranth, for which this would probably still apply), and the entire resolution of the successful diablerie action includes the Blood Hunt as well, then Madrigal should be playable, as it must be played during a referendum, and can be played as a reaction/action modifier. So, if the whole process is atomic, then it all occurs during the resolution of the action (the same time that a referendum called by a political action would occur). The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over, and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called. Restricting certain types of effects but not others is certainly more artificial than restricting either all effects or no effects. If the Blood Hunt, from beginning to end, is part of the diablerie, then if the diabelerie is the resolution of a diablerie action, then what is the rationale for not being able to use action modifiers and reactions during it? Assuming that the card doesn't stipulate that it is used during a political action.

Reyda wrote: > hi ! > > something happened during a tournament yesterday. > > My predator, playing eurobrujah, put a Camarilla Segregation in play with > Donal O Conor. He then rushed one of my !salubri with Theo Bell. I blocked > with Wolf Valentine, sent him to torpor with 5 aggravated from a gas powered > chainsaw. His turn ended. I untapped, payed the pool for camarilla > segregation. Then i went to diablerize theo bell with Thomas Steed the > Angry. During the diablerie, i asked for the voices of my "allies", which > means grand predator and grand prey. Alas, as my gandprey wasn't agreeing > for throwing the edge in my favor, i said "okay, as no one will support me > in the vote, i decide to burn Thomas Steed to get rid of the Camarilla > segregation" > Then every other player said i couldn't do that. Some of them referred to > the diablerie being "atomic" and thus nothing could happen once the blood > hunt was called. The judge agreed to their complaints. > > But i maintain my opinion. As Camarilla segregation states "Any Methuselah > may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla vampire he or she controls > during his or her minion phase." I can't see anything prohibiting me from > burning Thomas steed the minute after i do the diablerie to burn the > camarilla segregation. hi all, what a long thead!! Everything had been said, so, sorry that the decision i made goes against you. BTW try to keep kewl in tournament reyda. Anyway thanks for the post i can't put it miself before now, SeeYa later -- meshenka, tzimisce priscus trainyRuleMonger http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<w05q8.147575$Yv2.45267@rwcrnsc54>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree with Chris on his point. I have always viewed, and taught, that Blood Hunt is a possible consequence of diablerie. You could play whatever cards (Ritual of the Bitter Rose, etc...) during the diablerie, but once the diablerie action was finished, then a decision on whether a Blood Hunt was to be called had to be made immediately afterward. This would not allow the possibility of other actions taking place in between the end of the diablerie action and the decision of a Blood Hunt. I can understand identifying a checklist of effects that occur during a diablerie, but when would I play a Ritual? Prior to the movement of step 1 in the list? At the time of step 1 in the list? Or after step 1 in the list? Once the diablerie action was complete, a Blood Hunt decision would be reached (to call or not to call...) and if it was called then political action cards, appropriate permanents and appropriate vampire specials would apply to the Blood Hunt vote (or referendum). I have never seen any room for another action to take place between the diablerie action and the Blood Hunt decision (and possible resulting vote) as it has always been considered akin to Freak Drive, but as a verbal reaction only usable by other players after a successful diablerie action. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CA8CBF7...@white-wolf.com>... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is > > far from the truth... > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. Please. What exactly is an "atomic ruling"? What is considered to be atomic? Normally atoms are atomic. How is this in any way relevant for rulings in VTES? Thanks. Carl

>> Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. > >Please. What exactly is an "atomic ruling"? What is considered to be >atomic? Normally atoms are atomic. How is this in any way relevant for >rulings in VTES? >Thanks. What he means by atomic is that it is undivisible. It's not like you can simply "divide" diablerie into X steps which occur one at a time (and there's a space of time between each step). Instead, diablerie is this conglomeration of stuff that all happens but it can't be divied up or interrupted. Or something like that... Halcyan 2

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CA8C99E...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > >Astrid can't cancel votes. > > >But she can vote per normal, and other Tremere votes will be cast to match > > >hers, of course. > > > > Sorry. I tend to simply clump cancelling and changing votes into the same > > general group. > > > > In that case, is Astrid "using" her ability? > > Her ability functions, as stated above. > Mmmh, how about tapping the powerbase: Madrid, during the bh, to gain votes ? Emiliano > --

"The Tzimisce Lord" <Tzimis...@seclogd.org> wrote in message news:slrnaahong.1f...@tzimisce.perso.fr... > hi all, > what a long thead!! Everything had been said, so, sorry that the > decision i made goes against you. BTW try to keep kewl in tournament > reyda. Anyway thanks for the post i can't put it miself before now, > SeeYa later Keep cool , you said ? whenever in tournament i try to play something original i'm tired to see the old archetypes (ventrue voter on my left and eurobrujah on my right) ganging on me to crush me as fast as possible only because they fear the cards and the vampires they don't know. To those guys i just want to say : "xxxx you, lamers ! there was some expansions after jyhad and dark sovereigns, ya know !"

Chris Berger wrote: > The atomic ruling in itself is confusing and artificial. However, lumping in > the Blood Hunt as part of the diablerie makes it unclear why you cannot play, > for example, Madrigal during the Blood Hunt vote. If, for example, a vampire > is diablerized as an action (as opposed to with Amaranth, for which this would > probably still apply), and the entire resolution of the successful diablerie > action includes the Blood Hunt as well, then Madrigal should be playable, as it > must be played during a referendum, and can be played as a reaction/action > modifier. So, if the whole process is atomic, then it all occurs during the > resolution of the action (the same time that a referendum called by a political > action would occur). As stated in 6.5.6, no action modifiers or reaction cards can be played. All diablerie occurs within some action, but the action is suspended while the diablerie is handled. > The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie > happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this > point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] > before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or > not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over, > and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called. This part, not associated with any action, is true. > Restricting certain types of effects but not others is certainly more > artificial than restricting either all effects or no effects. > > If the Blood Hunt, from beginning to end, is part of the diablerie, then if the > diabelerie is the resolution of a diablerie action, then what is the rationale > for not being able to use action modifiers and reactions during it? Assuming > that the card doesn't stipulate that it is used during a political action. Rules text and the idea that the Blood Hunt is conducted independently of the action. [ quoted text not captured ]

Reyda wrote: > > "The Tzimisce Lord" <Tzimis...@seclogd.org> wrote in message > news:slrnaahong.1f...@tzimisce.perso.fr... > >> hi all, >> what a long thead!! Everything had been said, so, sorry that the >> decision i made goes against you. BTW try to keep kewl in tournament >> reyda. Anyway thanks for the post i can't put it miself before now, >> SeeYa later > > Keep cool , you said ? > whenever in tournament i try to play something original i'm tired to see the > old archetypes (ventrue voter on my left and eurobrujah on my right) ganging > on me to crush me as fast as possible only because they fear the cards and > the vampires they don't know. i got your point, it's why we try at sabbat in france to promote new and original deck design. We give to you, Fred pin, Benoit oliveri and others extra lots for there creativity. > > To those guys i just want to say : "xxxx you, lamers ! there was some > expansions after jyhad and dark sovereigns, ya know !" > > > -- meshenka, Tzimisce Priscus http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020402040108...@mb-ba.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Except that it can be interrupted by certain effects but not by others. So it's not really atomic. So, by "atomic", he means "not atomic, but certain types of effects are restricted."

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CA8B710...@white-wolf.com>... -snip- > ready titled vampires, ready vampires with votes. Aren´t ready vampires with votes considered titled?

>> > In that case, is Astrid "using" her ability? >> >> Her ability functions, as stated above. >> > >Mmmh, how about tapping the powerbase: Madrid, during the bh, to gain votes That was already answered and you can use PB: Madrid. But I don't see why Astrid can use her special (which doesn't directly provide votes) whereas Tusk and Grendel can't use theirs (which also don't directly provide votes). Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Not all of them. See Legacy of Pander, Power Structure, Political Struggle, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com writes: >But I don't see why Astrid can use her special (which doesn't directly provide >votes) whereas Tusk and Grendel can't use theirs (which also don't directly >provide votes). And what about Temptation? Can you only use temptations on minions who have votes? If things are supposed to be straightfoward and obvious "it's a referendum in which you can't play modifiers and reactions" is no more problematic than what you can do in referenda in general. That's not problematic, is it? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

LSJ wrote: > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is > > far from the truth... > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. > You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that. Apparently this new ruling needs to have the bugs worked out of it. Don't you have a rules team for this sort of thing? Raille

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is > > > far from the truth... > > > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. > > > > You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects > steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that. When was that? > Apparently this new ruling needs to have the bugs worked out of it. Possibly, but not "apparently". > Don't you have a rules team for this sort of thing? For working out problem rulings? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<QRlq8.204708$q2.18501@sccrnsc01>... [ quoted text not captured ] I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt atomic? I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] To handle Reform Body style effects properly. It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ramsteiner" <michael...@ramstein.af.mil> wrote in message news:9c15fdd3.02040...@posting.google.com... > > I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt > atomic? > > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. > You're not the only one.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CAB1016...@white-wolf.com>... <SNIP> > > I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the > > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt > > atomic? > > > > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some > > new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are > > causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering > > the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in > > line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad. > > To handle Reform Body style effects properly. > It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling. Is this to stop people from using Reform Body during a Diablerie action or force it to be played after a Blood Hunt has occured? From how I am reading the card it states that it is only useable by a vampire that is being burned, not actually burned. (After all I don't recall anything in the game that allows burned vampires to play cards.) So if a diablerie action is not blocked and the target vampire is going to be burned at the conclusion of the action, then this card could be played. Which would mean that the vampire was never actually burned and therefore no Blood Hunt should occur. Am I off-base on this reasoning? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is > > > > far from the truth... > > > > > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. > > > > > > > You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects > > steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that. > > When was that? http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CA8BB9B.A74E2C7B%40white-wolf.com This seems to lead people to believe that the effects of 1-4 are all part of the diablery and cannot thus be seperated, hence the atomic ruling. (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic is just So not Vtes.) You already stated that during the blood hunt various intrupts can be used. You also managed to contradict yourself on the following: ------ > The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie > happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this > point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] > before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or > not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over, > and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called. This part, not associated with any action, is true. ---- So do you mean that Chris was correct and that the referendum, is called after the action, and thus not associated with any action. An important point in reference to card play. So to clarify the above, as I see it. The Diablery action commences, and the events become the almagamated collections of steps leading up to the calling of the blood hunt. Action concludes. Referendum is voted on. Vote effects can be played, or utilized as normal, depending upon card text. Vampire special can be used and opperate as stated on the card text. Reaction and Action modified cannot be used since this vote is no longer associated with an action. So the question I have, is how and where and or why does the atomic effects modify the referendum of the Blood hunt. Raille

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > > Seems like the "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other." is > > > > > far from the truth... > > > > > > > > Yes. It has been modified by the atomic ruling. > > > > > > > > > > You already stated that this new ruling, the atomic Theory, only effects > > > steps 1-4. The referendum starts after that. > > > > When was that? > > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CA8BB9B.A74E2C7B%40white-wolf.com > > This seems to lead people to believe that the effects of 1-4 are all > part of the diablery and cannot thus be seperated, hence the atomic > ruling. (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > is just So not Vtes.) That post in no way indicates that "only" 1-4 are indivisible. It actually explains why 5 is included. > You already stated that during the blood hunt various intrupts can be > used. No. I stated that referendum effects can be used, per 6.5.6 > You also managed to contradict yourself on the following: > > ------ > > The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie > > happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this > > point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used > > No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] > > > before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or > > not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over, > > and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called. > > This part, not associated with any action, is true. > ---- No contradiction. That actually reinforces the idea. > So do you mean that Chris was correct and that the referendum, is called > after the action, and thus not associated with any action. An important > point in reference to card play. No. I mean what I said - the blood hunt is part of the diablerie. It is handled independently of the current action, as indicated in 6.5.6. > So to clarify the above, as I see it. The Diablery action commences, > and the events become the almagamated collections of steps leading up to > the calling of the blood hunt. OK. > Action concludes. Referendum is voted on. Vote effects can be played, > or utilized as normal, depending upon card text. Vampire special can be > used and opperate as stated on the card text. Reaction and Action > modified cannot be used since this vote is no longer associated with an > action. No. The action is suspended. To rule otherwise creates problems with Amaranth and, say, Hidden Lurker. > So the question I have, is how and where and or why does the atomic > effects modify the referendum of the Blood hunt. Becuase the blood hunt is listed in the set of things that occur as part of diablerie, and those things need to be indivisible. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CAB1016...@white-wolf.com>... > <SNIP> > > > I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the > > > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt > > > atomic? > > > > > > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some > > > new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are > > > causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering > > > the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in > > > line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad. > > > > To handle Reform Body style effects properly. > > It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling. > > Is this to stop people from using Reform Body during a Diablerie > action or force it to be played after a Blood Hunt has occured? To force it to be played before conducting the diablerie (before moving blood and equipment from the vitcim). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CAC337C...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > > > ------ > > > The way that I always thought it was played before was that the diablerie > > > happens, with all effects involved. Then, the action is completed, and at this > > > point another Methuselah can call a Blood Hunt. No other effects could be used > > > > No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] > > > > > before the Blood Hunt was called, but once the Blood Hunt was either called or > > > not called (i.e. everyone declines to call it), the diablerie action was over, > > > and a separate referendum, not associated with any action, was then called. > > > > This part, not associated with any action, is true. > > ---- > > No contradiction. That actually reinforces the idea. > If the Blood Hunt occurs as part of an action, then how is it not "associated" with any action? If I'm not mistaken, action modifiers and reactions can be played during an action. Why is it important that the Blood Hunt be called as *part* of the diablerie, rather than after it? [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > If the Blood Hunt occurs as part of an action, then how is it not "associated" > with any action? If I'm not mistaken, action modifiers and reactions can be > played during an action. Why is it important that the Blood Hunt be called as > *part* of the diablerie, rather than after it? The blood hunt is part of the diablerie per the rulebook text It isn't independently important that the BH be part of the diablerie. But, since the rulebook indicates that it is, it is. See also the importance of the discard phase coming after the influence phase. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CAC5240...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > If the Blood Hunt occurs as part of an action, then how is it not "associated" > > with any action? If I'm not mistaken, action modifiers and reactions can be > > played during an action. Why is it important that the Blood Hunt be called as > > *part* of the diablerie, rather than after it? > > The blood hunt is part of the diablerie per the rulebook text > > It isn't independently important that the BH be part of the diablerie. > But, since the rulebook indicates that it is, it is. > > See also the importance of the discard phase coming after the influence phase. Also, as I think you indicated in another post, if the Blood Hunt happened after diablerie concluded, ie after a diablerie action were all over and done with, it wouldn't be possible to play, say, Freak Drive after the Blood Hunt referendum. But it's also not possible to play Freak Drive *before* the Blood Hunt referendum, because you're not in the "completed/completing" part of the action until after the diablerie (bits 1-4) are done, and if the Blood Hunt follows immediately (terminating the action), you've closed off that stage. (Unless you let people do things between diablerie bits 1-4 and the Blood Hunt. But that's (a) bad and (b) contradicts years of precedent in which it wasn't possible to do anything with a vampire that had just diablerized before it could get burned by a Blood Hunt.) (Also unless I'm wrong about what making the Blood Hunt "after the action" would do to end-of-diablerie-action timing. I don't see off the top of my head, though, how it could be avoided without making new special-exception rules that would be at least as confusing as the existing rules.) Josh or, what you will

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > The blood hunt is part of the diablerie per the rulebook text > > > > It isn't independently important that the BH be part of the diablerie. > > But, since the rulebook indicates that it is, it is. > > Also, as I think you indicated in another post, if the Blood > Hunt happened after diablerie concluded, ie after a diablerie > action were all over and done with, it wouldn't be possible to > play, say, Freak Drive after the Blood Hunt referendum. But > it's also not possible to play Freak Drive *before* the Blood > Hunt referendum, because you're not in the "completed/completing" > part of the action until after the diablerie (bits 1-4) are > done, and if the Blood Hunt follows immediately (terminating > the action), you've closed off that stage. > > (Unless you let people do things between diablerie bits 1-4 > and the Blood Hunt. But that's (a) bad and (b) contradicts > years of precedent in which it wasn't possible to do anything > with a vampire that had just diablerized before it could get > burned by a Blood Hunt.) > > (Also unless I'm wrong about what making the Blood Hunt "after > the action" would do to end-of-diablerie-action timing. I > don't see off the top of my head, though, how it could be > avoided without making new special-exception rules that would > be at least as confusing as the existing rules.) Yes. Even if the blood hunt were errata'ed to be after the diablerie instead of as a part of it, it would be "independently important" that it immediately follow the diablerie - that no other effects could be played between the diablerie and the blood hunt. Namely, allowing something like Hidden Lurker to be played after the diablerie but before the blood hunt is problematic. Pushing the blood hunt further back to "after the action" would cause even more headaches. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CAC6784...@white-wolf.com... > Even if the blood hunt were errata'ed to be after the diablerie > instead of as a part of it, it would be "independently important" > that it immediately follow the diablerie - that no other effects > could be played between the diablerie and the blood hunt. > > Namely, allowing something like Hidden Lurker to be played after > the diablerie but before the blood hunt is problematic. Well, things that are *much* like Hidden Lurker can very rarely (if at all) be played after a *successful* diablerie action. :-) But even allowing things like Freak Drive seems to me like a bad idea. > Pushing the blood hunt further back to "after the action" would > cause even more headaches. Yes, and we don't need any more headaches. We have plenty already. ;-) Josh yes we have no ananas

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CAC2D82...@spamcop.net... > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > is just So not Vtes.) If it's not clear, 'atomic' here has nothing to do with 'atomic energy' or 'atomic weapons'. The word's being used to mean 'indivisible', as atoms were once thought to be. (The Greek word 'atomos' meant indivisible...) (Apologies if you already knew all that and I've inadvertently been patronizing. :-) And btw, the 'atomic nature of diablerie' rule isn't necessarily a *new* rule. It just didn't come up as an issue much (if at all) before cards like Reform Body and Crimson Fury were printed. Josh it's "nuke-yuh-lar", lisa. "nuke-yuh-lar."

Raille wrote: > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > is just So not Vtes.) Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible", not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb"). Fred

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:05:48 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Ramsteiner wrote: >> >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CAB1016...@white-wolf.com>... >> <SNIP> >> > > I know I missed the beginning of this, but what is the reason for the >> > > change in the rules to make diablerie and the following Blood Hunt >> > > atomic? >> > > >> > > I am not clear as to the "why" a rules change was necessary. Was some >> > > new card within either the Bloodlines or Final Nights sets that are >> > > causing this or something else. If it is, I would imagine altering >> > > the card text responsible for a change of this nature to be more in >> > > line than altering a baseline rule that has been in place since Jyhad. >> > >> > To handle Reform Body style effects properly. >> > It isn't necessarily a change, just a ruling. >> >> Is this to stop people from using Reform Body during a Diablerie >> action or force it to be played after a Blood Hunt has occured? > >To force it to be played before conducting the diablerie (before >moving blood and equipment from the vitcim). > > Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. T

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if >situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the >torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. Cancelling a diablerie is "exceptionally powerful"? By that standard half the cards in the game are. Saving the blood is reasonable and expected. Yes, in a sim-sense the thwarted diabolist would get equipment but that's way too much hairsplitting. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if > situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the > torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, diablerie must be indivisible. Or is it that in your world, this card never had a tangible effect when played on a diablerie? Gotta look at the big picture if you want to change the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<a8hpuu$sg7so$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3CAC2D82...@spamcop.net... > > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > > is just So not Vtes.) > > If it's not clear, 'atomic' here has nothing to do with 'atomic > energy' or 'atomic weapons'. The word's being used to mean > 'indivisible', as atoms were once thought to be. (The Greek > word 'atomos' meant indivisible...) > > (Apologies if you already knew all that and I've inadvertently > been patronizing. :-) I preferred to think of it as a Toreador antitribu tribute to Debbie Harry. Oh-h-h-h-h, your hair is beautiful.... Oh-h-h-h, tonight. ATOMIC.

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand, however, while LSJ is using the word in a proper form, the archaic nature belittles the current word usage. For a precedent, try using nigger in its proper word form in a public forum. Its just don't fit. Atomic falls into this niche. Maybe we could use the word indivisible? Raille

I've been following the thread closely. So far I understand the reasons well and can see where things are going. I got a little confused with some of the amagamated effects, but have sorted it out. Basically the action includes the various steps to reach conclusion. Thus the action itself is a modified diablery/Vote action which incorporates aspects of Voting and referendum mechanics, but not ALL voting and referendum mechanics since the action is not a political action. Raille

rai...@spamcop.net writes: >Thus the action itself is a modified diablery/Vote action which >incorporates aspects of Voting and referendum mechanics, but not ALL >voting and referendum mechanics since the action is not a political >action. Everybody's pretty much with that. The questions are about effects which can be used during a referendum and are not restricted to "only during a political action", not action modifiers and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, as is the source of the dividing line. As I understand the recent posts, it's based on whether the effect is permissible during an "atomic" referendum, and I'm not aware of any such distinction in cards or rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > > > is just So not Vtes.) > > > > Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the > > ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate > > with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible", > > not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb"). > > I understand, however, while LSJ is using the word in a proper form, the > archaic nature belittles the current word usage. Now you're confusing me. How did you decide using the "indivisible" meaning of the word "atomic" was an archaic form? It's been a few years since I got my degree in Mathematics, but I'm not _that_ old. And the professors who used it that way were definitely alive at the time. I know. I'm sure I saw them breathing. Fred

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CACF598...@spamcop.net... > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > > > is just So not Vtes.) > > > > Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the > > ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate > > with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible", > > not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb"). > > > I understand, however, while LSJ is using the word in a proper form, the > archaic nature belittles the current word usage. > Archaic? What? I don't even know what "current" word usage you are talking about. Conversations about the "atomic" bomb (which was anything but indivisible) seem pretty archaic. When talking about fission/fusion power, these days, one is much more likely to use the term "nuclear" power than "atomic", although both have pretty similar primary meanings (e.g. "nuclear family"). The term "atomic operation", meaning an operation which occurs in one step, is used all the time when talking about computers, which are hardly archaic. Oh yeah, this is becoming nicely off-topic.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CACCE35...@white-wolf.com>... > Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if > > situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the > > torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. > > OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, > diablerie must be indivisible. > > Or is it that in your world, this card never had a tangible > effect when played on a diablerie? > > Gotta look at the big picture if you want to change the rules. Ok, gotta look at the big picture. I can agree with that, however, Ritual of the Bitter Rose is an Action Modifier/Combat card played by the acting minion while Reform Body is a Reaction/Combat card played by the player faced with losing a minion by either diablerie or not being able to heal an excessive amount of aggravated damage during combat. Ritual becomes usable when an opposing vampire is being burn by either diablerie or during combat against the acting vampire. Reform becomes usable when a vampire is being burned and goes to torpor instead. Based upon the text, these cards are to be played when a diablerie action goes unblocked (therefore, considered a successful action) but prior to the action's completion. Correct? However, there are cards (as previously mentioned within this thread) that are usable during any time (aka. Book of Nod, Barrens, etc.) from previous clarifications made by you. In the middle of a combat, you can use the Barrens or Book of Nod. Based upon card text, which overrides the standard defaults within the rules, of the Judgement: Camarilla Segregation, it states that the card can be burned by any Methuselah by burning a non-camarilla vampire during her minion phase. It does not state that this is an action, it simply states it can be done during the phase, much the same as Book of Nod or Barrens just state Tap and (cause this effect). If the problem is someone trying to burn a vampire that successfully diablerized another vampire and preventing them from then burning the acting vampire to get rid of a Judgement: Camarilla Segregation prior to the Blood Hunt, then change the card. Otherwise, you affect other cards that have nothing to do in this type of situation. In short, you are now making the rules override the cards. And in doing so, it should generate new errata that was previously unnecessary on several cards that have never created a problem in the past. [ quoted text not captured ]

>However, there are cards (as previously mentioned within this thread) >that are usable during any time (aka. Book of Nod, Barrens, etc.) from >previous clarifications made by you. In the middle of a combat, you >can use the Barrens or Book of Nod. Based upon card text, which >overrides the standard defaults within the rules, of the Judgement: >Camarilla Segregation, it states that the card can be burned by any >Methuselah by burning a non-camarilla vampire during her minion phase. > It does not state that this is an action, it simply states it can be >done during the phase, much the same as Book of Nod or Barrens just >state Tap and (cause this effect). If the problem is someone trying >to burn a vampire that successfully diablerized another vampire and >preventing them from then burning the acting vampire to get rid of a >Judgement: Camarilla Segregation prior to the Blood Hunt, then change >the card. Otherwise, you affect other cards that have nothing to do >in this type of situation. I agree. It was already confusing enough to state how Heidelburg was different than other effects since it wasn't usable during an action. Now it seems we're complicating things further by creating yet another group of effects which can be used under different circumstances. Halcyan 2

On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:57:10 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: >Archaic? What? I don't even know what "current" word usage you are talking >about. Conversations about the "atomic" bomb (which was anything but >indivisible) seem pretty archaic. When talking about fission/fusion power, >these days, one is much more likely to use the term "nuclear" power than >"atomic", although both have pretty similar primary meanings (e.g. "nuclear >family"). The term "atomic operation", meaning an operation which occurs in >one step, is used all the time when talking about computers, which are hardly >archaic. It's not appropriate for diablerie or blood hunts as these clearly consist of several steps. "Uninterruptable" might be better, though it's a bit of a mouthful. I don't get why Diablerie should be different though. There was a Blood Hunt in LA and I was annoyed to find that I couldn't play a Kindred Coercion during the referendum. This seemed silly to me - an arbitrary game rule which spoilt the sense of immersion. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I don't get why Diablerie should be different though. There was a > Blood Hunt in LA and I was annoyed to find that I couldn't play a > Kindred Coercion during the referendum. This seemed silly to me - an > arbitrary game rule which spoilt the sense of immersion. Because the diablerie referendum is not a political action. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous non-referendum effects cannot be. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 05:57:10 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: > > >The term "atomic operation", meaning an operation which occurs in > >one step, is used all the time when talking about computers, which are hardly > >archaic. > > It's not appropriate for diablerie or blood hunts as these clearly > consist of several steps. "Atomic" is perfect considering the idea Scott is trying to communicate: that the several steps constitute a single action which, by its nature, cannot be broken down further. You might disagree with the validity of the statement but the meaning he's using the word to convey is crystal clear. Fred

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CACF598...@spamcop.net... > For a precedent, try using nigger in its proper word form in a public > forum. Its just don't fit. > > Atomic falls into this niche. Well, I think there's a difference between a word that's offensive and a word that's just not used in some particular way very often. > Maybe we could use the word indivisible? But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good substitute, if five characters longer. :-) Josh with liberty and justice for all

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CADA4EE...@white-wolf.com... > CurtAdams wrote: > > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects > > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, > > Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous > non-referendum effects cannot be. This is different from "normal" referenda, though, right? Can we get it in the next edition of the rulebook? I agree with not wanting to be able to burn a diablerizing vampire for Judgement: Camarilla Segregation in the middle of a Blood Hunt, and that disallowing that means disallowing things like Fragment of the Book of Nod, but it'd be nice if the rulebook spelled this out. :-) Josh surprisingly fond of changing the rulebook

"Ramsteiner" <michael...@ramstein.af.mil> wrote in message news:9c15fdd3.02040...@posting.google.com... > Ritual becomes usable when an opposing vampire is being burn by either > diablerie or during combat against the acting vampire. > Reform becomes usable when a vampire is being burned and goes to > torpor instead. > > Based upon the text, these cards are to be played when a diablerie > action goes unblocked (therefore, considered a successful action) but > prior to the action's completion. Correct? As I understand it, Ritual of the Bitter Rose is played *after* the diablerie (the whole indivisible thing) goes off, because it's only usable on a "successful" diablerie and needs to know how much blood was on the vampire before it got diablerized; Reform Body is played *before* the (indivisible) diablerie is resolved, because it prevents any of the diablerie from happening: the burning, the moving of blood, the moving of equipment, the Blood Hunt vote. So RotBR is played in a similar time-phase to Freak Drive (ie "after" but "within" the action); Reform Body earlier. > In short, you are now making the rules override the cards. And in > doing so, it should generate new errata that was previously > unnecessary on several cards that have never created a problem in the > past. True, but it's at least weird and possibly bad to be able to burn a vampire for Judgment: Camarilla Segregation in the middle of a Blood Hunt referendum - probably at least as weird as not being able to use "anytime" effects at all during Blood Hunt referenda, even though they are generally usable during "normal" referenda. And this ruling can probably be replaced by a rule at the next printing of the rulebook. Josh taking the easy way out

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > > Maybe we could use the word indivisible? > > But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good > substitute, if five characters longer. :-) I've been using indivisible ever since someone took issue with the a-word. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good > substitute, if five characters longer. :-) Indivisible is the archaic word to me; I don't hear it outside of the Pledge of Allegiance and it vaguely makes me want to take off my hat and recite. "Atomic" is all over my books on computers, and refers to exactly what LSJ uses it for; a requirement that several actions be processed in sequence without interruption. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >CurtAdams wrote: >> and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects >> can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, >Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous >non-referendum effects cannot be. As some previous posts have discussed, there's no clear dividing line between vote-stuff and non-referendum effects. And technically, if I can do it during a referendum, is it a non-referendum effect? Also, there's no current printed rule defining an atomic referendum as having these effects. I just don't see any point in rules contortions to prevent some doomed vampire from marching off to sate a rampaging Antediluvian's hunger. In the sim-sense, he *would* be able to do it. In the game sense, it's not common and actually I don't see why it's a problem anyway; I saw a haven uncovered-famed vampire get burnt to sate an Antediluvian; that guy was just about as doomed. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > vte...@white-wolf.com writes: > > >CurtAdams wrote: > >> and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects > >> can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, > > >Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous > >non-referendum effects cannot be. > > As some previous posts have discussed, there's no clear > dividing line between vote-stuff and non-referendum effects. > And technically, if I can do it during a referendum, is it > a non-referendum effect? Also, there's no current printed > rule defining an atomic referendum as having these effects. Referendum effect: "vote stuff" Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. > I just don't see any point in rules contortions to prevent > some doomed vampire from marching off to sate a > rampaging Antediluvian's hunger. In the sim-sense, he > *would* be able to do it. In the game sense, it's not common > and actually I don't see why it's a problem anyway; I saw > a haven uncovered-famed vampire get burnt to sate an > Antediluvian; that guy was just about as doomed. The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course. They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter Rose, Reform Body, etc.). As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow (instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Referendum effect: "vote stuff" >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?" As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes. Halcyan 2

>The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course. >They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn >is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter >Rose, Reform Body, etc.). >As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow >(instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white. > Well, why don't we separate step 5 then? You said that it's "black and white", I assume that's because that's what the rulebook says. But either way we look at it, we're going to need to change the rulebook. Either we're going to be changing diablerie steps (and cordoning off the Blood Hunt) or we'll need to change the specifics on the Blood Hunt (so it's *not* "just like any other [referendum]"). I really don't see why changing the rulebook by moving the Blood Hunt is any worse than changing the rulebook in the way you currently are doing/have done. Halcyan 2

>> > Maybe we could use the word indivisible? >> >> But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good >> substitute, if five characters longer. :-) > >I've been using indivisible ever since someone took issue >with the a-word. Well, *I'd* like to take issue with the i-word (indivisibile). Atomic sounds SO much classier... =P Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >Referendum effect: "vote stuff" > >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. > > But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid > would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during > a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?" Of course. > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't. > Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a > vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes. Neither of them deal with vote stuff. Your library is not vote stuff. Stealing vampires is not vote stuff. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course. > >They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn > >is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter > >Rose, Reform Body, etc.). > >As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow > >(instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white. > > > > Well, why don't we separate step 5 then? You said that it's "black and white", > I assume that's because that's what the rulebook says. Becuase that would be errata. For what amounts to corner-case concerns. > But either way we look at it, we're going to need to change the rulebook. > Either we're going to be changing diablerie steps (and cordoning off the Blood > Hunt) or we'll need to change the specifics on the Blood Hunt (so it's *not* > "just like any other [referendum]"). > > I really don't see why changing the rulebook by moving the Blood Hunt is any > worse than changing the rulebook in the way you currently are doing/have done. The currently rulings attempt to follow the rulebook, not change it. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Well, why don't we separate step 5 then? You said that it's "black and >white", >> I assume that's because that's what the rulebook says. > >Becuase that would be errata. For what amounts to corner-case concerns. But if, when the Camarilla set comes out, the new rulebook simply separates the Blood Hunt from the diablerie, this wouldn't be errata, right? Just a case of "most-recently-printed" type card text (i.e. Acquired Ventrue Assets, Ruins of Villars Abbey, etc.). Right? Hint, hint... Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. The new printing of the rulebook may change things, of course. Note that separating the Blood Hunt too far from the diablerie would be problematic, as noted previously. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >Referendum effect: "vote stuff" >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. If you piddle with a voting vampire, is that a referendum effect? What if you piddle with a piddler? What about deals - certainly show up a lot in the referenda I see. >The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course. >They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn >is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter >Rose, Reform Body, etc.). The indivisible ruling doesn't require changing the nature of the components. If I do something during a referendum, the referendum isn't divided - a referendum is a period during which effects happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a8kf53$sv0jp$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > And this ruling can probably be replaced by a rule at the next > printing of the rulebook. > It can, but the rule that replaces it will be an ugly wart, an exception within an exception, and unneccessary. Also, I still don't think it's been answered whether or not you can burn the counters off a Temptation during a Blood Hunt. Can you do it only if the Tempted vampire has votes? AFAIK, you can use any effect that gains you votes, as long as it isn't otherwise prohibited. So, I can burn counters and take control of Rake, but not Dimple? What if I have a Political Structure in play and my Temptation is on Cameron? Then, can I use the Temptation? What about other effects of this nature?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CADE1B9...@white-wolf.com... > CurtAdams wrote: > > > I just don't see any point in rules contortions to prevent > > some doomed vampire from marching off to sate a > > rampaging Antediluvian's hunger. In the sim-sense, he > > *would* be able to do it. In the game sense, it's not common > > and actually I don't see why it's a problem anyway; I saw > > a haven uncovered-famed vampire get burnt to sate an > > Antediluvian; that guy was just about as doomed. > > The contortions aren't issued to prevent that, of course. > They're mandated by the indivisible ruling, which, in turn > is mandated by the "Way things are" (cf. Ritual of the Bitter > Rose, Reform Body, etc.). > As I've said, it would be nice if step 5 were separated somehow > (instead of being step 5), but there it is in black and white. > What the heck are you on lately? These contortions are not at all mandated by the "indivisible" ruling. If you feel that the indivisible ruling is somehow this wonderfully important thing, and that allowing effects during a Blood Hunt is also important, then why are you complicating matters by allowing certain effects during a Blood Hunt? If you allowing interruptions during a certain phase of the diablerie, why do you need to create exceptions instead of just all effects during that phase? If the contortions are not meant to prevent that sort of thing, then I fail to see why you want to contort at all.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:a8kf53$sv0jp$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > > And this ruling can probably be replaced by a rule at the next > > printing of the rulebook. > > > It can, but the rule that replaces it will be an ugly wart, an exception within > an exception, and unneccessary. If you assume that the current unweildy rule/ruling set is to be preserved by the next printing of the rulebook, then maybe. > Also, I still don't think it's been answered whether or not you can burn the > counters off a Temptation during a Blood Hunt. Can you do it only if the It was. [LSJ 13:54 05-APR-2002] No. > Tempted vampire has votes? AFAIK, you can use any effect that gains you votes, > as long as it isn't otherwise prohibited. So, I can burn counters and take > control of Rake, but not Dimple? What if I have a Political Structure in play > and my Temptation is on Cameron? Then, can I use the Temptation? > > What about other effects of this nature? Here's a quick test: is the effect only applicable to a referendum? Y: it can be used in a blood hunt N: it cannot be used in a blood hunt [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Rules text, as stated. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > CurtAdams wrote: > > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects > > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, > > Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous > non-referendum effects cannot be. I liked the quick test: Here's a quick test: is the effect only applicable to a referendum? Y: it can be used in a blood hunt N: it cannot be used in a blood hunt That sums things up nicely. I like nice. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > >Referendum effect: "vote stuff" > > >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. > > > > But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid > > would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during > > a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?" > > Of course. > > > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's > > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use > > Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't. > > > Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a > > vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes. > > Neither of them deal with vote stuff. > Your library is not vote stuff. Stealing vampires is not vote stuff. > So does this mean that in a Normal political action, Temptation counters can not be burned to get control of a minion that has votes, or could other wise effect the referendum? It would seem that burning temptation counters can deal with vote stuff and should be allowed, unless other card text over rides that effect. Raille

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > > Raille wrote: > > > > (Ps can't you find a more suitable title to call this? Atomic > > > > is just So not Vtes.) > > > > > > Why would you say that? It's the exactly correct word to describe the > > > ruling. You aren't confusing the slightly different meanings associate > > > with "atomic", by any chance? Scott is using "atomic" to mean "indivisible", > > > not "of, relating to, or concerned with atoms" (as in "atomic bomb"). > > > > I understand, however, while LSJ is using the word in a proper form, the > > archaic nature belittles the current word usage. > > Now you're confusing me. How did you decide using the "indivisible" meaning of > the word "atomic" was an archaic form? It's been a few years since I got my > degree in Mathematics, but I'm not _that_ old. And the professors who used it > that way were definitely alive at the time. I know. I'm sure I saw them > breathing. > > Fred Her is part of the reason why: Websters New World dictionary 1987, 1. Of an atom or atoms, 2. of or using atomic energy or atomic bombs, 3. tiny. There is no 4. None describe atomic as indivisible. Websters 9th New Collegiate 1986 1. of, relating to, or concerned with atoms, atomic energy or atomic bombs. 2. Minute. 3. atomic in the state of seperate atoms. Nothing here about indivisible either. The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language 1988 only 1 definition. or, relating to, or charactered by atoms. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary 1960 1. of or pert. to atoms, atomic energy or atomic bombs. 2. Very minute, tiny 3. Seperated in to atoms. All I can figure is that the proffessers may have been well preserved. I do not have an Oxfords dictionary and so cannot check any further reference. However in any case, atomic meaning indivisible is whoafully out of place. They split the atom, several times! So lets use some word that means what is says and stick to indivisible. Raille

CurtAdams wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good > > substitute, if five characters longer. :-) > > Indivisible is the archaic word to me; I don't hear it outside > of the Pledge of Allegiance and it vaguely makes me want > to take off my hat and recite. "Atomic" is all over my > books on computers, and refers to exactly what LSJ uses > it for; a requirement that several actions be processed > in sequence without interruption. > I think the word they (book writers) were looking for was/is Sequential. They got lazy and stopped looking in the "A" section.

Raille wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Now you're confusing me. How did you decide using the "indivisible" meaning of > > the word "atomic" was an archaic form? It's been a few years since I got my > > degree in Mathematics, but I'm not _that_ old. And the professors who used it > > that way were definitely alive at the time. I know. I'm sure I saw them > > breathing. > > > > Fred > > Her is part of the reason why: > > Websters New World dictionary 1987, 1. Of an atom or atoms, 2. of or > using atomic energy or atomic bombs, 3. tiny. > > There is no 4. None describe atomic as indivisible. Then why do you insist that it is an archaic form? It just means you haven't found a source that lists that particular definition. That doesn't make it archaic. In fact, it's more of a specialized mathematical/computer science usage I guess. Though I'll confess, I'm surprised that an English dictionary wouldn't list it is a general definition of the word. As often as I've heard it used this way over the past 20 years, it really belongs there. > However in any case, atomic meaning indivisible is whoafully out of > place. Well, suffice it to be said I understood it and I believe most everyone else understood the meaning. So it is not woefully out of place. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Then why do you insist that it is an archaic form? It just means you haven't > found a source that lists that particular definition. That doesn't make it > archaic. I was not the person to first say it was an archaic form of the word. > In fact, it's more of a specialized mathematical/computer science usage I guess. > Though I'll confess, I'm surprised that an English dictionary wouldn't list it > is a general definition of the word. As often as I've heard it used this way > over the past 20 years, it really belongs there. Archaic > No loner used ectept in poetry, church and ritual. Does not specialized computer, math or science usage count. They all have a lot of ritualized formats. > > However in any case, atomic meaning indivisible is whoafully out of > > place. > > Well, suffice it to be said I understood it and I believe most everyone else > understood the meaning. So it is not woefully out of place. Sorry. I said WHOA, not WOE. Such as slow down, not morose. Raille

Raille wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Then why do you insist that it is an archaic form? It just means you haven't > > found a source that lists that particular definition. That doesn't make it > > archaic. > > I was not the person to first say it was an archaic form of the word. What's that got to do with anything? The question was, why do *you* insist it is an archaic form? > > In fact, it's more of a specialized mathematical/computer science usage I guess. > > Archaic > No loner used ectept in poetry, church and ritual. Does not > specialized computer, math or science usage count. No. > They all have a lot of ritualized formats. No, they don't. This sentence is insane, as far as I can tell. Math and the teaching of math has nothing to do with ritual. > > > However in any case, atomic meaning indivisible is whoafully out of > > > place. > > > > Well, suffice it to be said I understood it and I believe most everyone else > > understood the meaning. So it is not woefully out of place. > > Sorry. I said WHOA, not WOE. Such as slow down, not morose. Deliberate irony in choosing to use a nonexistent word? Fred

rai...@spamcop.net writes: >I think the word they (book writers) were looking for was/is >Sequential. They got lazy and stopped looking in the "A" section. Sequential would be wrong since that definitiion allows interuption. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CADF302...@white-wolf.com>... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > >Referendum effect: "vote stuff" > > >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. > > > > But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid > > would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during > > a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?" > > Of course. > > > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's > > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use > > Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't. > > > Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a > > vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes. > > Neither of them deal with vote stuff. > Your library is not vote stuff. Stealing vampires is not vote stuff. After Reading the rules, I have to disagree. Section 1.4 allows card to trump the rule sections. See: http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec1_4 Temptation in part reads: During your minion phase, if the number of counters on this card equals or exceeds the amount of blood on that vampire, you may burn all the <counters> on this card to untap that vampire and take control of him or her until the end of your turn. Af far as I know, both a Referendum, Diablerization and a Blood Hunt all occur during the minion phase. The temptation allows you to burn the counters and take control. So other than the short time frame where the diablery is occured and the blood/equipment ect are being moved, ect. the counters cannot be burned to interupt, however once that is over, you can and should be allowed to burn the counters to control a minion. Raille

>Her is part of the reason why: > >Websters New World dictionary 1987, 1. Of an atom or atoms, 2. of or >using atomic energy or atomic bombs, 3. tiny. > >There is no 4. None describe atomic as indivisible. > > >Websters 9th New Collegiate 1986 1. of, relating to, or concerned with >atoms, atomic energy or atomic bombs. 2. Minute. 3. atomic in the >state of seperate atoms. > >Nothing here about indivisible either. > > >The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language 1988 >only 1 definition. or, relating to, or charactered by atoms. > > >Websters New Collegiate Dictionary 1960 1. of or pert. to atoms, atomic >energy or atomic bombs. 2. Very minute, tiny 3. Seperated in to >atoms. Here's the on-line American Heritage Dictionary: Atomic 1. Of or relating to an atom or atoms. 2. Of or employing nuclear energy: an atomic submarine; atomic weapons. 3. Very small; infinitesimal. HOWEVER, look at this: Atom 1a. A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system. b. The irreducible, indestructible material unit postulated by ancient atomism. 2. An extremely small part, quantity, or amount. 3. Physics & Chemistry a. A unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons. b. This unit regarded as a source of nuclear energy. See table at subatomic particle. In most of the definitions you cited, it referred to "of, or related to, or something to atoms." I don't suppose you actually bothered to try looking up ATOM??? If so, I'm sure you would have found something about basic, irreducible, indivisible particles. So since atomic is something related to atoms, atomic is something related to indivisible particles or units. Thus why atomic was being used. Wow! Halcyan 2

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CADF302...@white-wolf.com>... > > > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's > > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use > > Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't. > You can't turn off grendals special ability. I like to take one of those resturant menu plastic card holders and insert cards into it so I can view them, due to special effects such as grendals. Am I supposed to stop in the middle of the game, take the card out of the sleeve and return it to the top of my crypt until the blood hunt is over??? Raille

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CADA4EE...@white-wolf.com... > CurtAdams wrote: > > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects > > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, > > Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous > non-referendum effects cannot be. So, please clarify how these "interrupting" effect should deal with the BH "atomic" rule: 1) Husamettin, (under Tajdid), diablerizes a vamp with a contract on him/her: when Husamettin's ability can be used (if at all) ? before the blood hunt vote? after? 2) Does Melissa Barton gain the blood, if during the blood hunt vote a met exchange the edge for a vote? 3)I got a political card "in hand" (faceup, in front of me), due Agaitas scholar of antiquities' ability: can i burn that political card for a vote, during the Blood Hunt vote? Thanks in advance Emiliano, vekn Prince of Rome > > > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3CADA4EE...@white-wolf.com... > > CurtAdams wrote: > > > and not reactions. LSJ is currently saying some such effects > > > can be used and some can't, but the dividing line is unclear, > > > > Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous > > non-referendum effects cannot be. > > So, please clarify how these "interrupting" effect should deal with the BH > "atomic" > rule: > > 1) > Husamettin, (under Tajdid), diablerizes a vamp with a contract on him/her: > when Husamettin's ability can be used (if at all) ? > before the blood hunt vote? > after? After. > 2) Does Melissa Barton gain the blood, if during the blood hunt vote > a met exchange the edge for a vote? Yes. > 3)I got a political card "in hand" (faceup, in front of me), > due Agaitas scholar of antiquities' ability: > can i burn that political card for a vote, during the Blood Hunt vote? Yes. Playing a card from your hand is not using Agaitas's ability. Agaitas's ability is what gets the card into your hand, nothing more. -- 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/

On 04 Apr 2002 20:04:42 GMT, CurtAdams wrote: >>Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if >>situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the >>torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. > >Cancelling a diablerie is "exceptionally powerful"? >By that standard half the cards in the game are. > >Saving the blood is reasonable and expected. Yes, in >a sim-sense the thwarted diabolist would get equipment >but that's way too much hairsplitting. If Diablerie is an indivisible unit then one similar consequence is that the vampire being diablerized can vote during the blood hunt. Andrew

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CAF6D13...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3CADA4EE...@white-wolf.com... <snip> > > > Referendum effects (vote stuff) can be used. Miscellaneous > > > non-referendum effects cannot be. > > > > So, please clarify how these "interrupting" effect should deal with the BH > > "atomic" > > rule: > > > > 1) > > Husamettin, (under Tajdid), diablerizes a vamp with a contract on him/her: > > when Husamettin's ability can be used (if at all) ? > > before the blood hunt vote? > > after? > > After. > I can't see how husamettin's ability can be "cached" until the BH resolves, since that would seem quite contradictory to me: the ability triggers as husamettin *burns* (or *diablerize*) a vamp, i can't see how his ability can be delayed (under the current rules interpretation) until another segment is resolved (actually, the "atomized" BH). Else, we need another "atomic" BH rule addendum here stating that any other permanent effect triggering as a vampire is diablerized is "delayed" until the BH resolves. > > 2) Does Melissa Barton gain the blood, if during the blood hunt vote > > a met exchange the edge for a vote? > > Yes. How? That effect is clearly not related to the "vote effect" you speak above. Melissa just gain a blood, she does not cast votes. <snip on agaitas> Emiliano > --

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:05:09 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if >> situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the >> torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. > >OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > >For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, >diablerie must be indivisible. > >Or is it that in your world, this card never had a tangible >effect when played on a diablerie? > >Gotta look at the big picture if you want to change the rules. > No problem. Diablerist announces diablerie. Diablerist removes blood (stpe 1) and equipment (step 2). Now the victim at step 3 plays RB and instead of being burned, is sent to torpor instead. Diablerie fails without victim being burned and RBR cannot be played. T

On 04 Apr 2002 20:04:42 GMT, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: > >>Which was necesary why? Reform body is already powerful if >>situatiional, but allowing it to keep the blood and equipment on the >>torporized vampire makes it exceptionally powerful and defies logic. > >Cancelling a diablerie is "exceptionally powerful"? >By that standard half the cards in the game are. > Its the only card that does so iirc. >Saving the blood is reasonable and expected. Yes, in >a sim-sense the thwarted diabolist would get equipment >but that's way too much hairsplitting. > No where near as problematic as this 'atomic' ruling seems to make it. T

On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:47:24 GMT, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >No problem. Diablerist announces diablerie. Diablerist removes blood >(stpe 1) and equipment (step 2). Now the victim at step 3 plays RB >and instead of being burned, is sent to torpor instead. Diablerie >fails without victim being burned and RBR cannot be played. This makes perfect sense to me. It's a snap compared to what goes on in combat. Andrew

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message news:<20020405121616...@mb-cr.aol.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > But I also think indivisible would be a perfectly good > > substitute, if five characters longer. :-) > > Indivisible is the archaic word to me; I don't hear it outside > of the Pledge of Allegiance and it vaguely makes me want > to take off my hat and recite. "Atomic" is all over my > books on computers, and refers to exactly what LSJ uses > it for; a requirement that several actions be processed > in sequence without interruption. I have to agree with "atomic" being perfectly understandable. While it is not, in fact, used in my Flash programming books very often, I've read it in enough other places where it was meant as "indivisible" that I immediately knew what was meant by calling diablerie "atomic." JSpektr

[ quoted text not captured ] Gotta look at the big picture - including that remote possibility that RB won't be played: Diablerist announces diablerie. Diablerist removes blood and equipment. Victim (empty) is burned. Diablerist plays RotBR. Effect: 0, since victim is empty. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > 1) > > > Husamettin, (under Tajdid), diablerizes a vamp with a contract on > him/her: > > > when Husamettin's ability can be used (if at all) ? > > > before the blood hunt vote? > > > after? > > > > After. > > > > I can't see how husamettin's ability can be "cached" until the BH resolves, > since > that would seem quite contradictory to me: > the ability triggers as husamettin *burns* (or *diablerize*) a vamp, > i can't see how his ability can be delayed (under the current rules > interpretation) > until another segment is resolved (actually, the "atomized" BH). > Else, we need another "atomic" BH rule addendum here stating that > any other permanent effect triggering as a vampire is diablerized is > "delayed" until the BH resolves. When he burns the vampire, his ability activates. It doesn't activate before the burning - the burning activates the ability (so the effect occurs after). See also Charnas - the effect happens after the untap, because the untap activates the effect. > > > 2) Does Melissa Barton gain the blood, if during the blood hunt vote > > > a met exchange the edge for a vote? > > > > Yes. > > How? That effect is clearly not related to the "vote effect" you speak > above. > Melissa just gain a blood, she does not cast votes. The effect is only applicable during a referendum (i.e., it is "vote stuff"). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB03506...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > 1) > > > > Husamettin, (under Tajdid), diablerizes a vamp with a contract on > > him/her: > > > > when Husamettin's ability can be used (if at all) ? > > > > before the blood hunt vote? > > > > after? > > > > > > After. > > > > > > > I can't see how husamettin's ability can be "cached" until the BH resolves, > > since > > that would seem quite contradictory to me: > > the ability triggers as husamettin *burns* (or *diablerize*) a vamp, > > i can't see how his ability can be delayed (under the current rules > > interpretation) > > until another segment is resolved (actually, the "atomized" BH). > > Else, we need another "atomic" BH rule addendum here stating that > > any other permanent effect triggering as a vampire is diablerized is > > "delayed" until the BH resolves. > > When he burns the vampire, his ability activates. But you stated above that the Husamettin ability is used "after" the "would be" BH referendum, not "just after" he burns (diablerizes) the vamp, that is *before* the BH vote (much as reform body is played *before* the BH). > It doesn't activate before the burning - the burning activates the > ability (so the effect occurs after). My point is: how you can state that the husamettin ability occours "after" (the BH)? Nothing in the actual rulings seems to suggest so. 1) Husamettin diablerizes the vamp 2) his ability can be activated and i search my library for a master card to be put on him 3) the Blood hunt vote can be called, then resolved. i still can't see the reason why to delay 2) until the BH is resolved. > See also Charnas - the effect > happens after the untap, because the untap activates the effect. > Ouch....i'm losing this also. "After" the untap seems unable to describe a relevant time segment, and i can't see how that can be related to the "delay" of Husamettin ability you suggest above. > > > > 2) Does Melissa Barton gain the blood, if during the blood hunt vote > > > > a met exchange the edge for a vote? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > How? That effect is clearly not related to the "vote effect" you speak > > above. > > Melissa just gain a blood, she does not cast votes. > > The effect is only applicable during a referendum (i.e., it is "vote stuff"). > Ah, then we got a brand new unwritten term: "vote stuff" : effects that are usable only during an "atomic" referendum this, definitively, complicates utterly the already complicated rules enviroment, sorry. Emiliano > --

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB03454...@white-wolf.com... > > Gotta look at the big picture - including that remote possibility that > RB won't be played: > > Diablerist announces diablerie. > Diablerist removes blood and equipment. > Victim (empty) is burned. > Diablerist plays RotBR. Effect: 0, since victim is empty. > So all of this is instead of rewording RotBR to say "...equal to the amount of blood on a vampire being burned in combat, or the amount of blood that was on a vampire being burned by diablerie."? If that's not clear enough, add "(just prior to diablerie)". And it's not like anyone needed this huge rules convolution to understand how RotBR was used. All this for a card that nobody ever uses anyway.

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Gotta look at the big picture - including that remote possibility that > > RB won't be played: > > > > Diablerist announces diablerie. > > Diablerist removes blood and equipment. > > Victim (empty) is burned. > > Diablerist plays RotBR. Effect: 0, since victim is empty. > > > So all of this is instead of rewording RotBR to say "...equal to the amount of > blood on a vampire being burned in combat, or the amount of blood that was on a > vampire being burned by diablerie."? If that's not clear enough, add "(just > prior to diablerie)". "All of this" is the alternative to errata, as previously stated, yes. > And it's not like anyone needed this huge rules convolution to understand how > RotBR was used. All this for a card that nobody ever uses anyway. Many points have been made on both sides regarding corner-case "problems". If the fact that it was corner-case was enough to dismiss the argument, this thread need not have occurred at all. Of course, the corner cases have to be considered, so here we are. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No. The BH referndum is part of the indivisible diablerie (in which the vampire burns). So immediately after that is after the BH referendum. See also "after blocking" to include the block-combat (Cats' Guidance). > > It doesn't activate before the burning - the burning activates the > > ability (so the effect occurs after). > > My point is: how you can state that the husamettin ability occours "after" > (the BH)? Card text. > Nothing in the actual rulings seems to suggest so. > 1) Husamettin diablerizes the vamp > 2) his ability can be activated and i search my library for a master card to > be put on him > 3) the Blood hunt vote can be called, then resolved. That's 1) Husametting diablerizes 2) His ability activates. What you call 3 is a part of 1, just as moving blood, burning the vampire, etc. are a part of 1. See 6.5.5 > Ah, then we got a brand new unwritten term: > "vote stuff" : > effects that are usable only during an "atomic" referendum > > this, definitively, complicates utterly the already complicated > rules enviroment, sorry. Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB0767A...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > Gotta look at the big picture - including that remote possibility that > > > RB won't be played: > > > > > > Diablerist announces diablerie. > > > Diablerist removes blood and equipment. > > > Victim (empty) is burned. > > > Diablerist plays RotBR. Effect: 0, since victim is empty. > > > > > So all of this is instead of rewording RotBR to say "...equal to the amount of > > blood on a vampire being burned in combat, or the amount of blood that was on a > > vampire being burned by diablerie."? If that's not clear enough, add "(just > > prior to diablerie)". > > "All of this" is the alternative to errata, as previously stated, yes. > What about a clarification? "Ritual of the Bitter Rose counts the amount of blood that the diablerized vampire had just before it was diablerized." A minute clarification to one card (since this is how the card has always been played, as any other interpretation would mean that the card has no effect) seems preferrable to yet another rules complication.

[ quoted text not captured ] Since the problem isn't only with RotBR, "clarifying" it (by changing the text, which is usually considered errata) won't suffice. The ruling that Diablerie is indivisible (as it always has been, judging by the RotBR's card text) handles the big picture. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > No. The BH referndum is part of the indivisible diablerie (in which the vampire > burns). So immediately after that is after the BH referendum. See also > "after blocking" to include the block-combat (Cats' Guidance). > I have to disagree. According to the Rule book: http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_5_5 Covers the Diablery and the call of the Blood hunt. http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_5_6 Which you can see is a completely new paragraph and rules section, covers the BH referendum. Raille

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > Then why do you insist that it is an archaic form? It just means you haven't > > > found a source that lists that particular definition. That doesn't make it > > > archaic. > > > > I was not the person to first say it was an archaic form of the word. > > What's that got to do with anything? The question was, why do *you* insist it is > an archaic form? > > > > In fact, it's more of a specialized mathematical/computer science usage I guess. > > > > Archaic > No loner used ectept in poetry, church and ritual. Does not > > specialized computer, math or science usage count. > > No. > > > They all have a lot of ritualized formats. > > No, they don't. This sentence is insane, as far as I can tell. Math and the > teaching of math has nothing to do with ritual. E=MC2 Ritual Of, like, or done as a rite. A system of form of rites religious or otherwise. Science and Math both have excruciatingly defined rites. Rite - A solemn act e it to be said I understood it and I believe most everyone else > > > understood the meaning. So it is not woefully out of place. > > > > Sorry. I said WHOA, not WOE. Such as slow down, not morose. > > Deliberate irony in choosing to use a nonexistent word? Its not non existant. It now exists. It did not existed previously, and of course is not accepted as common usage, and can only be considered slag. Of course I've not referenced the Oxfords dictionary, which seems to have a lot of words that should be non existant.

Halcyan 2 wrote: > Here's the on-line American Heritage Dictionary: > > Atomic > 1. Of or relating to an atom or atoms. 2. Of or employing nuclear energy: an > atomic submarine; atomic weapons. 3. Very small; infinitesimal. > > HOWEVER, look at this: > > Atom > 1a. A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a > specified system. b. The irreducible, indestructible material unit postulated > by ancient atomism. 2. An extremely small part, quantity, or amount. 3. Physics > & Chemistry a. A unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all > the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, > positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire > structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically > remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, > or exchange of certain electrons. b. This unit regarded as a source of nuclear > energy. See table at subatomic particle. > > In most of the definitions you cited, it referred to "of, or related to, or > something to atoms." I don't suppose you actually bothered to try looking up > ATOM??? If so, I'm sure you would have found something about basic, > irreducible, indivisible particles. So since atomic is something related to > atoms, atomic is something related to indivisible particles or units. Thus why > atomic was being used. Wow! > I did look up atom. None of the real life copies of dictionaries make any reference to an reference of being indestructable. They Did split the Atom and that alone renders the whole subject of useing atomic as the word of choice for an alledged indivisible set of circumstances moot. The rules book already has the fault lines built in with the listing of 5 steps, which happen in a set order. All it takes is a card to seperate that. Obviously a future card release. Now for the obvious question. Can you send a link to the AH online version. I'd like to file it for future reference. Raille

>Now for the obvious question. > >Can you send a link to the AH online version. I'd like to file it for >future reference. Sure. For atomic: http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/A0502100.html For atom: http://www.bartleby.com/61/19/A0501900.html A while back I needed to find an on-line dictionary. After much poking and prodding, I found the American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition) and I've just been using it ever since. Quite useful to have a dictionary bookmarked. Enjoy! Halcyan 2

I looked more at the Miriam Websters Online. Main Entry: atom·ic Pronunciation: &-'tä-mik Function: adjective Date: 1678 1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with atoms <atomic physics> b : NUCLEAR 2 <atomic energy> 2 a : marked by acceptance of the theory of atomism b : ATOMISTIC 2 3 : MINUTE 4 of a chemical element : existing in the state of separate atoms Atomism leads to: Main Entry: at·om·ism Pronunciation: 'a-t&-"mi-z&m Function: noun Date: 1678 1 : a doctrine that the physical or physical and mental universe is composed of simple indivisible minute particles 2 : INDIVIDUALISM 1 While I have to agree that atomic is proper, I still don't feel its the best word usage. 4 dictionaries and 1 online reference fail to give the intended word as LSJ used. You need to remember that the rules and answers for the game have to be understandable by a host of people from not only different social/education levels, but must cross language translations. Raille

Raille wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > > > > Archaic > No loner used ectept in poetry, church and ritual. Does not > > > specialized computer, math or science usage count. They all have a lot > > > of ritualized formats. > > > > No, they don't. This sentence is insane, as far as I can tell. Math and the > > teaching of math has nothing to do with ritual. > > E=MC2 > > Ritual Of, like, or done as a rite. A system of form of rites > religious or otherwise. > > Science and Math both have excruciatingly defined rites. > > > > > So it is not woefully out of place. > > > > > > Sorry. I said WHOA, not WOE. Such as slow down, not morose. > > > > Deliberate irony in choosing to use a nonexistent word? > > Its not non existant. It now exists. I see then. We've abandoned coherence altogether. OK, then. OK. Fred P.S. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. ka-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y.

[ quoted text not captured ] See step 5 of 6.5.5 See also damage resolution for other examples of how the sections of the rules have no bearing on interrelationships. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB0F77F...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > > > Which you can see is a completely new paragraph and rules section, > > covers the BH referendum. > > See step 5 of 6.5.5 > > See also damage resolution for other examples of how the sections > of the rules have no bearing on interrelationships. > That step covers *calling* the Blood Hunt. Since 6.5.5 covers resolution of the successful diablerie, and 6.5.6 covers resolution of the Blood Hunt (which is not covered in 6.5.5), it seems that the resolution of the Blood Hunt is somehow detached from the calling of the Blood Hunt.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<NT6s8.15922$CU.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, the different steps are really only useful in indexing. If LSJ and White Wolf had wanted to, they could have printed the rules with no Tabs or Annexes. It would have made reading the rules more difficult, but it would have remained the same. --------------Cut from other posting-------------- >> And it's not like anyone needed this huge rules convolution to understand how >> RotBR was used. All this for a card that nobody ever uses anyway. >Many points have been made on both sides regarding corner-case "problems". >If the fact that it was corner-case was enough to dismiss the argument, this >thread need not have occurred at all. >Of course, the corner cases have to be considered, so here we are. What are all of these corner cases? Ritual of the Bitter Rose - prior to actual diablerie and removal of the targeted vampire. Reform Body - prior to actual diablerie and removal of the targeted vampire. Judgement: Camarilla Segregation - The only issue I can see being at stake here. On the use of Ritual of the Bitter Rose, I do make use of Ritual of the Bitter Rose quite often. I can understand how the card is suppose to be played prior to a diablerie action's conclusion to gain it's effect. However, as stated in my previous posting I can see no issue with either Ritual of the Bitter Rose or Reform Body. Both state within their text when they are suppose to be played, which is prior to a diablerie action's conclusion. Both deal with a vampire that is going to be burned, not after the fact. Therefore, a player using Ritual must play the card prior to the diablerie's enactment to gain blood for it and all other vampires with the same controller. A Reform Body must be played prior to the targeted vampire being placed into the ashheap, per card text: "...Only usable by a vampire being burned..." to override the normal course of events. It goes to torpor rather than the ashheap. Whether or not this means all equipment and retainers on the vampire are lost is another question. The issue of when a Judgement: Camarilla Segregation is a corner case that should be dealt with. I do not agree that a vampire should be allowed to diablerize another vampire and then in the same action burn itself to remove a J:CS. However, I do not believe making a rules change is the optimal method of dealing with this corner case situation. (In fact, I regard a rules change a bigger event than simple errata, but that is my personal feeling on the matter.) I can understand the position you are trying to deal with, but wouldn't a rules clarification which 1) identifies a Blood Hunt as a byproduct of a diablerie (as it is described within the rules) and 2) identifies a diablerie action as not being completed until resolution of it's Blood Hunt issue is resolved, be better and simpler? Heck, how many other ways can a Blood Hunt be called except through diablerie? (And no, the action card "Blood Hunt" is not the same thing. One burns a vampire via a special vote while the other allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to attack a selected vampire.) Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein

> > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > > > tetragrammaton wrote: <snip> > > > > But you stated above that the Husamettin ability is used "after" the "would > > be" BH referendum, > > not "just after" he burns (diablerizes) the vamp, that is *before* the BH > > vote (much as > > reform body is played *before* the BH). > > No. The BH referndum is part of the indivisible diablerie (in which the vampire > burns). So immediately after that is after the BH referendum. See also > "after blocking" to include the block-combat (Cats' Guidance). > > > > It doesn't activate before the burning - the burning activates the > > > ability (so the effect occurs after). > > > > My point is: how you can state that the husamettin ability occours "after" > > (the BH)? > > Card text. > ? from the online card list: Independent: If Husamettin burns a vampire with a contract on him or her, you may go through your library, get a Master: Discipline card, and place it on him. Shuffle your library afterward. (Blood Cursed) Tell me how you can tell that you do all the search,place and reshuffle *after* the BH, and not "as" he burns the vamp with the contract. > > Nothing in the actual rulings seems to suggest so. > > 1) Husamettin diablerizes the vamp > > 2) his ability can be activated and i search my library for a master card to > > be put on him > > 3) the Blood hunt vote can be called, then resolved. > > That's > > 1) Husametting diablerizes > 2) His ability activates. > > What you call 3 is a part of 1, just as moving blood, burning the vampire, etc. > are a part of 1. See 6.5.5 > What i can see on 6.5.5 (from the online rulebook) 1. All blood on the victim is moved to the diablerist. Blood in excess of his capacity drains off as normal. 2. The diablerist may take any equipment on the victim. 3. The victim is burned (sent to his owner's ash heap). Any cards and counters on him are also burned. 4. If the victim was older (had a higher capacity) than the diablerist, the diablerist can be given a Discipline. His controller may go through her library, ash heap and hand to get a master Discipline card to put on the diablerist and then reshuffle her library or draw back up to her hand size, as necessary. This increases the diablerist's capacity by one, but does not automatically give the diablerist a blood to fill that new capacity. 5. A blood hunt may be called. ......is that the BH vote is the last step in the 1-5 points, and that nowhere in the rules states that if an effect triggers during 1-4 it has to be delayed (for obsure reasons) until step 5 (BH) is resolved. By the same token, if effects like Husamettin's ability should be delayed until 5 is resolved, then the ability (flaw) of March Halcyon would be pointless, since it could not be used until the BH step is resolved. More, in the Husamettin's actual case, if he diablerizes an older vamp, we would get a ridicoulus effect: the master card granted by the older vampire would be taken *before* the BH, and the master card granted by his ability *after* it, that sounds quite odd to me..... > > Ah, then we got a brand new unwritten term: > > "vote stuff" : > > effects that are usable only during an "atomic" referendum > > > > this, definitively, complicates utterly the already complicated > > rules enviroment, sorry. > > Yes. > Isn't clear if you're agreeing on the point above, but anyway let me say that we need simpler rules to attract new players. This new "atomic" rule and "vote stuff" referendum is not a simple at all. I would suggest that, given the difference that the BH vote is not an action: 1) during all referendums (both the political actions and the BH vote) only "vote effects" can be used. or that 2) during all referendums any (legal) effect can be used. That would simplifies enough the matter, i think. Emiliano > --

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > No. The BH referndum is part of the indivisible diablerie (in which the vampire > > > burns). So immediately after that is after the BH referendum. See also > > > "after blocking" to include the block-combat (Cats' Guidance). > > > > > > > I have to disagree. According to the Rule book: > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_5_5 > > > > Covers the Diablery and the call of the Blood hunt. > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_5_6 > > > > Which you can see is a completely new paragraph and rules section, > > covers the BH referendum. > > See step 5 of 6.5.5 > > See also damage resolution for other examples of how the sections > of the rules have no bearing on interrelationships. What a horrid manner of writing and organizing the rules. 6.5.6 is not really 6.5.6 its already 6.5.5 and is done before we bother to explain 6.5.5 to you in section 6.5.6 Raille

Dave wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CADF302...@white-wolf.com>... > > > > > > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's > > > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use > > > > Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't. > > > > You can't turn off grendals special ability. I like to take one of > those resturant menu plastic card holders and insert cards into it so > I can view them, due to special effects such as grendals. > > Am I supposed to stop in the middle of the game, take the card out of > the sleeve and return it to the top of my crypt until the blood hunt > is over??? > > Raille I suppose this will not be getting an official responce. Question is, how do you turn off a vampires special during 6.5.5? And why should you. section 1.4 of the rules already says the specials alter the rules. What gives? Raille

Well, the time i did exams in ancient Greek are a long time ago, but did any of you look in an ethymological dictionary? If i recall it correctly "a-tomos" means "not-divisible"....So i am not sure in what form it is used now (i am not English-speaking) but i do know that is where the word comes from... hope that helps in the discussion... Wouter

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Deliberate irony in choosing to use a nonexistent word? > > > > Its not non existant. It now exists. > > I see then. We've abandoned coherence altogether. OK, then. > > OK. > > Fred > > P.S. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. ka-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y. Isn't language wonderful? However, while you may not like it, it is the manner in which most words become words in the first place. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] It does. Any ethymological dictionaries on line? Raille

Some info on the origin of this word: (Latin) Atomus: uncut, indivisible. http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary?define=atom Originally, atoms were supposed to be indivisible and to consitute the minimum essential building unit from which all matter was made. Hence, the use of the word is perfectly correct in this context, although it is not a colloquial use of "atomic" (generally used regarding nuclear energy.

Raille wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Deliberate irony in choosing to use a nonexistent word? > > > > > > Its not non existant. It now exists. > > > > I see then. We've abandoned coherence altogether. OK, then. > > Isn't language wonderful? > > However, while you may not like it, it is the manner in which most words > become words in the first place. Oh, I don't _mind_ at all. Do it myself whenever the spirit moves me. I was just saying that I thought it was somewhat ironic that you should create a new word out thin air in the midst of a thread begun by your bickering about whether Scott's use of 'atomic' was correct or not. Perhaps if he'd spelled it with a 'y' ("atomyc") and claimed it was a new word, you would have found it to be completely within his mathematical rites. Linguistically yours, Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB16DD9...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > That step covers *calling* the Blood Hunt. Since 6.5.5 covers resolution of > > the successful diablerie, and 6.5.6 covers resolution of the Blood Hunt (which > > is not covered in 6.5.5), it seems that the resolution of the Blood Hunt is > > somehow detached from the calling of the Blood Hunt. > > It is not. > Despite the fact that the rulebook says otherwise? What a pain in the ass. You reference little reminder statements in the rulebook and call them rules text (like the old rulebook that said that Assamites couldn't commit diablerie, which was only true because all of them *said* they couldn't commit diablerie - there are more recent examples, but I'm not in the mood to search for them), and then ignore divisions in the rulebook that you yourself wrote. I suppose the only way to know what LSJ's rules for VTES are is to *be* LSJ, since even the stuff *he* has written is not correct. Sorry, this is starting to sound like Talonz, isn't it? I'm just starting to get fed up. The straw that, when added to the other straws, ended up making the load really heavy and caused a great deal of lumbar stress to the dromedary bearing it... as it were. Meh. Well, I give up at hoping that the VTES rules stay as simple and comprehensible as they really could be. I guess I'll have to give in and invest in a laptop with a 40GB hard drive to store the rules reference.

[ quoted text not captured ] Your welcome. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] another great online dictionary source. Thanks. Raille

In message <Spqs8.21249$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: >bearing it... as it were. Meh. Well, I give up at hoping that the VTES rules >stay as simple and comprehensible as they really could be. I guess I'll have What you all, every last one of you, fail to realize, is that most if not all of your suggestions require changing some already-printed text somewhere. There was a time period when wholesale errata was common. This period is no more. It was a bad period. But it was necessary to fix the game, which had been broken since the release of Ancient Hearts and Sabbat, and move the game to a condition where it was worth buying back the rights for. You all complain about errata, but then fail to realize that your own suggestions are errata themselves. Talonz ESPECIALLY fails to realize this; his little "just change these three words!" comments make just as much difference to a card's text as the change to Mind Rape's did. Yes, the rules are complicated. Yes, this is not as good as it could be. Yes, however, we ARE dealing with a game that encompasses seven years' worth of printings and multiple different designers. Not everything will be perfect. Some things will suck. This is life. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Duplicate Post. raille [ quoted text not captured ]

What the title says. Duplicate post Raille Dave wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CADF302...@white-wolf.com>... > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > > > >Referendum effect: "vote stuff" > > > >Non-referendum effect: effect that doesn't deal with a referendum. > > > > > > But exactly what is "vote stuff?" It's clear that Ventrue HQ and PB:Madrid > > > would count. If there was a hypothetical card that would let you tap it during > > > a referendum to cancel or change votes, does this count as "vote stuff?" > > > > Of course. > > > > > As I asked earlier, why does Astrid's ability function while Tusk and Grendel's > > > don't? Astrids doesn't actually provide votes. And so why can't you use > > > > Astrid's deals with the referendum (votes). Grendel's doesn't. > > > > > Temptation to take control of a titled vamp or use Fragment to try and draw a > > > vote card to discard it for a vote. Both of those help you gain votes. > > > > Neither of them deal with vote stuff. > > Your library is not vote stuff. Stealing vampires is not vote stuff. > > After Reading the rules, I have to disagree. Section 1.4 allows card > to trump the rule sections. > > See: http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec1_4 > > Temptation in part reads: > > During your minion phase, if the number of counters on this card > equals or exceeds the amount of blood on that vampire, you may burn > all the <counters> on this card to untap that vampire and take control > of him or her until the end of your turn. > > Af far as I know, both a Referendum, Diablerization and a Blood Hunt > all occur during the minion phase. > > The temptation allows you to burn the counters and take control. So > other than the short time frame where the diablery is occured and the > blood/equipment ect are being moved, ect. the counters cannot be > burned to interupt, however once that is over, you can and should be > allowed to burn the counters to control a minion. > > Raille

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <Spqs8.21249$CU.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: > > >bearing it... as it were. Meh. Well, I give up at hoping that the VTES rules > >stay as simple and comprehensible as they really could be. I guess I'll have > > What you all, every last one of you, fail to realize, is that most if > not all of your suggestions require changing some already-printed text > somewhere. I'm not asking for any errata. I'm not asking for any rules changes. I'm asking for allowing the rules to function as printed. See section 1.4, it tells you that card text trumps rules text. I, and others have had some very good questions, none of which have been giving a satisfactory answer, which still conforms to the rules. > There was a time period when wholesale errata was common. And I'm glad thats Gone too. > Not everything will be perfect. Some things will suck. This is life. agreed, but you can take time to make some things perfect that were not before. Raille

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB16DD9...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That step covers *calling* the Blood Hunt. Since 6.5.5 covers resolution > of > > > the successful diablerie, and 6.5.6 covers resolution of the Blood Hunt > (which > > > is not covered in 6.5.5), it seems that the resolution of the Blood Hunt is > > > somehow detached from the calling of the Blood Hunt. > > > > It is not. > > > Despite the fact that the rulebook says otherwise? What a pain in the [...]. It doesn't. > You reference little reminder statements in the rulebook and call them rules > text (like the old rulebook that said that Assamites couldn't commit diablerie, > which was only true because all of them *said* they couldn't commit diablerie - > there are more recent examples, but I'm not in the mood to search for them), > and then ignore divisions in the rulebook that you yourself wrote. I suppose > the only way to know what LSJ's rules for VTES are is to *be* LSJ, since even > the stuff *he* has written is not correct. Please quote the rulebook text that says the bloodhunt is separate from the diablerie (which would then contradict 6.5.5 and require a ruling to resolve). > Sorry, this is starting to sound like Talonz, isn't it? I'm just starting to Yes. With similar results. > get fed up. The straw that, when added to the other straws, ended up making > the load really heavy and caused a great deal of lumbar stress to the dromedary > bearing it... as it were. Meh. Well, I give up at hoping that the VTES rules > stay as simple and comprehensible as they really could be. I guess I'll have > to give in and invest in a laptop with a 40GB hard drive to store the rules > reference. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No answer to this particular post because the points have already been made. Since you missed it: there is now a ruling that says Diablerie is indivisible. Since "card text" doesn't override this, it doesn't override this. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No answer to this particular post since the points have already been made. Since you missed it: You do not turn off a vampire's special. The diablerie is indivisible, so you cannot interrupt it with other effects (unless card text says otherwise). Exceptions are made for referendum stuff. (Ruling based on [6.5.6]) [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3CB23697...@spamcop.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] This thread seems ridoculous to me. (ridoculous is the only word in Bakerdictionary (TM)) > > Raille

LSJ wrote: > > No answer to this particular post since the points have already been made. > Since you missed it: > You do not turn off a vampire's special. > The diablerie is indivisible, so you cannot interrupt it with other effects > (unless card text says otherwise). > Exceptions are made for referendum stuff. (Ruling based on [6.5.6]) > Good enough. Raille

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB2BECE...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3CB16DD9...@white-wolf.com... > > > Chris Berger wrote: <snip> > > Despite the fact that the rulebook says otherwise? What a pain in the [...]. > > It doesn't. > > > You reference little reminder statements in the rulebook and call them rules > > text (like the old rulebook that said that Assamites couldn't commit diablerie, > > which was only true because all of them *said* they couldn't commit diablerie - > > there are more recent examples, but I'm not in the mood to search for them), > > and then ignore divisions in the rulebook that you yourself wrote. I suppose > > the only way to know what LSJ's rules for VTES are is to *be* LSJ, since even > > the stuff *he* has written is not correct. > > Please quote the rulebook text that says the bloodhunt is separate from the > diablerie (which would then contradict 6.5.5 and require a ruling to resolve). > The quoting is quite simple, since the 6.5.5 itself *divided* in 5 step, (much like, i'd say, action and combat sequences are divided in steps). and with get even a separated paragraph describing the BH vote. The first 4 step of diablerie requires potential lot of stuff to do *before* getting at 5 (the BH), that are: 1.moving blood step, 2.moving equipment step, 3.*burning* the diablerized vampire step, 4.searching for a master card (older vamp case) step. 5. (finally) The BH vote step And, again, nowhere in the rules stated that if an effect like those of husamettin or nakova, that triggers upon the "burning" of the opposing vamp (step 4), it has to be delayed until the whole process resolves. Yes, we have this "atomic" diablerie by now, but the diablerie itself can still be interrupted with some means: the march halcyon's ability, the archon (and archon-like ability), the "vote stuff" (brand new term for the "atomic" rerendum ) effects, the absolution of the diabolist, the city gangrel connections. So, the definition given for diablerie, "atomic", "undivisible" is quite inaccurate, sorry. Because the diablerie can be still interrupted. > > Sorry, this is starting to sound like Talonz, isn't it? I'm just starting to > > Yes. With similar results. > What result ? You just created another rule with a set of sub-specialized effects telling what can, actually, interrupt the diablerie process, or that cannot interrupt it. The only thing that it was created to avoid (potential) problems with corner cases (actually, the only i can see is with the camarilla segregation). If that was deemed absolutely necessary, i think that some more errata (i hate them) would suffice, i think: Judgment: Camarilla Segregation ...... Any Methuselah may burn this card by burning a Non-Camarilla vampire he or she controls during his or her minion phase, this effect cannot used during an action. and adding the "Cannot be used during an action" clause to the barrens, dreams of the sphinx, fragment of the book of nod, temptation and whichver can be deemed an problematic effect for the resolution of the actual X part (be it an action, referendum or combat). Emiliano > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > > The quoting is quite simple, since the 6.5.5 itself *divided* in 5 > step, (much like, i'd say, action and combat sequences are divided in > steps). > and with get even a separated paragraph describing the BH vote. > The first 4 step of diablerie requires potential lot of stuff to > do *before* getting at 5 (the BH), that are: > 1.moving blood step, > 2.moving equipment step, > 3.*burning* the diablerized vampire step, > 4.searching for a master card (older vamp case) step. > 5. (finally) The BH vote step Step Five is actually: 5.A blood hunt may be called. The BH referendum is later. Step five only extends the offer to call the BH. > > and adding the "Cannot be used during an action" clause to > the barrens, dreams of the sphinx, fragment of the book of nod, > temptation and whichver can be deemed an problematic effect > for the resolution of the actual X part (be it an action, referendum or > combat). Excellent conclusion. You trying to being the next Netrep? Raille

Raille wrote: > tetragrammaton wrote: > > The quoting is quite simple, since the 6.5.5 itself *divided* in 5 > > step, (much like, i'd say, action and combat sequences are divided in > > steps). > > and with get even a separated paragraph describing the BH vote. > > The first 4 step of diablerie requires potential lot of stuff to > > do *before* getting at 5 (the BH), that are: > > 1.moving blood step, > > 2.moving equipment step, > > 3.*burning* the diablerized vampire step, > > 4.searching for a master card (older vamp case) step. > > 5. (finally) The BH vote step > > Step Five is actually: > 5.A blood hunt may be called. > > The BH referendum is later. Step five only extends the offer to call > the BH. No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs after the action. This is simply not the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:19:20 GMT, LSJ wrote: >No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested >is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs >after the action. This is simply not the case. The Blood Hunt referendum must be taking place after the action because action modifiers and reaction cards can no longer be played (according to the rules). I'd be happy to see that restriction go though - I don't see why such cards which influence voting shouldn't be allowed. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:19:20 GMT, LSJ wrote: > > >No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested > >is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs > >after the action. This is simply not the case. > > The Blood Hunt referendum must be taking place after the action > because action modifiers and reaction cards can no longer be played > (according to the rules). No. See any of numerous other responses where this point is countered. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:4522784E1044CE57.79AF8C14...@lp.airnews.net... > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:19:20 GMT, LSJ wrote: > > >No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested > >is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs > >after the action. This is simply not the case. > > The Blood Hunt referendum must be taking place after the action Mmh, i think that it is *still* part of the action, otherwise the freak drive could be played just before starting the whole diablerie steps, and not after. CIao Emiliano <snip>

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CB411B2...@white-wolf.com>... > Raille wrote: > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > The quoting is quite simple, since the 6.5.5 itself *divided* in 5 > > > step, (much like, i'd say, action and combat sequences are divided in > > > steps). > > > and with get even a separated paragraph describing the BH vote. > > > The first 4 step of diablerie requires potential lot of stuff to > > > do *before* getting at 5 (the BH), that are: > > > 1.moving blood step, > > > 2.moving equipment step, > > > 3.*burning* the diablerized vampire step, > > > 4.searching for a master card (older vamp case) step. > > > 5. (finally) The BH vote step > > > > Step Five is actually: > > 5.A blood hunt may be called. > > > > The BH referendum is later. Step five only extends the offer to call > > the BH. > > No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested > is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs > after the action. This is simply not the case. Actually, step 5 within the rules (paper copy and on-line) state "...A Blood Hunt may be called..." So in reality, Raille is correct. However, in 6.5.6 it states that the calling of a Blood Hunt is not an action, so that means it is a possible result of a diablerie. I really believe step 5 should be state, "...Blood Hunt resolution..." with Tabs (or steps) under it to clarify the what the Blood Hunt resolution entails. Now being out of the loop for a while and reading some of these postings, I am now curious what other changes have occurred that I am unaware of. 1) Has Fragment of the Book of Nod and The Barrens been modified to meet the same criteria as Heidelburg Castle? That is, a) they can only be used between actions during your turn? b) or just between actions, no matter whose turn? 2) Or is this clarification of what the new/proposed rules change will enforce? I am still at a loss on how something like Husamettin's ability (when it kicks in) would cloud this issue. What is the big deal with looking for two master discipline cards at the same time rather than 1 prior to the Blood Hunt determination/resolution and 1 afterward? It is an inherent ability of the vampire and doesn't require an action card to perform, just like Blood Hunt doesn't require an action card to perform. Heck, both result due to a diablerie. The only card I can see that is vague on when in a player's minion phase it can be burned. Now as much as I am NOT a fan of errata, I am surprised this has not be caught before and corrected during the Era (thanks, Derek) of errata. It has been around a while (Dark Sovereigns). Either that, or clarify what the rules currently state. A new ruling is in effect "errata" on the rules. Either way, we are dealing with errata, one for the rules or one for the card. The only other reason that comes to mind as to why new rulings would come out now would be for their entry into the coming expansion and it has either already been printed in the new rule books for the expansion or you are just testing the water (which I somehow doubt). Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB406A5...@spamcop.net... > > Step Five is actually: > 5.A blood hunt may be called. > > The BH referendum is later. Step five only extends the offer to call > the BH. > I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this. > > > > and adding the "Cannot be used during an action" clause to > > the barrens, dreams of the sphinx, fragment of the book of nod, > > temptation and whichver can be deemed an problematic effect > > for the resolution of the actual X part (be it an action, referendum or > > combat). > Actually, LSJ has said that Camarilla Segration is not the problem, despite the fact that his disallowing of effects within the referendum cannot serve any other purpose (since he allows some effects, the point of disallowing other effects cannot be to preserve the atomic property of the diablerie). The corner case card that the atomic rule has been put in for is Ritual of the Bitter Rose (and only really for its interaction with Reform Body). > Excellent conclusion. You trying to being the next Netrep? > Can we have elections for that sort of thing? ;)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB426EC...@white-wolf.com... > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > > > The Blood Hunt referendum must be taking place after the action > > because action modifiers and reaction cards can no longer be played > > (according to the rules). > > No. See any of numerous other responses where this point is countered. > Do you mean "countered with rules text or a reasoned argument"? Or countered with "I'm LSJ and I say so"? If the former, I haven't seen any of those. Kindly direct me. Not that you aren't allowed to backup rules points with "I'm LSJ and I say so" - that's your prerogative. But we don't have to like it.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio news:MRYs8.200694$ZR2.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3CB406A5...@spamcop.net... > > <snip> > Actually, LSJ has said that Camarilla Segration is not the problem, despite the > fact that his disallowing of effects within the referendum cannot serve any > other purpose (since he allows some effects, the point of disallowing other > effects cannot be to preserve the atomic property of the diablerie). The > corner case card that the atomic rule has been put in for is Ritual of the > Bitter Rose (and only really for its interaction with Reform Body). ? As far as i can remember, the ritual has been always meant to be played *before* the diablerie 1-5 steps, so i can't see how it could fit in the "atomic" picture, except in confirming that the diablerie itself cannot be "atomic" .:) The RoTBR 's interaction with reform body goes beyond the diablerie aspect, since it takes into account "normal" burning during combat, that has nothing to do with diablerie. > > > Excellent conclusion. You trying to being the next Netrep? > > > Can we have elections for that sort of thing? ;) > > No need for that, since Scott it's very good at his job, despite some obscure "atomic" rulings (undivisibles, unquestionables) here and there. :-) ciao Emiliano

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB426EC...@white-wolf.com... > > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > > > > > The Blood Hunt referendum must be taking place after the action > > > because action modifiers and reaction cards can no longer be played > > > (according to the rules). > > > > No. See any of numerous other responses where this point is countered. > > > Do you mean "countered with rules text or a reasoned argument"? Or countered > with "I'm LSJ and I say so"? If the former, I haven't seen any of those. > Kindly direct me. Not that you aren't allowed to backup rules points with "I'm [LSJ 04-APR-2002] [LSJ 02-APR-2002] <- a response to Chris Berger's post. [LSJ 14-AUG-2001] > LSJ and I say so" - that's your prerogative. But we don't have to like it. Yes and readers of this board are free to ignore points made - that's their perogative (excercised more and more frequently lately). [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested > > is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs > > after the action. This is simply not the case. > > Actually, step 5 within the rules (paper copy and on-line) state "...A > Blood Hunt may be called..." So in reality, Raille is correct. No. Not unless you've found some text in the rulebook that indicates the mysterious "later" you and he wish to be present in 6.5.5.5 > Now being out of the loop for a while and reading some of these > postings, I am now curious what other changes have occurred that I am > unaware of. > 1) Has Fragment of the Book of Nod and The Barrens been modified to > meet the same criteria as Heidelburg Castle? No. > 2) Or is this clarification of what the new/proposed rules change will > enforce? There is no official new/proposed rules change. > Either that, or clarify what the rules currently state. A new ruling > is in effect "errata" on the rules. Either way, we are dealing with > errata, one for the rules or one for the card. Rulings are not errata, by definition. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB46D84...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > [LSJ 04-APR-2002]: > > > OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > >.For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, > > diablerie must be indivisible. No coherent point there, as this statement is patently false. There are a million and one ways for Ritual of the Bitter Rose to have a tangible effect when applied to diablerie. As it is, it has no real effect on diablerie, because it's a bad card that no one uses. > [LSJ 02-APR-2002] <- a response to Chris Berger's post.: > > > > > No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] Again, not true. 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. 6.5.6, which is the actual resolution of the Blood Hunt is separate from section 6.5.5 (the diablerie). Thus, according to the rules, the Blood Hunt is seperate from the diablerie. The only reason your statement above is true is because "LSJ says so." Fine, you say so, it's true. But at least admit that that's the way you make rulings now. Actually... admit it or not, I don't care. But if you're going to, for some unfathomable reason, argue that that *isn't* the way you make rulings now, you shouldn't be surprised that some people don't agree. > [LSJ 14-AUG-2001]: > > > This is the same reason as why you cannot play action modifiers in > > the blood hunt referendum even though there's an action going on > > somewhere. The blood hunt is not an action. Likewise it is not combat. > > It is an event isolated from the rest of the events going on > > around it. An event isolated from the rest of the events going on around it? Including the diablerie? > > LSJ and I say so" - that's your prerogative. But we don't have to like it. > > Yes and readers of this board are free to ignore points made - that's their > perogative (excercised more and more frequently lately). > Ah... the "everyone else is crazy, I'm the one who's sane" argument. Is the next post going to be "why is everybody always picking on me?" ? Anyway, "I'm LSJ and I say so" isn't exactly a "point." It's not like anyone's going to say, "ah... I hadn't thought about it that way. I completely understand now."

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<%l3t8.205855$Yv2.67200@rwcrnsc54>... > Again, not true. 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. > 6.5.6, which is the actual resolution of the Blood Hunt is > separate from section 6.5.5 (the diablerie). Thus, according > to the rules, the Blood Hunt is seperate from the diablerie. I think, your confusion arises from assuming that the section headings in the rule book carry some meaning. They do not. The section headings are only present for making indexing and reference easier. There is no rule that states: each rulebook section refers to a separate action/thing. This is an "interface" problem. You are assuming that the rulebook itself follows certain conventions that it does not. Perhaps it is a flaw in the rulebook layout that it can be misinterpreted in this way, and maybe someone (LSJ) will make a modification in a new edition. A method would be to rename both 6.5.5 and 6.5.6 to be 6.5.4.1 and 6.5.4.2 respectively, although that may be too many layers. * lehrbuch

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > [LSJ 04-APR-2002]: > > > > > OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > > >.For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, > > > diablerie must be indivisible. > > No coherent point there, as this statement is patently false. There are a > million and one ways for Ritual of the Bitter Rose to have a tangible effect > when applied to diablerie. As it is, it has no real effect on diablerie, > because it's a bad card that no one uses. OK. Here it is for the cheap seats: if the diablerie is not a single unit, then the victim is always empty (6.5.5.1) when he burns (6.5.5.3). > > [LSJ 02-APR-2002] <- a response to Chris Berger's post.: > > > > > > > > No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] > > Again, not true. 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. 6.5.6, which > is the actual resolution of the Blood Hunt is separate from section 6.5.5 (the > diablerie). Thus, according to the rules, the Blood Hunt is seperate from the > diablerie. The only reason your statement above is true is because "LSJ says > so." Fine, you say so, it's true. But at least admit that that's the way you Is there any reason for the blood hunt to be separate, besides "Chris says so"? Noting that different sections of the rules describe the pieces doesn't mean that the pieces are separate. See section 3. Or 6.4.6. 6.5.5. indicates that the blood hunt may be called as the fifth and final step of the diablerie. It doesn't indicate that the blood hunt occurs later as you (and a few others) seem to imagine it does. > make rulings now. Actually... admit it or not, I don't care. But if you're > going to, for some unfathomable reason, argue that that *isn't* the way you > make rulings now, you shouldn't be surprised that some people don't agree. The very fathomable reasons have already been explained several times. > > > [LSJ 14-AUG-2001]: > > > > > This is the same reason as why you cannot play action modifiers in > > > the blood hunt referendum even though there's an action going on > > > somewhere. The blood hunt is not an action. Likewise it is not combat. > > > It is an event isolated from the rest of the events going on > > > around it. > > An event isolated from the rest of the events going on around it? Including > the diablerie? OK. > > > LSJ and I say so" - that's your prerogative. But we don't have to like it. > > > > Yes and readers of this board are free to ignore points made - that's their > > perogative (excercised more and more frequently lately). > > > Ah... the "everyone else is crazy, I'm the one who's sane" argument. Is the > next post going to be "why is everybody always picking on me?" ? Anyway, "I'm > LSJ and I say so" isn't exactly a "point." It's not like anyone's going to > say, "ah... I hadn't thought about it that way. I completely understand now." You have a peculiar talent for extracting hidden (non-existent) meanings from text. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB4E919...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > Yes and readers of this board are free to ignore points made - that's their > > > perogative (excercised more and more frequently lately). > > > > > Ah... the "everyone else is crazy, I'm the one who's sane" argument. Is the > > next post going to be "why is everybody always picking on me?" ? Anyway, "I'm > > LSJ and I say so" isn't exactly a "point." It's not like anyone's going to > > say, "ah... I hadn't thought about it that way. I completely understand now." > > You have a peculiar talent for extracting hidden (non-existent) meanings > from text. > So do you, if you think the rulebook says what you say it says. You need me to spell it out for you? Here it is: if a lot of people are finding it hard to see that you're making any coherent points, *you* tend to assume that the readers are ignoring your points. Occam's Razor would lead one to believe that you simply aren't making any points. That's what I mean by the "everyone else is crazy, I'm the one who's sane" argument. Is that enough explanation, or is it still too hard to understand? Perhaps you imagine a conspiracy of lunatics led by Andrew Davidson, slowly converting otherwise reasonable people like Talonz (debatable if he was ever reasonable), myself, Raille, and tetragrammaton into anti-LSJ fanatics. We have begun drinking the blood of Christian babies and having secret meetings gathered around sacrificed virgins wherein we burn effigies of LSJ and play Jyhad by unnatural rules. Herein, we take pleasure in ignoring what LSJ says and pretending that it doesn't make sense, when in reality it actually *does* make sense when he repeats the same thing for the third time. (Oh, you're saying that the Blood Hunt is *not* seperate? It's all atomic? Oh, well it all makes sense now!) Whereas those of us involved in the alleged conspiracy instead imagine that you just aren't, actually, making any sense.

On 10 Apr 2002 18:27:54 -0700, lehrbuch wrote: >I think, your confusion arises from assuming that the section headings >in the rule book carry some meaning. They do not. > >The section headings are only present for making indexing and >reference easier. There is no rule that states: each rulebook section >refers to a separate action/thing. You've got it backwards. LSJ's case rests upon the manner in which the rulebook is indexed - he draws great significance from the fact that the sentence "A blood hunt may be called." has the number "5" in front of it. He has a point but, if you go that way, then the heading "6.5.6 Blood Hunt" is more significant to my mind - it's bigger and bolder and has the same status as "6.5.5 Diablerie". Note that the original Jyhad rulebook didn't use any numbers when describing Diablerie and the Blood Hunt and seems none the worse for it. It didn't say whether these things were atomic but neither does the latest rulebook. If there are some new rules which are outside the rulebook then they should say what they mean. If something is atomic then they should define that something precisely. Do these virtual rules actually exist as a proper rules document somewhere? LotR has an "expanded rulebook" which only exists as an online PDF but which is complete and well integrated. Magic has its Comprehensive Rules. My impression is that VTES just has the printed rulebook plus a ragbag of FAQ-style rulings. It's not alone in that but I just want to be sure. BTW, I notice that the original rules had an action type of "Encounter a Vampire in Torpor" but this seems to have gone away. That's just an NRA issue, I suppose, but still seems noteworthy. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] So your saying section 6 can be played prior to Section 5? Or you can resolve section 6.2.2 before section 6.2.1? Man your on Crack. Section 6.5.5 comes before 6.5.6 and rightly so. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > [LSJ 04-APR-2002]: > > > > > > > OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > > > > >.For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, > > > > diablerie must be indivisible. > > > > No coherent point there, as this statement is patently false. There are a > > million and one ways for Ritual of the Bitter Rose to have a tangible effect > > when applied to diablerie. As it is, it has no real effect on diablerie, > > because it's a bad card that no one uses. > > OK. Here it is for the cheap seats: if the diablerie is not a single unit, then > the victim is always empty (6.5.5.1) when he burns (6.5.5.3). Not unless you actually set the rules to effect the game effects. The vampire is full as he is being burned. The Diablery happens, and as a successful result that blood that was on the vampire goes to the victor, as does the equipment. None could be moved without successfully burning the vampire first. At least within game context. Diablery should be writen to read like. As you diablerize (burn) a vampire all blood and equipment is transfered to the acting vampire, as well as a new discipline if the diablerized vampire was older. > 6.5.5. indicates that the blood hunt may be called as the fifth and final step > of the diablerie. It doesn't indicate that the blood hunt occurs later as you > (and a few others) seem to imagine it does. That might be true, but only because the previously consistent rules all of a sudden take a sharp jag. If you want blood hunt as a inherant part and included in the diablery, change the rules Raille

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB4E919...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > [LSJ 04-APR-2002]: > > > > > > > OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > > > > >.For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, > > > > diablerie must be indivisible. > > > > No coherent point there, as this statement is patently false. There are a > > million and one ways for Ritual of the Bitter Rose to have a tangible effect > > when applied to diablerie. As it is, it has no real effect on diablerie, > > because it's a bad card that no one uses. > > OK. Here it is for the cheap seats: if the diablerie is not a single unit, then > the victim is always empty (6.5.5.1) when he burns (6.5.5.3). > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie (step 5) thing is resolved. Is for this reason that i find the "atomic" diablerie rule illogical. And beacuse, too, the diablerie itself is still "interruppable" by other means (again, archon, absolution of the diabolist, "vote stuff".etc..), and so the "atomic" concept is quite unaccurate for what the rule would suggest (an "indivisible" thing). Emiliano > > > [LSJ 02-APR-2002] <- a response to Chris Berger's post.: > > > > > > > > > > > No. The Blood Hunt occurs as part of the diablerie. [6.5.5.5] > > > > Again, not true. 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. 6.5.6, which > > is the actual resolution of the Blood Hunt is separate from section 6.5.5 (the > > diablerie). Thus, according to the rules, the Blood Hunt is seperate from the > > diablerie. The only reason your statement above is true is because "LSJ says > > so." Fine, you say so, it's true. But at least admit that that's the way you > > Is there any reason for the blood hunt to be separate, Again, the blood hunt *is* already separable, even under this (unaccurate) "atomic" rule. >besides "Chris says so"? > Noting that different sections of the rules describe the pieces doesn't mean > that the pieces are separate. See section 3. Or 6.4.6. > > 6.5.5. indicates that the blood hunt may be called as the fifth and final step > of the diablerie. It doesn't indicate that the blood hunt occurs later as you > (and a few others) seem to imagine it does. > > > make rulings now. Actually... admit it or not, I don't care. But if you're > > going to, for some unfathomable reason, argue that that *isn't* the way you > > make rulings now, you shouldn't be surprised that some people don't agree. > > The very fathomable reasons have already been explained several times. > The fact that people here still argue against this means that the reasons are not so fathomable, maybe... Emiliano

http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_3 6.2.3. Resolve the Action If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action take place. 6.3.2. The Referendum If a political action is successful, the referendum (sometimes referred to as the vote*) is called. 6.5.4. Diablerize a Vampire in Torpor To have one vampire diablerize another vampire in torpor, announce the action and tap the acting vampire. If the action is successful, the victim is diablerized (see below). The Key thing being pointed out here is that the action must be successful before any results can be applied. Thus in reference to diablery, the action is over once the vampire is diablerized. The blood hunt should come immediantly after this and is supported in that role by the current rules. However, there are a couple interesting things that this leads to. action over, thus not linked, the Blood hunt cannot make use of AM's and Reacts. Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction or AM cards to gain or lose votes. Weird. Action Modifier Card: A card that the acting minion can play to modify the action he is performing. Reaction Card: A card played by a Methuselah's ready, untapped minion in response to an action taken by a minion controlled by another Methuselah. Only a few cards allow the AM or react to but used outside the action, and those specifically state when they are played on the card text. So, it seems that LSJ is allowing AM/React to be used in a referendum, but not on a Blood Hunt referendum, although the rules by strict definition say other wise. More rules that need to be fixed, or cards changes (like Dread Gaze) for they are no longer react/AM cards. I've never bothered to poke holes into the rules much, but this diablery thing got me wondering. So either AM/react should be allowed in both, or disallowed inboth, or I can see some errata comming on. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] The Freak drive says: Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire. As writen, you declare diablery, find your not blocked. Play the FD, then resolve the diablery. Unless LSJ say otherwise. ;) Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Ramsteiner wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > No. That would be like saying the resolution of a Kine Resources Contested > > > is just the offer to call a referendum and that the referendum occurs > > > after the action. This is simply not the case. > > > > Actually, step 5 within the rules (paper copy and on-line) state "...A > > Blood Hunt may be called..." So in reality, Raille is correct. > > No. Not unless you've found some text in the rulebook that indicates > the mysterious "later" you and he wish to be present in 6.5.5.5 After a long week of discussion and cross discussion, I'm begining to wonder if your using the same form of english as the rest of us?

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > [snip points] > > You have a peculiar talent for extracting hidden (non-existent) meanings > > from text. > > > So do you, if you think the rulebook says what you say it says. > [snip tripe] Are you going to respond to the points made, or just ignore them? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Please show me the "later" that your English extracts from the text of the rules. It isn't there in the English that the rest of us use. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > So, it seems that LSJ is allowing AM/React to be used in a referendum, > but not on a Blood Hunt referendum, although the rules by strict > definition say other wise. The rules "by strict definition" are explicit on this point [6.5.6]. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > [LSJ 04-APR-2002]: > > > > > > > > > OK. Try Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > > > > > > >.For that to have any tangible effect when applied to diablerie, > > > > > diablerie must be indivisible. > > > > > > No coherent point there, as this statement is patently false. There are a > > > million and one ways for Ritual of the Bitter Rose to have a tangible effect > > > when applied to diablerie. As it is, it has no real effect on diablerie, > > > because it's a bad card that no one uses. > > > > OK. Here it is for the cheap seats: if the diablerie is not a single unit, then > > the victim is always empty (6.5.5.1) when he burns (6.5.5.3). > > Not unless you actually set the rules to effect the game effects. > > The vampire is full as he is being burned. The Diablery happens, and as That's what I say. Some say that the diablerie is not a single uint. Such a stance leads to the vampire being empty (6.5.5.1) before he is burned later (in 6.5.5.3). > a successful result that blood that was on the vampire goes to the > victor, as does the equipment. None could be moved without successfully > burning the vampire first. At least within game context. So you would move 6.5.5.3 to before 6.5.5.1. (errata to the rules) Note that this would mean that the diablerist gets no blood (since a burned vampire has none) and no equipment (ditto), if you also continue to hold to the "diablerie is not a single unit" idea. [1.1.2] > Diablery should be writen to read like. As you diablerize (burn) a > vampire all blood and equipment is transfered to the acting vampire, as > well as a new discipline if the diablerized vampire was older. That's what the "diablerie is a single unit" rule accomplishes. Except that it explains the single-unit in terms of a sequence to resolve ambiguities like blood filling the new capacity of the Discipline card. > > 6.5.5. indicates that the blood hunt may be called as the fifth and final step > > of the diablerie. It doesn't indicate that the blood hunt occurs later as you > > (and a few others) seem to imagine it does. > > That might be true, but only because the previously consistent rules all > of a sudden take a sharp jag. If you want blood hunt as a inherant part > and included in the diablery, change the rules The rules already state that it is a part. Which is why we're here. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why > an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 > of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie > (step 5) thing is resolved. Because it's a single unit. The effect isn't triggered before (no burning), and is triggered after the burning (which is part of the single unit). > Is for this reason that i find the "atomic" diablerie rule illogical. > And beacuse, too, the diablerie itself is still > "interruppable" by other means (again, archon, absolution of the diabolist, > "vote stuff".etc..), Yes, per allowance for the 6.5.6 rules. > and so the "atomic" concept is quite unaccurate for what the rule > would suggest (an "indivisible" thing). Yes, per 6.5.6. The protons and neutrons of the VTES rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > The Freak drive says: Only usable immediately after this vampire > performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire. > > As writen, you declare diablery, find your not blocked. Play the FD, > then resolve the diablery. Card text says otherwise, as you quoted it. After the action is performed. Not "before it is resolved". Similarly and empty vampire can hunt and play FD. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net... > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_3 > > 6.2.3. Resolve the Action > > If the action is successful (all block attempts were > unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, > and the effects of the successful action take place. > > 6.3.2. The Referendum > > If a political action is successful, the referendum > (sometimes referred to as the vote*) is called. > > 6.5.4. Diablerize a Vampire in Torpor > > To have one vampire diablerize another vampire > in torpor, announce the action and tap the acting > vampire. If the action is successful, the victim is > diablerized (see below). > > > The Key thing being pointed out here is that the action must be > successful before any results can be applied. > > Thus in reference to diablery, the action is over once the vampire is > diablerized. The blood hunt should come immediantly after this and is > supported in that role by the current rules. > > However, there are a couple interesting things that this leads to. > > action over, thus not linked, the Blood hunt cannot make use of AM's and > Reacts. > > Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. However, it was ruled that the action is still *not* over. > Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted > on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction > or AM cards to gain or lose votes. > > Weird. The rules rather specifies that the BH referendum is not an action, and thus it is outside the normal "action modifier" "reaction" playing. > > Action Modifier Card: A card that the acting > minion can play to modify the action he is > performing. > > Reaction Card: A card played by a > Methuselah's ready, untapped minion in response > to an action taken by a minion controlled by > another Methuselah. > > > Only a few cards allow the AM or react to but used outside the action, > and those specifically state when they are played on the card text. > > > So, it seems that LSJ is allowing AM/React to be used in a referendum, > but not on a Blood Hunt referendum, although the rules by strict > definition say other wise. > Ehy, it's not LSJ saying so, just the rules on 6.5.6 ! Emiliano <snip>

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB5634B...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why > > an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 > > of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie > > (step 5) thing is resolved. > > Because it's a single unit. The effect isn't triggered before (no burning), > and is triggered after the burning (which is part of the single unit). > *After* the burning? yes,. But it is Step 4, not step 5. The fact that it is an "undivisible" unit is out of logic, otherwise the 6.5.5 won't need to "separate" it in steps. > > Is for this reason that i find the "atomic" diablerie rule illogical. > > And beacuse, too, the diablerie itself is still > > "interruppable" by other means (again, archon, absolution of the diabolist, > > "vote stuff".etc..), > > Yes, per allowance for the 6.5.6 rules. Per allowance of 6.5.6 rules: .......Since this is not an action, it cannot be blocked, and action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other. So, if you allows the tapping of, say, fargment of book of nod during any normal referendum, reading the rules, you should allow that in the BH referendum too. > > and so the "atomic" concept is quite unaccurate for what the rule > > would suggest (an "indivisible" thing). > > Yes, per 6.5.6. > The protons and neutrons of the VTES rules. > ?? "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other". If i can burn a non-camarilla (by camarilla segragation) vamp while i call a normal referendum, then i can burn he/she in the BH vote too. Emiliano > --

New ruling included below - skip this post at your own risk. tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3CB5634B...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why > > > an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 > > > of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie > > > (step 5) thing is resolved. > > > > Because it's a single unit. The effect isn't triggered before (no burning), > > and is triggered after the burning (which is part of the single unit). > > *After* the burning? yes,. But it is Step 4, not step 5. > The fact that it is an "undivisible" unit is out of logic, > otherwise the 6.5.5 won't need to "separate" it in steps. The "indivisible" is necessary since it has always been assumed by card writers. See Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > Is for this reason that i find the "atomic" diablerie rule illogical. > > > And beacuse, too, the diablerie itself is still > > > "interruppable" by other means (again, archon, absolution of the > diabolist, > > > "vote stuff".etc..), > > > > Yes, per allowance for the 6.5.6 rules. > > Per allowance of 6.5.6 rules: > > .......Since this is not an action, it cannot be blocked, and action > modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Otherwise, this referendum is > handled just like any other. > > So, if you allows the tapping of, say, fargment of book of nod during any > normal referendum, reading the rules, you should allow that in the > BH referendum too. > > > > and so the "atomic" concept is quite unaccurate for what the rule > > > would suggest (an "indivisible" thing). > > > > Yes, per 6.5.6. > > The protons and neutrons of the VTES rules. > > > > ?? > "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other". > If i can burn a non-camarilla (by camarilla segragation) vamp while > i call a normal referendum, then i can burn he/she in the BH vote too. That's a fair point. OK. Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation during it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB57885...@white-wolf.com... > New ruling included below - skip this post at your own risk. > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3CB5634B...@white-wolf.com... > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why > > > > an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 > > > > of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie > > > > (step 5) thing is resolved. > > > > > > Because it's a single unit. The effect isn't triggered before (no burning), > > > and is triggered after the burning (which is part of the single unit). > > > > *After* the burning? yes,. But it is Step 4, not step 5. > > The fact that it is an "undivisible" unit is out of logic, > > otherwise the 6.5.5 won't need to "separate" it in steps. > > The "indivisible" is necessary since it has always been assumed by > card writers. See Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > Why necessary? The card writers just confirm that the diablerie *is* divisible by the RoTBR, since RoTBR actually occours (is played) *before* step* 1 (move blood), thus "dividing" utterly the diableire process. <snip> > > > Yes, per allowance for the 6.5.6 rules. > > > > Per allowance of 6.5.6 rules: > > > > .......Since this is not an action, it cannot be blocked, and action > > modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Otherwise, this referendum is > > handled just like any other. > > > > So, if you allows the tapping of, say, fargment of book of nod during any > > normal referendum, reading the rules, you should allow that in the > > BH referendum too. > > > > > > and so the "atomic" concept is quite unaccurate for what the rule > > > > would suggest (an "indivisible" thing). > > > > > > Yes, per 6.5.6. > > > The protons and neutrons of the VTES rules. > > > > > > > ?? > > "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other". > > If i can burn a non-camarilla (by camarilla segragation) vamp while > > i call a normal referendum, then i can burn he/she in the BH vote too. > > That's a fair point. > OK. > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > during it. > Isn't clear to me, sorry: are you suggesting that the "atomic" rule will changed accordinly to the above? Emiliano > --

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:AB0E50B06A34A2AA.182FB618...@lp.airnews.net... > rulebook plus a ragbag of FAQ-style rulings. It's not alone in that "ragbag"? That's an interesting word. Xian

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net... > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_3 > So, it seems that LSJ is allowing AM/React to be used in a referendum, > but not on a Blood Hunt referendum, although the rules by strict > definition say other wise. Other people have pointed out the obvious already, but if you want a thematic sort of reason why you can't do this, most modifiers/reactions are usable during a referendum which results from a *political action*, while diablerie is a different sort of action. (Unless, of course, your vampire was blocked while calling a vote, torporized, and then Amaranthed the blocker...but that would still be a failed action, of course,) Since a Blood Hunt is never called due to successful referendum resulting from a political action, I think that it kind of makes sense that you can't prepare your Bewitching Oration, or fire up your Dread Gaze, or start Pulling Strings or whatever. Xian

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:D99t8.38175$CU.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > Perhaps you imagine a conspiracy of lunatics led by Andrew Davidson, slowly > converting otherwise reasonable people like Talonz (debatable if he was ever > reasonable), myself, Raille, and tetragrammaton into anti-LSJ fanatics. We > have begun drinking the blood of Christian babies and having secret meetings > gathered around sacrificed virgins wherein we burn effigies of LSJ and play > Jyhad by unnatural rules. Chris! You didn't tell me there was baby-blood drinking involved! Can I join in now that I know that? :P Xian

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > *After* the burning? yes,. But it is Step 4, not step 5. > > > The fact that it is an "undivisible" unit is out of logic, > > > otherwise the 6.5.5 won't need to "separate" it in steps. > > > > The "indivisible" is necessary since it has always been assumed by > > card writers. See Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > Why necessary? > The card writers just confirm that the diablerie *is* divisible by the > RoTBR, > since RoTBR actually occours (is played) *before* step* 1 (move blood), > thus "dividing" utterly the diableire process. No. RotBR is to be played when the vampire is burned, by card text. If the diablerie is not a single unit, then that point in time will be 6.5.5.3, by which time the vampire will be empty (having been emptied back at 6.5.5.1). > > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > > during it. > > > Isn't clear to me, sorry: > are you suggesting that the "atomic" rule will changed accordinly to the > above? I'm stating that the referendum (which is still part of the single-unit diablerie - namely step 5 of that single unit) is handled like any other with the exceptions noted in 6.5.6., per your well-reasoned argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB5893D...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > tetragrammaton wrote: <snip> > > > The "indivisible" is necessary since it has always been assumed by > > > card writers. See Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > > > > Why necessary? > > The card writers just confirm that the diablerie *is* divisible by the > > RoTBR, > > since RoTBR actually occours (is played) *before* step* 1 (move blood), > > thus "dividing" utterly the diableire process. > > No. RotBR is to be played when the vampire is burned, by card text. Step 1 or 4 doesn't matter really here: your statement above is clarly an assupmtion that the RoTBR can interrupt the diablerie process, being it played *during* the diablerie, not before, not after. More, quoting RoTBR from the onlilne card list: .......Each ready vampire you control gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount of blood *on* a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while in combat with this vampire. The (victim) vampire is *being burned*: it is not already *burned*, so card's text seem support my assumption (that the diablerie process is "divided" in sequential steps, and that the burning occours just on step 4), not yours (undivisible single unit, all happen almost at the same time), that is the current official one. If you put the RoTBR *after* the step 1 of diablerie (move blood), then the RoTBR would be useless, since there would be not blood at all on the burned vampire. RoTBR It's clearly played (and effective) *before* step 1, and not upon step 4 (burning). > If the diablerie is not a single unit, then that point in time will > be 6.5.5.3, by which time the vampire will be empty (having been > emptied back at 6.5.5.1). Indeed, and is for this reason that the RoTBR is the proof that the diablerie is *not* an undivisible thing, since it is played after the succesful act of the diablerie, but *before* the 6.5.5. steps, much as reform body is handled. > > > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > > > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > > > during it. > > > > > Isn't clear to me, sorry: > > are you suggesting that the "atomic" rule will changed accordinly to the > > above? > > I'm stating that the referendum (which is still part of the single-unit > diablerie - namely step 5 of that single unit) is handled like any other > with the exceptions noted in 6.5.6., per your well-reasoned argument. Then you're contraddicting the rule you gave on this thread: you stated that non-"vote stuff" cannot be used during a diablerie-BH referendum. Burning a non cam vamp to the camarilla segregation, tapping the barrens etc were all deeemed as "non vote stuff". Please clarify. Thnxs Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > No. RotBR is to be played when the vampire is burned, by card text. > > Step 1 or 4 doesn't matter really here: your statement above is clarly an > assupmtion that the RoTBR > can interrupt the diablerie process, being it played *during* the diablerie, > not before, not after. No. The vampire is burned during the diablerie (unit). RotBR is played after. > More, quoting RoTBR from the onlilne card list: > > .......Each ready vampire you control gains an amount of blood from the > blood bank equal to the amount of blood *on* a vampire being burned either > by diablerie or while in combat with this vampire. > > The (victim) vampire is *being burned*: it is not already *burned*, so > card's text > seem support my assumption (that the diablerie process is "divided" in > sequential steps, > and that the burning occours just on step 4), not yours (undivisible single > unit, all happen almost at the same time), that is the current official one. See other present-tense usage that means the same thing: XTC-laced Blood, etc. > If you put the RoTBR *after* the step 1 of diablerie (move blood), then the > RoTBR would > be useless, since there would be not blood at all on the burned vampire. > RoTBR It's clearly played (and effective) *before* step 1, and not upon step > 4 (burning). No. Can't play it before the burning. > > If the diablerie is not a single unit, then that point in time will > > be 6.5.5.3, by which time the vampire will be empty (having been > > emptied back at 6.5.5.1). > > Indeed, and is for this reason that the RoTBR is the proof that the > diablerie is *not* an undivisible thing, since it is played after the > succesful act of > the diablerie, > but *before* the 6.5.5. steps, much as reform body is handled. No. RB is played before the Diablerie unit. RotBR is played after. If it weren't, then the RF'ing vampire would lose his blood and equipment. > > > > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > > > > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > > > > during it. > > > > > > > Isn't clear to me, sorry: > > > are you suggesting that the "atomic" rule will changed accordinly to the > > > above? > > > > I'm stating that the referendum (which is still part of the single-unit > > diablerie - namely step 5 of that single unit) is handled like any other > > with the exceptions noted in 6.5.6., per your well-reasoned argument. > > Then you're contraddicting the rule you gave on this thread: Yes. That's what "Reversal" means, and why the reversal-introducing post was marked with a "new ruling" disclaimer at the top. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net>... > Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. > Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted > on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction > or AM cards to gain or lose votes. > This is something that has bothered me too. I think the ambiguity is between the action being "successful" and being "over". Its a "success" when its not blocked. Its "over" when the effect has been fully resolved. I'm bled. The action succeeded. But its not over until I move my pool into the blood back. Similarly, I call a KRC. Its not blocked. The action succeeds. The "effect" of that successful action is we now have a referendum. But the action isn't over until the referendum is done and its results are resolved. For example, I can't tap Heidelberg during the referendum to get more blood to play Awe. I can play Awe in the first place because we're still in the action. So I can modify it. And I can tap Demonstration because we're inside a "Political Action". Someone let me know if I'm horribly wrong about this explanation. -Ben Swainbank

[ quoted text not captured ] Right. The resolution of the action is: apply the results of the successful action or enter combat with the blocking minion. [6.2.3] The resolution is a part of the action (the last part, typically). [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net>... *snip* > Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. > Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted > on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction > or AM cards to gain or lose votes. > > Weird. > > Action Modifier Card: A card that the acting > minion can play to modify the action he is > performing. > > Reaction Card: A card played by a > Methuselah's ready, untapped minion in response > to an action taken by a minion controlled by > another Methuselah. > > > Only a few cards allow the AM or react to but used outside the action, > and those specifically state when they are played on the card text. > *snip* The action isn´t over untill you´ve resolved it, like bums rush isn´t over untill the combat has finished, likewise a political acion isn´t over until you´ve finished the referendum. And all those action modifiers and reactions that we play in referendums specifically state that they are only usable during referendums Daz.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB59DC3...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > No. RotBR is to be played when the vampire is burned, by card text. > > > > Step 1 or 4 doesn't matter really here: your statement above is clarly an > > assupmtion that the RoTBR > > can interrupt the diablerie process, being it played *during* the diablerie, > > not before, not after. > > No. The vampire is burned during the diablerie (unit). RotBR is played after. Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. > > > More, quoting RoTBR from the onlilne card list: > > > > .......Each ready vampire you control gains an amount of blood from the > > blood bank equal to the amount of blood *on* a vampire being burned either > > by diablerie or while in combat with this vampire. > > > > The (victim) vampire is *being burned*: it is not already *burned*, so > > card's text > > seem support my assumption (that the diablerie process is "divided" in > > sequential steps, > > and that the burning occours just on step 4), not yours (undivisible single > > unit, all happen almost at the same time), that is the current official one. > > See other present-tense usage that means the same thing: XTC-laced Blood, etc. Cannot tell that too well, since i'm a non-english after all. > > If you put the RoTBR *after* the step 1 of diablerie (move blood), then the > > RoTBR would > > be useless, since there would be not blood at all on the burned vampire. > > RoTBR It's clearly played (and effective) *before* step 1, and not upon step > > 4 (burning). > > No. Can't play it before the burning. > By logic it should be the same for Reform Body, since it triggers when the vampire is "being burned", ain't ? Same wording as RotBR, different resolution...why ? > > > If the diablerie is not a single unit, then that point in time will > > > be 6.5.5.3, by which time the vampire will be empty (having been > > > emptied back at 6.5.5.1). > > > > Indeed, and is for this reason that the RoTBR is the proof that the > > diablerie is *not* an undivisible thing, since it is played after the > > succesful act of > > the diablerie, > > but *before* the 6.5.5. steps, much as reform body is handled. > > No. RB is played before the Diablerie unit. RotBR is played after. Are you telling that RoTBR is played *after* the BH vote ? > If it weren't, then the RF'ing vampire would lose his blood and > equipment. I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to be dead, then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain equipments and be at full health in such state.... > > > > > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > > > > > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > > > > > during it. > > > > > > > > > Isn't clear to me, sorry: > > > > are you suggesting that the "atomic" rule will changed accordinly to the > > > > above? > > > > > > I'm stating that the referendum (which is still part of the single-unit > > > diablerie - namely step 5 of that single unit) is handled like any other > > > with the exceptions noted in 6.5.6., per your well-reasoned argument. > > > > Then you're contraddicting the rule you gave on this thread: > > Yes. That's what "Reversal" means, and why the reversal-introducing > post was marked with a "new ruling" disclaimer at the top. > sorry to not understand in the first place, that was the first time for me with a "reversed" rule. Emiliano > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as a unit, this is not true. > By logic it should be the same for Reform Body, since it triggers > when the vampire is "being burned", ain't ? > Same wording as RotBR, different resolution...why ? Burned vampires cannot play cards. RotBR requires burning. > > > > If the diablerie is not a single unit, then that point in time will > > > > be 6.5.5.3, by which time the vampire will be empty (having been > > > > emptied back at 6.5.5.1). > > > > > > Indeed, and is for this reason that the RoTBR is the proof that the > > > diablerie is *not* an undivisible thing, since it is played after the > > > succesful act of > > > the diablerie, > > > but *before* the 6.5.5. steps, much as reform body is handled. > > > > No. RB is played before the Diablerie unit. RotBR is played after. > > Are you telling that RoTBR is played *after* the BH vote ? Yes. > > If it weren't, then the RF'ing vampire would lose his blood and > > equipment. > > I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to be dead, > then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain equipments > and be at full > health in such state.... The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net... > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_3 [snip] > Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. > Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted > on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction > or AM cards to gain or lose votes. > > Weird. You're interpreting it a little wrong - an action is not "through and done with" when its effects are applied. Action modifiers like Freak Drive (and Domain of Evernight and Scrying of Secrets) are played after the action resolves. Likewise, the referendum result of a political action is still part of the action, which is why action modifiers and reactions can be played. > Only a few cards allow the AM or react to but used outside the action, > and those specifically state when they are played on the card text. ...Isn't Rewind Time the only action modifier/reaction that can be played entirely outside of an action? Not that it's important, here. :-) (There are others that can be played other than by the acting/blocking minion, but those are still within an action.) Josh following up

Joshua Duffin wrote: > ...Isn't Rewind Time the only action modifier/reaction that > can be played entirely outside of an action? Not that it's > important, here. :-) (There are others that can be played > other than by the acting/blocking minion, but those are still > within an action.) Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:D99t8.38175$CU.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB4E919...@white-wolf.com... > > You have a peculiar talent for extracting hidden (non-existent) meanings > > from text. > > > So do you, if you think the rulebook says what you say it says. The rulebook *doesn't* say that diablerie is indivisible. LSJ said that. It was a new ruling. What has he claimed that the rulebook said that it actually doesn't? He's absolutely right that the placement of [6.5.6] (the blood hunt section) after [6.5.5] (diablerie) in the rulebook doesn't mean anything as far as timing, too. Does the fact that [6.4.5] "Strike Effects" follows [6.4.4] "Press" mean that strikes don't take effect until after the press step? Josh

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<AB0E50B06A34A2AA.182FB618...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 10 Apr 2002 18:27:54 -0700, lehrbuch wrote: > >I think, your confusion arises from assuming that the section headings > >in the rule book carry some meaning. They do not. > > ... > > You've got it backwards. LSJ's case rests upon the manner in which > the rulebook is indexed - he draws great significance from the fact > that the sentence "A blood hunt may be called." has the number "5" in > front of it. He has a point but, if you go that way, then the heading > "6.5.6 Blood Hunt" is more significant to my mind - it's bigger and > bolder and has the same status as "6.5.5 Diablerie". Just prior to the list in section 6.5.5 it states: "Diablerie is resolved as follows:" This *is* an explicit instruction that what follows are the steps involved in a diablerie. Some people seem to be imagining a statement somewhere in 6.5.6 that states something like: "Here are the rules for a blood hunt, they refer to a separate thing than the diablerie." I cannot see this statement. They are only assuming that 6.5.5 and 6.5.6 refer to something different. LSJ is, I think, telling them that this assumption is wrong. It must be wrong, because the assumption contradicts what is stated in 6.5.5. * lehrbuch

Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3CB5548C...@spamcop.net>... > lehrbuch wrote: > > The section headings are only present for making indexing and > > reference easier. There is no rule that states: each rulebook section > > refers to a separate action/thing.... > > So your saying section 6 can be played prior to Section 5? There is an explicit statement in Section 3, that states Section 5 is played before Section 6. > Or you can resolve section 6.2.2 before section 6.2.1? Section 6.2 states the order in which 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 are resolved. Are you saying all your bleed actions (6.1.1) must come before all your equip actions (6.1.3)? > Man your on Crack. > > Section 6.5.5 comes before 6.5.6 and rightly so. Yes. But there is no statement that says they are a separate thing. There is a statement (within 6.5.5) that states they are part of the same thing. * lehrbuch

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB5BA56...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as a unit, > this is not true. How you can state that ? If the diablerie is handled as an unit, then no effect at all can be used *during* it (including votes and other "legal" effects) . And since the reversal rule you made just few posts ago, even "non-vote-stuff" can be used during the BH step of the diablerie, then i can't see how to consider the diablerie as "undivisible" and as a "unit". It is still quite interrupable with lot of effects. > > > By logic it should be the same for Reform Body, since it triggers > > when the vampire is "being burned", ain't ? > > Same wording as RotBR, different resolution...why ? > > Burned vampires cannot play cards. > RotBR requires burning. > A vampire "being burned" can still play cards, a burned one (of course) not. Both Reform Body, the fortitude version of Ashes To Ashes, and Ritual of The bitter rose requires a "being burned" vampire, not a "burned" one. Indeed, those three cards are worded in the logical way (being burned), it's the single unit rule that sounds still illogical, given the picture. > > > > > If the diablerie is not a single unit, then that point in time will > > > > > be 6.5.5.3, by which time the vampire will be empty (having been > > > > > emptied back at 6.5.5.1). > > > > > > > > Indeed, and is for this reason that the RoTBR is the proof that the > > > > diablerie is *not* an undivisible thing, since it is played after the > > > > succesful act of > > > > the diablerie, > > > > but *before* the 6.5.5. steps, much as reform body is handled. > > > > > > No. RB is played before the Diablerie unit. RotBR is played after. > > > > Are you telling that RoTBR is played *after* the BH vote ? > > Yes. > > > > If it weren't, then the RF'ing vampire would lose his blood and > > > equipment. > > > > I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to be dead, > > then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain equipments > > and be at full > > health in such state.... > > The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, > the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. > "Supposed" ? Yes, but only under this "undivisible unit" diablerie. Given the diablerie in steps (as it is written on 6.5.5) makes just the reformed vampire in torpor with no blood (inferior) and, possibly, with no equipments left. That would be just fine. Emiliano > --

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB56147...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > > > > No. Not unless you've found some text in the rulebook that indicates > > > the mysterious "later" you and he wish to be present in 6.5.5.5 > > > > After a long week of discussion and cross discussion, I'm begining to > > wonder if your using the same form of english as the rest of us? > > Please show me the "later" that your English extracts from the text of the rules. > It isn't there in the English that the rest of us use. > In your English, is not 6 an entirely different number from 5? Does not 6 come *after* 5? It does in the English we use in the ACNLSJ.

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:a940ch$490p$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] I dunno... you must first swear to plug your ears and shout at the top of your lungs whenever LSJ makes a "point". And read the manifesto. But other than that... welcome to the Ancient Cult of No-LSJ's. Please check your FN rulebook at the door. 8)

nospam_a...@hotmail.com writes: >How you can state that ? >If the diablerie is handled as an unit, >then no effect at all can be used *during* it If the effect is a normal part of a subunit it doesn't "interrupt" the subunit - it's part of it. A wide variety of effects are normal parts of a referendum, even those without obviously direct influence on the vote outcome. Technically even an effect like Hussametin might not "interrupt" the diablerie. If the effect is to modify the diablerie, then the diablerie has not be interrupted, only modified. I don't see any good clue from card text to distinguish between modifiers and independent events, but that's never been seen as a critical distinction. I really don't see how diablerie will make much sense if the first four effects can be separated. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB57885...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > ?? > > "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other". > > If i can burn a non-camarilla (by camarilla segragation) vamp while > > i call a normal referendum, then i can burn he/she in the BH vote too. > > That's a fair point. > OK. > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > during it. > Just for fun, I looked up in google the word "referendum" with the phrase "just like any other", in messages with "diablerie" in the subject. There were 15 matches. All (except for one, I think) were part of this discussion, and all were in the past few days. There was even one where I said that the referendum was supposed to be treated "just like any other referendum", which you responded to by quoting the rulebook entry where that is said. Your response: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=just+like+any+other+referendum+insubject:diab lerie&hl=en&scoring=d&selm=3CA843D0.27B11E83%40white-wolf.com&rnum=4 I have no real point here. I just thought it was funny how many times it needed to be said before you paid attention.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CB5A15B...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] The above statement would also apply to Diablerie and Blood Hunt. You can not have a Blood Hunt (non-action) without the Diablerie, thus a Blood Hunt is part of the Diablerie action's resolution. Therefore, you can not enact another action or effect that can only be conducted between actions until the Blood Hunt is over. Based on that, why do we need a distinction of "Atomic"? It almost sounds as if we are starting an arms escalation within Jyhad. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:20020411211454...@mb-dh.aol.com... > nospam_a...@hotmail.com writes: > > >How you can state that ? > >If the diablerie is handled as an unit, > >then no effect at all can be used *during* it > > If the effect is a normal part of a subunit it > doesn't "interrupt" the subunit - it's part of it. > A wide variety of effects are normal parts of > a referendum, even those without obviously > direct influence on the vote outcome. > > Technically even an effect like Hussametin might > not "interrupt" the diablerie. Then the search of the master card at step 4 of the diablerie could not "interrupt" it, since that effect is identical to husamettin's ability. > If the effect is to modify > the diablerie, the step 4discipline search&place effect can "modifiy" the diablerie, since it makes a vampire "older", that is, a potentially significant change for the upcoming referendum, not given the actual cards, but maybe future ones (would-be vamp x's ability: during a referendum vamp X burns one blood to cancel the votes of a younger vampire). > then the diablerie has not be interrupted, > only modified. I can't see how that nitpicking can be take into account. to be "modified", the diablerie needs to be "modifiable", then needs to be "interruptable" , otherwise you could not "modify" it. > I don't see any good clue from card text > to distinguish between modifiers and independent events, I don't understand what do you mean with "independent event", maybe you're considering a vampire that diablerizes Nakova in combat with an amaranth: if the 4 damage effect is handled by the "atomic" (hate this term) diablerie, then it can affect a lot the upcoming BH referendum, in the case that the diablerist vampire has votes and get into to torpor by the 4 damage: with the steps diablerie (as 6.5.5 is written), the 4 damage occours at step 3 (the burning), and so the diablerist can go to torpor and cannot cast votes during the referendum, with the diablerie as an "unit" (?), the diablerist suffers the 4 damage *after* the whole diablerie, that suffer 4 damage after the action is complete, that gives utter timing problems with freak drive, cat's guidance and the like (a vampire in torpor cannot play those a.m. /reaction cards). > but that's never been seen as a critical distinction. > Sure, we're just talking about corner cases, but don't taking them into account would be rather a critical nonsense. > I really don't see how diablerie will make much sense > if the first four effects can be separated. I just made an valid example for you, i believe. Ciao Emiliano

Chris Berger wrote: > In your English, is not 6 an entirely different number from 5? Does not 6 come > *after* 5? It does in the English we use in the ACNLSJ. And how many times will this point need to be made before you get it? The section numbering of the rules doesn't impart sequencing. See <several other sections of the rules as previously noted>. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CB5A15B...@white-wolf.com>... > > The resolution of the action is: apply the results of the successful action > > or enter combat with the blocking minion. [6.2.3] > > > > The resolution is a part of the action (the last part, typically). > > The above statement would also apply to Diablerie and Blood Hunt. You > can not have a Blood Hunt (non-action) without the Diablerie, thus a > Blood Hunt is part of the Diablerie action's resolution. Therefore, > you can not enact another action or effect that can only be conducted > between actions until the Blood Hunt is over. > Based on that, why do we need a distinction of "Atomic"? It almost > sounds as if we are starting an arms escalation within Jyhad. Well, we don't need "atomic" - we need a word that means "indivisible". To handle the effects of RotBR, et al. properly. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3CB5BA56...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. > > > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as a unit, > > this is not true. > > How you can state that ? > If the diablerie is handled as an unit, > then no effect at all can be used *during* it > (including votes and other "legal" effects) . No. Part of the indivisible diablerie is a referendum. That referendum is handled like any other, except as noted in the rules. > And since the reversal rule you made just few posts ago, > even "non-vote-stuff" can be used during the BH step of the diablerie, > then i can't see how to consider the diablerie as "undivisible" and as a > "unit". > It is still quite interrupable with lot of effects. ... that are played during the referendum, as allowed by the rules. > > > By logic it should be the same for Reform Body, since it triggers > > > when the vampire is "being burned", ain't ? > > > Same wording as RotBR, different resolution...why ? > > > > Burned vampires cannot play cards. > > RotBR requires burning. > > > > A vampire "being burned" can still play cards, a burned one (of course) not. > Both Reform Body, the fortitude version of Ashes To Ashes, and Ritual of > The bitter > rose requires a "being burned" vampire, not a "burned" one. Right. So those would be played before diablerie. > Indeed, those three cards are worded in the logical way (being burned), > it's the single unit rule that sounds still illogical, given the picture. Possibly illogical, depending on your POV. But necessary. > > > I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to be > dead, > > > then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain > equipments > > > and be at full > > > health in such state.... > > > > The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, > > the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. > > > > "Supposed" ? > Yes, but only under this "undivisible unit" diablerie. In all cases, actually. "supposed" refers to how the effect is designed to behave. It works as it is "supposed" to under the "indivisible" ruling. It doesn't under the "divisible" rule. > Given the diablerie in steps (as it is written on 6.5.5) > makes just the reformed vampire in torpor with no blood > (inferior) and, possibly, with no equipments left. > That would be just fine. It might be, but it isn't how RF is "supposed" to work. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> ha scritto nel messaggio > > Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. > > However, it was ruled that the action is still *not* over. On what page of the rule book is that on? > > Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted > > on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction > > or AM cards to gain or lose votes. > > > > Weird. > > The rules rather specifies that the BH referendum is not > an action, and thus it is outside the normal "action modifier" > "reaction" playing. > > > > > Action Modifier Card: A card that the acting > > minion can play to modify the action he is > > performing. > > > > Reaction Card: A card played by a > > Methuselah's ready, untapped minion in response > > to an action taken by a minion controlled by > > another Methuselah. > > > > > > Only a few cards allow the AM or react to but used outside the action, > > and those specifically state when they are played on the card text. > > > > > > So, it seems that LSJ is allowing AM/React to be used in a referendum, > > but not on a Blood Hunt referendum, although the rules by strict > > definition say other wise. > > > > Ehy, it's not LSJ saying so, just the rules on 6.5.6 ! I understand. Just pointing out how the rule book actually formats Political actions in the same manner as the BH. Raille

Xian wrote: > > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net... > > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_3 > > So, it seems that LSJ is allowing AM/React to be used in a referendum, > > but not on a Blood Hunt referendum, although the rules by strict > > definition say other wise. > > Other people have pointed out the obvious already, but if you want a thematic > sort of reason why you can't do this, most modifiers/reactions are usable during > a referendum which results from a *political action*, while diablerie is a > different sort of action. (Unless, of course, your vampire was blocked while > calling a vote, torporized, and then Amaranthed the blocker...but that would > still be a failed action, of course,) > > Since a Blood Hunt is never called due to successful referendum resulting from a > political action, I think that it kind of makes sense that you can't prepare > your Bewitching Oration, or fire up your Dread Gaze, or start Pulling Strings or > whatever. Agreed. I'm also looking for some writen description of why they can be played during a referendum? Strict reading of both PA and BH rules as currently writen, indicate that both actions are over. And thus there is no manner in which AM/Reacts could be played. I could find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action is still going on with the referendum. The action has to be successful, hence over, before you arrive at the vote. If I missed something, kindly point me to the correct rule section. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > For example, I can't tap Heidelberg during the referendum to get more > > blood to play Awe. I can play Awe in the first place because we're > > still in the action. So I can modify it. And I can tap Demonstration > > because we're inside a "Political Action". > > > > Someone let me know if I'm horribly wrong about this explanation. > > Right. > > The resolution of the action is: apply the results of the successful action > or enter combat with the blocking minion. [6.2.3] > > The resolution is a part of the action (the last part, typically). > What I see is. If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action take place. results of a successful political action are: If a political action is successful, the referendum (sometimes referred to as the vote*) is called. This disasociated the referendum from the action. While I do not advocate and changes to the game mechanics, this needs to be corrected in the rule book. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] Well thats helpful that the cards have specific text to allow them to be used in a referendum, and the referendum makes a whole special paragraph stating you can use AM/Reacts, its like using a couple bandaids to make things work properly. As writen, the politcial Mods should have no AM/React symbols as currently designed, and the special paragraph breaking the rules on AM/Reacts that is within the referendum should not be there. It became needed once the referendum was broke from the action. I have no use for poorly writen rules, no matter how well defended or explained. Poorly writen rules make learning the game harder that it needs to be, and that helps contribute to the slow growth of the game. And that sucks. I want more players, not less. Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3CB55AB4...@spamcop.net... > > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_3 > > [snip] > > > Look closely at the plotical action. Action over, call the referendum. > > Which seems to me to indicate that once the referendum is being voted > > on there is no longer an action to support and you cannot use reaction > > or AM cards to gain or lose votes. > > > > Weird. > > You're interpreting it a little wrong - an action is not > "through and done with" when its effects are applied. > Action modifiers like Freak Drive (and Domain of Evernight > and Scrying of Secrets) are played after the action resolves. > Likewise, the referendum result of a political action is > still part of the action, which is why action modifiers > and reactions can be played. > Domain of evernight triggers with the effect of being succesful. Not after the action is succesful Freak drive triggers when the action is not blocked. Which is prior to the action being successful. And scrying is also played as the action succeeds. I have not bothered to see if there are more. So to sum up. Your wrong to assume these cards are played after the action is resolved. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > [snip points] > > > You have a peculiar talent for extracting hidden (non-existent) meanings > > > from text. Sometimes, but I try not too! > > So do you, if you think the rulebook says what you say it says. > > [snip tripe] I think the rule book mean exactly what it says. > Are you going to respond to the points made, or just ignore them? Can I do Both? Raille

Xian wrote: > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:D99t8.38175$CU.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > Perhaps you imagine a conspiracy of lunatics led by Andrew Davidson, slowly > > converting otherwise reasonable people like Talonz (debatable if he was ever > > reasonable), myself, Raille, and tetragrammaton into anti-LSJ fanatics. We > > have begun drinking the blood of Christian babies and having secret meetings > > gathered around sacrificed virgins wherein we burn effigies of LSJ and play > > Jyhad by unnatural rules. > > Chris! You didn't tell me there was baby-blood drinking involved! Can I join > in now that I know that? > > :P > Don't bother. Its horribly over rated, and you end up changing diapers waiting for the full moon to arrive Raille

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB6B4BD...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3CB5BA56...@white-wolf.com... > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. > > > > > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as a unit, > > > this is not true. > > > > How you can state that ? > > If the diablerie is handled as an unit, > > then no effect at all can be used *during* it > > (including votes and other "legal" effects) . > > No. Part of the indivisible diablerie is a referendum. That > referendum is handled like any other, except as noted in the rules. I find your point still weak, given some cases this sub-specialized "single unit"allowed effects segregation clashes: is vampire allowed to play reform body during a "political acted" referendum (say, in response of a succesful voted Sacrifice) ? I think yes, so it should be allowed also in the BH referendum.... A vicissutude-possessing Julius, or Franciscus, is allowed to play RB when their "ability" triggers (say, julius suffers 2 damage and goes to torpor or franciscus takes 4 damage) ? Think yes, so there's clarly a timing state in which the vampire is "being burned", but has a time segment to play/use RB-like effects. I can't see how deny this, and why to make a bad exception just for the diablerie. > > And since the reversal rule you made just few posts ago, > > even "non-vote-stuff" can be used during the BH step of the diablerie, > > then i can't see how to consider the diablerie as "undivisible" and as a > > "unit". > > It is still quite interrupable with lot of effects. > > ... that are played during the referendum, as allowed by the rules. Again, the logic is weak: if the diablerie is a single unit, then there's no room to play RB. More, please clarify me a thing: am i allowed to "counter" with direct intervention an amaranth? or DI a RB in response of an amaranth ? another meth could play a sudden reversal against that direct intervention? if yes, then your statement above is untrue (there are effects that can be played during the diablerie process, not just during the referendum). > > > > By logic it should be the same for Reform Body, since it triggers > > > > when the vampire is "being burned", ain't ? > > > > Same wording as RotBR, different resolution...why ? > > > > > > Burned vampires cannot play cards. > > > RotBR requires burning. > > > > > > > A vampire "being burned" can still play cards, a burned one (of course) not. > > Both Reform Body, the fortitude version of Ashes To Ashes, and Ritual of > > The bitter > > rose requires a "being burned" vampire, not a "burned" one. > > Right. So those would be played before diablerie. Indeed, is what i'm adressing to. > > Indeed, those three cards are worded in the logical way (being burned), > > it's the single unit rule that sounds still illogical, given the picture. > > Possibly illogical, depending on your POV. But necessary. > Don't know what is POV, and the fact that was necessary is untrue. The RB/AtA interaction with RotBR would work fine the same that with this "single unit" hard-to-explain diablerie. > > > > I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to be > > dead, > > > > then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain > > equipments > > > > and be at full > > > > health in such state.... > > > > > > The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, > > > the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. > > > > > > > "Supposed" ? > > Yes, but only under this "undivisible unit" diablerie. > > In all cases, actually. "supposed" refers to how the effect is > designed to behave. It works as it is "supposed" to under the > "indivisible" ruling. It doesn't under the "divisible" rule. > > > Given the diablerie in steps (as it is written on 6.5.5) > > makes just the reformed vampire in torpor with no blood > > (inferior) and, possibly, with no equipments left. > > That would be just fine. > > It might be, but it isn't how RF is "supposed" to work. Before the "atomized" (logic) diablerie, that has always been the right way to handle it, i think. Emiliano > --

[ quoted text not captured ] By definition yes. However if the rules were correctly writen, it would be numbers 6.4.3.1-X to outline the various strike effects. I recall in the OLD method of play, the strikes were all made then after all additional strike set, the effects totaled and applied, but we never actually attempted to press before strike resolution. Raille working for a better rule

Raille wrote: > Agreed. I'm also looking for some writen description of why they can be > played during a referendum? > > Strict reading of both PA and BH rules as currently writen, indicate > that both actions are over. And thus there is no manner in which > AM/Reacts could be played. No. Please supply a written description from the rules that indicates that the action is over before the resolution of the action is handled. > I could find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political > action is still going on with the referendum. The action has to be > successful, hence over, before you arrive at the vote. I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action is over before the referendum. A successful action is one that is not blocked [6.2.3]; it need not be "over" to be successful. Once successful (i.e., all block attempts are abandoned), then the action is resolved (i.e., the effects of the action are applied). [6.2.3] In the case of a political action, resolving the action involves conducting a referendum. [6.3] In particular, action modifiers can be played (subject to the normal rules on playing cards) [6.3.3], indicating that there is still an action around to be modified. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > The vampire is full as he is being burned. The Diablery happens, and as > > That's what I say. > Some say that the diablerie is not a single uint. Such a stance leads to > the vampire being empty (6.5.5.1) before he is burned later (in 6.5.5.3). > > > a successful result that blood that was on the vampire goes to the > > victor, as does the equipment. None could be moved without successfully > > burning the vampire first. At least within game context. > > So you would move 6.5.5.3 to before 6.5.5.1. (errata to the rules) > Note that this would mean that the diablerist gets no blood (since a burned > vampire has none) and no equipment (ditto), if you also continue to > hold to the "diablerie is not a single unit" idea. [1.1.2] Poorly writen on my part. I should not have used first in the sentance. Like you said these effect happen, on the table top however, you burn the vampire, move the blood and move the equipment. And thats cause i can't do that many things simultaneously. > > Diablery should be writen to read like. As you diablerize (burn) a > > vampire all blood and equipment is transfered to the acting vampire, as > > well as a new discipline if the diablerized vampire was older. > > That's what the "diablerie is a single unit" rule accomplishes. > Except that it explains the single-unit in terms of a sequence to resolve > ambiguities like blood filling the new capacity of the Discipline card. Well I have not seen any changes to the only rules. Have you actually Made a change to the rule? and if so, whats stopping the publishing of this in the net rules? > > > 6.5.5. indicates that the blood hunt may be called as the fifth and final step > > > of the diablerie. It doesn't indicate that the blood hunt occurs later as you > > > (and a few others) seem to imagine it does. > > > > That might be true, but only because the previously consistent rules all > > of a sudden take a sharp jag. If you want blood hunt as a inherant part > > and included in the diablery, change the rules > > The rules already state that it is a part. Which is why we're here. YEa. I think step 5 should be changed. Someone suggested making the BH automaticaly called. So step five could read. A blood hunt *is* called. They 6.5.6 could be renumbered to 6.5.5.1 to draw it into the Diablery action and results, which what is it and where the effects are happening. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > The resolution of the action is: apply the results of the successful action > > or enter combat with the blocking minion. [6.2.3] > > > > The resolution is a part of the action (the last part, typically). > > > > What I see is. > > If the action is successful > (all block attempts were > unsuccessful), then the > cost of the action is paid, > and the effects of the > successful action take > place. Correct. > results of a successful political action are: > > If a political action is successful, the referendum > (sometimes referred to as the vote*) is called. Correct. > This disasociated the referendum from the action. While I do not > advocate and changes to the game mechanics, this needs to be corrected > in the rule book. The rulebook is correct. It states that the resolution of a political action (unblocked) is: a referendum is called (not "a referendum will then be called later" or "a referendum is called. This referendum is somehow disassociated from the current action."). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why > > an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 > > of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie > > (step 5) thing is resolved. > > Because it's a single unit. The effect isn't triggered before (no burning), > and is triggered after the burning (which is part of the single unit). > Can't we simply allow the effects to work during the diablery? Its not as if these special effects get turned off. They can simply be a part of the diablery action as potential diablery modifiers. All those effects can easily be listed as subatomic modifiers. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > > The very fathomable reasons have already been explained several times. > > But not very well, as several people still have some difficulty with it. > The fact that people here still argue against this means > that the reasons are not so fathomable, maybe... Agreed. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3CB5893D...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > <snip> > > > > The "indivisible" is necessary since it has always been assumed by > > > > card writers. See Ritual of the Bitter Rose. > > > > > > > > > > Why necessary? > > > The card writers just confirm that the diablerie *is* divisible by the > > > RoTBR, > > > since RoTBR actually occours (is played) *before* step* 1 (move blood), > > > thus "dividing" utterly the diableire process. > > > > No. RotBR is to be played when the vampire is burned, by card text. > > Step 1 or 4 doesn't matter really here: your statement above is clarly an > assupmtion that the RoTBR > can interrupt the diablerie process, being it played *during* the diablerie, > not before, not after. > More, quoting RoTBR from the onlilne card list: > > .......Each ready vampire you control gains an amount of blood from the > blood bank equal to the amount of blood *on* a vampire being burned either > by diablerie or while in combat with this vampire. > > The (victim) vampire is *being burned*: it is not already *burned*, so > card's text > seem support my assumption (that the diablerie process is "divided" in > sequential steps, > and that the burning occours just on step 4), not yours (undivisible single > unit, all happen almost at the same time), that is the current official one. > > If you put the RoTBR *after* the step 1 of diablerie (move blood), then the > RoTBR would > be useless, since there would be not blood at all on the burned vampire. > RoTBR It's clearly played (and effective) *before* step 1, and not upon step > 4 (burning). The ritual is an action modifier. This card can be played as an action modifier card or a combat card. Each ready vampire you control gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while in combat with this vampire. So your playing this card after the target Meth declines to block, but before the succesful diablery. Only corner case is the reform Body, but by strict card text, acting minion plays Ritual, the reacting minion reforms, the ritual by card text nets the acting Meth's minions zero blood. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > No. Part of the indivisible diablerie is a referendum. That > > referendum is handled like any other, except as noted in the rules. > > I find your point still weak, given some cases this sub-specialized "single > unit"allowed effects segregation clashes: > is vampire allowed to play reform body during a "political acted" > referendum (say, in response of a succesful voted Sacrifice) ? > I think yes, so it should be allowed also in the BH referendum.... Not during the polling (since he isn't being burned then), but after (when the effects of the successful referendum are applied and he finds himself being burned), yes. > A vicissutude-possessing Julius, or Franciscus, is allowed to > play RB when their "ability" triggers (say, julius suffers 2 damage and goes > to torpor or franciscus takes 4 damage) ? > Think yes, so there's clarly a timing state in which the vampire is "being > burned", but has a time segment to play/use RB-like effects. > I can't see how deny this, and why to make a bad exception just > for the diablerie. I do not deny it. I don't make an exception for diablerie. If the vampire is about to be burned by diablerie, he can play RB instead. > > > And since the reversal rule you made just few posts ago, > > > even "non-vote-stuff" can be used during the BH step of the diablerie, > > > then i can't see how to consider the diablerie as "undivisible" and as a > > > "unit". > > > It is still quite interrupable with lot of effects. > > > > ... that are played during the referendum, as allowed by the rules. > > Again, the logic is weak: if the diablerie is a single unit, then > there's no room to play RB. That's what I've been saying - RB must be played before the diablerie since it cannot interrupt it. > More, please clarify me a thing: > am i allowed to "counter" with direct intervention an amaranth? Yes (card text). > or DI a RB in response of an amaranth ? Yes (card tex). > another meth could play a sudden reversal against that direct intervention? Yes (card text). > if yes, then your statement above is untrue No. > (there are effects that can be played during the diablerie process, > not just during the referendum). Which? The examples you give are not played during the diablerie process (except maybe in response to cards played in the referendum). > > > The bitter > > > rose requires a "being burned" vampire, not a "burned" one. > > > > Right. So those would be played before diablerie. > > Indeed, is what i'm adressing to. That's what I've been saying. > > > Indeed, those three cards are worded in the logical way (being burned), > > > it's the single unit rule that sounds still illogical, given the > picture. > > > > Possibly illogical, depending on your POV. But necessary. > > Don't know what is POV, and the fact that was necessary is untrue. > The RB/AtA interaction with RotBR would work fine the same > that with this "single unit" hard-to-explain diablerie. Sorry for being too abbreviated. POV: point of view. The RB problem with non-single-unit diablerie has already been described. > > > > > I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to > be > > > dead, > > > > > then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain > > > equipments > > > > > and be at full > > > > > health in such state.... > > > > > > > > The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, > > > > the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > > "Supposed" ? > > > Yes, but only under this "undivisible unit" diablerie. > > > > In all cases, actually. "supposed" refers to how the effect is > > designed to behave. It works as it is "supposed" to under the > > "indivisible" ruling. It doesn't under the "divisible" rule. > > > > > Given the diablerie in steps (as it is written on 6.5.5) > > > makes just the reformed vampire in torpor with no blood > > > (inferior) and, possibly, with no equipments left. > > > That would be just fine. > > > > It might be, but it isn't how RF is "supposed" to work. > > Before the "atomized" (logic) diablerie, that has always been > the right way to handle it, i think. No. [LSJ 24-FEB-1997], verified by the WotC Rules Team. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] We could, but that would cause certain cards not to function properly, as noted. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > No. RotBR is to be played when the vampire is burned, by card text. > > > > Step 1 or 4 doesn't matter really here: your statement above is clarly an > > assupmtion that the RoTBR > > can interrupt the diablerie process, being it played *during* the diablerie, > > not before, not after. > > No. The vampire is burned during the diablerie (unit). RotBR is played after. Why is it played after? Like almost all action mods, I can elect to play it at the begining of my action prior to the attempt to block phase. If it were played after, then your at the end or out of the action entirely. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > > Yes. That's what "Reversal" means, and why the reversal-introducing > > post was marked with a "new ruling" disclaimer at the top. > > > sorry to not understand in the first place, > that was the first time for me with a "reversed" rule. > Well you see, we keep score. You get 1 point for each errata or ruling that LSJ makes based on your arguments. You get 2 points for each rule change made in the same fashion. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > No. The vampire is burned during the diablerie (unit). RotBR is played after. > > Why is it played after? Like almost all action mods, I can elect to > play it at the begining of my action prior to the attempt to block > phase. Because it cannot be played if the vampire is not burned. > If it were played after, then your at the end or out of the action > entirely. At the end (during the action). Cannot play modfiers out of the action entirely. Like Freak Drive or Cryptic Rider or Voter Captivation. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as a unit, > this is not true. > > > By logic it should be the same for Reform Body, since it triggers > > when the vampire is "being burned", ain't ? > > Same wording as RotBR, different resolution...why ? > > Burned vampires cannot play cards. > RotBR requires burning. RotBR does not require burning. Only if you expect some game effects other than card cycling. > > If it weren't, then the RF'ing vampire would lose his blood and > > > equipment. > > > > I see no problem in that, with reform body the vamp is supposed to be dead, > > then it reforms slowly from his/her ashes, it's hard to retain equipments > > and be at full > > health in such state.... > > The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, > the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. While I agree with LSJ I also agree with Tetra. Both effects are workable in the game context, and it does not matter either way. By allowing the diablerist to gain equip when a vampire reforms will allow cross table allies to equip from the torpored minions to easily move the good stuff around. But thats a corner case built on a corner case. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3CB5BA56...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > Then the ritual of the bitter rose is useless, > > > because there's no blood on the diablerized vampire to be moved. > > > > Since the moving of blood and the burning is handled as a unit, > > this is not true. > > How you can state that ? > If the diablerie is handled as an unit, > then no effect at all can be used *during* it > (including votes and other "legal" effects) . > And since the reversal rule you made just few posts ago, > even "non-vote-stuff" can be used during the BH step of the diablerie, > then i can't see how to consider the diablerie as "undivisible" and as a > "unit". > It is still quite interrupable with lot of effects. Maybe we should drop interuptable and replace that with modifiable, which is what happens in a few cases. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > RotBR requires burning. > > RotBR does not require burning. Only if you expect some game effects > other than card cycling. Card. "... of blood on a vampire being burned..." Ruling: If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be destroyed/stolen. [RTR 28-SEP-1998] Ergo: RotBR requires burning. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > if the 4 damage effect is handled by the "atomic" (hate this term) > diablerie, then it can affect a lot the upcoming BH try using "The Ritual of Diablery." Much better than atomic and with the drift towards actually getting a ruling that diablery is modifiable, much more correct usage. Atomic implies no change possible. A Ritual typically remains unchanged, but can absorb minor alterations without destroying the ritual. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > The Freak drive says: Only usable immediately after this vampire > > performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire. > > > > As writen, you declare diablery, find your not blocked. Play the FD, > > then resolve the diablery. > > Card text says otherwise, as you quoted it. After the action is performed. > Not "before it is resolved". > > Similarly and empty vampire can hunt and play FD. > Are you trying to confuse me on purpose. FD makes absolutly no reference to a resolved action. Now unless your creating errata and not telling anyone about it, there IS a point where an action is not blocked and has yet to resolve. I declare an action, you decline to block, I play FD, you could reduce the bleed, I could bump it and all would be perfectly correct. The key word is blocked, the card definately says an action that is NOT blocked. I suppose we need more errata. :( Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > In your English, is not 6 an entirely different number from 5? Does not 6 come > > *after* 5? It does in the English we use in the ACNLSJ. > > And how many times will this point need to be made before you get it? > The section numbering of the rules doesn't impart sequencing. > See <several other sections of the rules as previously noted>. Hells Bells. Numeric referencing does not imply sequencing! May as well insert rule book into blender then, pick and choose what section you want to use and just wing it! I don't get it. Why use any numeric of alphbetic referencing at all if you do not wish to impart sequencing. Just number the main sections, like 1. Untap 2. Master 3. Minion 4. influence and drop all the sub sections. It will make more sense and be easier to argue your point. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > The Freak drive says: Only usable immediately after this vampire > > > performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire. > > > > > > As writen, you declare diablery, find your not blocked. Play the FD, > > > then resolve the diablery. > > > > Card text says otherwise, as you quoted it. After the action is performed. > > Not "before it is resolved". > > > > Similarly and empty vampire can hunt and play FD. > > Are you trying to confuse me on purpose. Not at all. > FD makes absolutly no reference to a resolved action. Now unless your > creating errata and not telling anyone about it, there IS a point where > an action is not blocked and has yet to resolve. > > I declare an action, you decline to block, I play FD, you could reduce > the bleed, I could bump it and all would be perfectly correct. > > The key word is blocked, the card definately says an action that is NOT > blocked. The key phrase is "after this vampire performs an action". [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > In your English, is not 6 an entirely different number from 5? Does not 6 come > > > *after* 5? It does in the English we use in the ACNLSJ. > > > > And how many times will this point need to be made before you get it? > > The section numbering of the rules doesn't impart sequencing. > > See <several other sections of the rules as previously noted>. > > Hells Bells. Numeric referencing does not imply sequencing! Of course. See <almost anything with sections numbered for reference>. > May as well insert rule book into blender then, pick and choose what > section you want to use and just wing it! Non-sequitur. > I don't get it. Why use any numeric of alphbetic referencing at all if > you do not wish to impart sequencing. Just number the main sections, > like > 1. Untap > 2. Master > 3. Minion > 4. influence > and drop all the sub sections. It will make more sense and be easier > to argue your point. My point needs no easing of arguing. It is plain and simple. Even the most casual observer can argue it correctly. For sequencing, see the rules that describe sequencing. Notably [1.6.1.6], [3], [6.2], [6.4.1], [6.4.2], [6.4.3], [6.5.5]. Reworking the rules as you suggest has been attempted (See Complete Rules Outline), but that format would fail miserably at the primary purpose of the rulebook (which is: to teach people how to play the game). [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > "Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other". > > > If i can burn a non-camarilla (by camarilla segragation) vamp while > > > i call a normal referendum, then i can burn he/she in the BH vote too. > > > > That's a fair point. > > OK. > > Reversal: handled the (still-part-of-the-unit) referendum as any > > other - meaning that you can burn a non-Cam to Camarilla segregation > > during it. > > > Just for fun, I looked up in google the word "referendum" with the phrase "just > like any other", in messages with "diablerie" in the subject. There were 15 > matches. All (except for one, I think) were part of this discussion, and all > were in the past few days. There > was even one where I said that the referendum was supposed to be treated "just > like any other referendum", which you responded to by quoting the rulebook > entry where that is said. Your response: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=just+like+any+other+referendum+insubject:diab > lerie&hl=en&scoring=d&selm=3CA843D0.27B11E83%40white-wolf.com&rnum=4 If you can't get your newsposter to allow long lines, try clicking on the "original format" link of the message and then using that URL (optionally with the trailing "&optput-plain" removed to get the standard formatting), like so: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CA843D0.27B11E83%40white-wolf.com to preserve the validity of the link (the link you supplied was broken so as not to be clickable in my reader). Or see http://www.makeashorterlink.com/ > I have no real point here. I just thought it was funny how many times it > needed to be said before you paid attention. I paid attention each time, as you probably noticed in that response. The original ruling was made under the assumption that the "indivisibility" of the diablerie should be preserved as much as possible. As the discussion wnet on, and with the additional ideas presented in other threads in mind, the former assumption no longer seemed necessary, and so the point was yielded. My apologies for not getting to that point sooner (although it seems some people have taken issue with rapid reversals in the past as well). BTW, any chance of you responding to the points you requested, or have you finally yielded those re-doubly-iterated points as well? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > Agreed. I'm also looking for some writen description of why they can be > > played during a referendum? > > > > Strict reading of both PA and BH rules as currently writen, indicate > > that both actions are over. And thus there is no manner in which > > AM/Reacts could be played. > > No. Please supply a written description from the rules that indicates > that the action is over before the resolution of the action is handled. Well thats my point. The ONLY time a action is over according to the rules is after the resolution of combat. 6.2.3 snip Once the combat is resolved, the action is over. other than that you have to put up with this wordy section, again 6.2.3 If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action take place > > > I could find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political > > action is still going on with the referendum. The action has to be > > successful, hence over, before you arrive at the vote. > > I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action > is over before the referendum. I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action is not over before the referendum. > A successful action is one that is not blocked [6.2.3]; >***it need not be "over" to be successful.*** So where did you pull that out of? Not from the rules. > > Once successful (i.e., all block attempts are abandoned), then the > action is resolved (i.e., the effects of the action are applied). > [6.2.3] > > In the case of a political action, resolving the action involves > conducting a referendum. [6.3] > > In particular, action modifiers can be played (subject to the normal > rules on playing cards) [6.3.3], indicating that there is still an > action around to be modified. (maybe) Yea, but as I wrote elsewhere is it clunky and poorly defined. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] Well then if this is the case, maybe the referendum is indivisible from the political action. I would fully support the referendum being a functional part os the action and key to determining whether or not the political action IS successful. Failure of the referendum would mean that the political action failed. It works that way in real life. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > RotBR requires burning. > > > > RotBR does not require burning. Only if you expect some game effects > > other than card cycling. > > Card. > "... of blood on a vampire being burned..." > > Ruling: > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. > Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the > opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be > destroyed/stolen. [RTR 28-SEP-1998] > > Ergo: RotBR requires burning. > Ergo, you've ruled yourself into a corner. Card text outline the game effects, it does not have limited card text such as. REQUIRES: X like infernal vampire, clan ect. Raille

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > Agreed. I'm also looking for some writen description of why they can be > > > played during a referendum? > > > > > > Strict reading of both PA and BH rules as currently writen, indicate > > > that both actions are over. And thus there is no manner in which > > > AM/Reacts could be played. > > > > No. Please supply a written description from the rules that indicates > > that the action is over before the resolution of the action is handled. > > Well thats my point. The ONLY time a action is over according to the > rules is after the resolution of combat. > > 6.2.3 > snip > Once the combat is resolved, > the action is over. > > other than that you have to put up with this wordy section, again 6.2.3 > > If the action is successful (all block attempts were > unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, > and the effects of the successful action take > place I don't see your point in there. Nowehere does it indicate that the action ends before being resolved. Indeed, it indicates quite the opposite. > > > I could find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political > > > action is still going on with the referendum. The action has to be > > > successful, hence over, before you arrive at the vote. > > > > I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action > > is over before the referendum. > > I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action is > not over before the referendum. No need to list everything that is not true in a rulebook. You claim that the action is over before it resolves, so the onus is on you to provide evidence to that effect. > > A successful action is one that is not blocked [6.2.3]; > > >***it need not be "over" to be successful.*** > > So where did you pull that out of? Not from the rules. Don't need rules to say waht is "not needed". > > Once successful (i.e., all block attempts are abandoned), then the > > action is resolved (i.e., the effects of the action are applied). > > [6.2.3] > > > > In the case of a political action, resolving the action involves > > conducting a referendum. [6.3] > > > > In particular, action modifiers can be played (subject to the normal > > rules on playing cards) [6.3.3], indicating that there is still an > > action around to be modified. > (maybe) > > Yea, but as I wrote elsewhere is it clunky and poorly defined. Constructive suggestions are, as always, welcome. Even for sections which are clear enough already. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > No. The vampire is burned during the diablerie (unit). RotBR is played after. > > > > Why is it played after? Like almost all action mods, I can elect to > > play it at the begining of my action prior to the attempt to block > > phase. > > Because it cannot be played if the vampire is not burned. The card makes no requirements on having a vampire succesfully burned. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > The rulebook is correct. > > It states that the resolution of a political action (unblocked) is: > > a referendum is called (not "a referendum will then be called later" > > or "a referendum is called. This referendum is somehow disassociated > > from the current action."). > > Well then if this is the case, maybe the referendum is indivisible from > the political action. It occurs as part of a political action already, so in that sense is indivisible (although it can also be called independently of a political action - by way of a Blood Hunt - of course). > I would fully support the referendum being a functional part os the > action and key to determining whether or not the political action IS > successful. Failure of the referendum would mean that the political > action failed. The referendum is a part of the action already. Changing the rules for "successful action" for that case (to alter the cases in which Freak Drive could be played, for instance) is not warranted. An action is successful if it resolves unblocked. [6.2.3] A bleed is successful if the bleed action is successful and the bleed amount is 1 or more. [6.1.1] A referendum is successful if the political action is successful and the referendum passes. [6.1.7], [6.3.2] [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > Single unit or not, you still didn't explained to me here he why > > > > an effect that triggers (Husamettin, Nakova) upon step 4 > > > > of diablerie must be handled "after" the whole diablerie > > > > (step 5) thing is resolved. > > > > > > Because it's a single unit. The effect isn't triggered before (no burning), > > > and is triggered after the burning (which is part of the single unit). > > > > > > > Can't we simply allow the effects to work during the diablery? Its not > > as if these special effects get turned off. They can simply be a part > > of the diablery action as potential diablery modifiers. > > > > All those effects can easily be listed as subatomic modifiers. > > We could, but that would cause certain cards not to function properly, > as noted. I hate rules that require themselves to break the rules to play the game. Sort of reminds me of the old SPI games. Where to play the game, they had to errata rules to fix problems, by make up things to force the system to function. Still no matter how much you state the diablery is unmodifiable, atmoic or indivisible, the fact is that certian game requirements do. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Card. > > "... of blood on a vampire being burned..." > > > > Ruling: > > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. > > Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the > > opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be > > destroyed/stolen. [RTR 28-SEP-1998] > > > > Ergo: RotBR requires burning. > > Ergo, you've ruled yourself into a corner. > > Card text outline the game effects, it does not have limited card text > such as. REQUIRES: X like infernal vampire, clan ect. The ruling is sufficient. See also Taste of Vitae. No corner here. This is the way the cards function. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] As I already pointed out, the ruling on targets indicates otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > Still no matter how much you state the diablery is unmodifiable, atmoic > or indivisible, the fact is that certian game requirements do. The five steps of diablerie are indivisble. The fifth step is handled as described in the rulebook, complete with a full referendum that can have effects played within it as any other, as stated. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Raille wrote: > > > > The Freak drive says: Only usable immediately after this vampire > > > > performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire. > > > > > > > > As writen, you declare diablery, find your not blocked. Play the FD, > > > > then resolve the diablery. > > > > > > Card text says otherwise, as you quoted it. After the action is performed. > > > Not "before it is resolved". > > > > > > Similarly and empty vampire can hunt and play FD. > > > > Are you trying to confuse me on purpose. > > Not at all. > > > FD makes absolutly no reference to a resolved action. Now unless your > > creating errata and not telling anyone about it, there IS a point where > > an action is not blocked and has yet to resolve. > > > > I declare an action, you decline to block, I play FD, you could reduce > > the bleed, I could bump it and all would be perfectly correct. > > > > The key word is blocked, the card definately says an action that is NOT > > blocked. > > The key phrase is "after this vampire performs an action". That is Not Blocked. Your snipping text to support your statements. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] ? You offered a key word from the rules (a snip to support you statement). I reciprocated. No need to try to find subterfuge there. The "That is not blocked" adds an additional limit to whether the card can be played at all. It doesn't alter the timing set by "after this vampire performs an action". -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB6D6CE...@spamcop.net... > > LSJ wrote: > > Card text says otherwise, as you quoted it. After the action is performed. > > Not "before it is resolved". > > > > Similarly an empty vampire can hunt and play FD. > > > > Are you trying to confuse me on purpose. > > FD makes absolutly no reference to a resolved action. Now unless your > creating errata and not telling anyone about it, there IS a point where > an action is not blocked and has yet to resolve. > > I declare an action, you decline to block, I play FD, you could reduce > the bleed, I could bump it and all would be perfectly correct. > > The key word is blocked, the card definately says an action that is NOT > blocked. Hey Raille - I don't mean to be rude, but I'm getting the idea that you've never been too familiar with the exact rules of the game. (That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course.) Freak Drive has *always* been played after the action succeeds (meaning after it has gone unblocked and effects have been applied). The "that is not blocked" text is telling you that you can only play it, at inferior, if you weren't blocked before performing the successful action. The "as above, but usable even if the action is blocked" text spells out that the "blocked" part is telling you what conditions the card requires to be playable. The part that tells you *when* to play it is "after this vampire performs an action". The action has been performed *after* its effects have been applied, but not when you're still in the "does anyone block? well then, do you Deflect?" stage of the action. You could actually argue that, if you read Freak Drive strictly, the superior still only works on successful actions, since it doesn't say "even if the action fails" but only "even if the action is blocked" - that would mean that the only benefit of superior Freak Drive would be that you could use it after being blocked and continuing via Form of Mist or something (and that inferior Freak Drive wouldn't be usable after a continued- by-Form-of-Mist action). But intent seems clear enough in the other direction (that superior Freak Drive is usable on failed actions that were blocked). Josh muddying the waters?

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB6C8E7...@spamcop.net... > > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > > news:D99t8.38175$CU.4...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > news:3CB4E919...@white-wolf.com... > > > > > > You have a peculiar talent for extracting hidden (non-existent) meanings > > > > from text. > > > > > > > So do you, if you think the rulebook says what you say it says. > > > > The rulebook *doesn't* say that diablerie is indivisible. LSJ > > said that. It was a new ruling. What has he claimed that the > > rulebook said that it actually doesn't? > > > > He's absolutely right that the placement of [6.5.6] (the blood > > hunt section) after [6.5.5] (diablerie) in the rulebook doesn't > > mean anything as far as timing, too. Does the fact that [6.4.5] > > "Strike Effects" follows [6.4.4] "Press" mean that strikes don't > > take effect until after the press step? > > > > By definition yes. > > However if the rules were correctly writen, it would be numbers > 6.4.3.1-X to outline the various strike effects. Urk. That's really not the way things with section numbers work. Did you ever play Star Fleet Battles? Did "hellbores" take effect after "phasers" because their rules section came later? > I recall in the OLD method of play, the strikes were all made then after > all additional strike set, the effects totaled and applied, but we never > actually attempted to press before strike resolution. No, that was never the case. If you played it that way, you were playing it wrong. From the original Jyhad rulebook: ------- 15.1. Combat Sequence Each round of combat has the following phases: 1) Establish range by maneuver. 2) Choose strike. 3) Resolve strike. 4) Any additional strikes. 5) Press. -------- You can see that "Resolve strike" - in this section that actually tells you it's establishing the phases of combat ;-) - comes before "Any additional strikes". Josh working on a chain gang

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB6C328...@spamcop.net... > Domain of evernight triggers with the effect of being succesful. Not > after the action is succesful An action is "successful" when its effects take place, not before. So if you play an action modifier "when an action is successful", you play it after the effects take place. > And scrying is also played as the action succeeds. Scrying is played "when this vampire successfully bleeds a Methuselah." That doesn't happen until the bled Meth has actually burned pool for the bleed, ie once the effects of the action have been applied. > So to sum up. Your wrong to assume these cards are played after the > action is resolved. No. Really. They are. ;-) This is another thing that's "always been the way it is". From the original Jyhad rulebook: --------- 14. SUMMARY OF THE COURSE OF AN ACTION 1) A player's action is declared, and an action card is played if necessary. The acting minion is tapped. 2) If a Methuselah was directly affected, he or she has the opportunity to try to block the action. If the action is blocked, the blocking minion is tapped, and combat ensues (exception: Leave Torpor action, Sec. 16.2). 3) If the action was not directed against a Methuselah, then your prey may attempt to block the action. If your prey does not block the action, then your predator may attempt to block the action. 4) If unblocked, the minion's action is successful. The Methuselah must then pay any cost associated with the action. If the Methuselah cannot pay the cost, whatever can be paid is paid, and the effects of the unpaid cards do not take place. Players cannot play the same action modifier card more than once per action. --------- You can see at (4) that the action "is successful" when the Methuselah (or minion) pays the cost of the action. Clearly any action modifiers played "when an action is successful" then need to be played after that. Josh quoting from the really old testament

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB6DF8E...@white-wolf.com... > > BTW, any chance of you responding to the points you requested, > or have you finally yielded those re-doubly-iterated points as > well? > I still haven't seen any points, other than "I say so." (or maybe my membership in the ACNLSJ just forbids me from acknowledging them... ;) ) But wouldn't you rather I just quit posting to this thread so you have one less zealot to respond to? I still think that the rulebook says that the Blood Hunt is resolved *after* the diablerie for the following reasons: - 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. 6.5.5 contains the entire resolution of the successful diablerie, but it does not indicate that the Blood Hunt is to be resolved as part of the diablerie. It simply indicateds that it is *called* as part of the diablerie. 6.5.6 outlines the resolution of the Blood Hunt. 6.5.6 is not part of 6.5.5. - There is some precedent for a referendum to be seperate from the effect that calls the referendum. Granted, a referendum is almost always part of the action that called it (i.e. in every case but the Blood Hunt), but there are definitely two separate parts to a political action. The referendum is resolved after the first part is completed. Saying that a Blood Hunt may be called as part of a diablerie is not the same as saying that a Blood Hunt is resolved as part of a diablerie. So, the rulebook does not specifically say that the Blood Hunt *is* part of the diablerie. - The fact that the Blood Hunt is not a part of the action strengthens the point. If it is not part of the action that caused it to be called, then there is reason to believe it is not part of the diablerie. - In the absence of specific rulebook text to say that the Blood Hunt *resolution* is part of the diablerie, one must go with the two things that imply that the Blood Hunt is not a part (i.e. bullets 1 & 3 above). However, I'm willing to just take this one as a screwed-up printing of the rulebook that will be fixed in the next edition, because I really don't care that much. I'm just happy that you reversed the extremely confusing ruling on what effects are playable during a Blood Hunt. That was one added complexity that I just really didn't think was necessary. With that reversal, the question of whether the Blood Hunt is part of the diablerie or not just doesn't matter. What the whole argument has shown me is that you seem unlikely to listen to anything I have to say. Perhaps you don't like me because I have argued with your rulings so much in the past. If I actually have a point to make counter to a ruling, I'll have to hope that someone else argues the point, as tetragrammaton has in regards to the "treated like any other referendum" phrase.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB6B1A9...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > In your English, is not 6 an entirely different number from 5? Does not 6 come > > *after* 5? It does in the English we use in the ACNLSJ. > > And how many times will this point need to be made before you get it? > The section numbering of the rules doesn't impart sequencing. > See <several other sections of the rules as previously noted>. > The numbers don't even imply grouping? As in, 6 can be part of 5??? Maybe that should be fixed...

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:0NDt8.13480$CH1.8951@sccrnsc02... > I still think that the rulebook says that the Blood Hunt is resolved *after* > the diablerie for the following reasons: > > - 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. 6.5.5 contains the entire > resolution of the successful diablerie, but it does not indicate that the Blood > Hunt is to be resolved as part of the diablerie. It simply indicateds that it > is *called* as part of the diablerie. 6.5.6 outlines the resolution of the > Blood Hunt. 6.5.6 is not part of 6.5.5. If you read [6.5.6] carefully, you'll see that "if the referendum passes, a blood hunt is called and the diablerist is burned". That is, a blood hunt has only "been called" successfully if the diablerist is actually burned. This is the same way the term was used in the original Jyhad rulebook, and it looks to me like that's why the word "may" is used at [6.5.5.5]. Also note that at [6.5.5], the rulebook tells us that "Diablerie is resolved as follows". In other words, these steps are the entirety of how to resolve diablerie; the referendum for a blood hunt is part of that resolution. You're right that it could be a little more specific about what step 5 means, though. > - The fact that the Blood Hunt is not a part of the action strengthens the > point. If it is not part of the action that caused it to be called, then there > is reason to believe it is not part of the diablerie. I don't think it's so much that the referendum isn't *part* of the action as that it's not *itself* an action. The Jyhad rulebook phrased it the same way: "This vote is not considered an action, so reaction and action modifier cards cannot be played." It never spelled out why that was, though, since the vote certainly looked like it was taking place *during* an action. :-) > I'm just happy that you reversed the extremely confusing ruling on > what effects are playable during a Blood Hunt. That was one > added complexity that I just really didn't think was necessary. I dunno, seems to me like it's quite a bit *more* complex to allow any number of weird effects during a blood hunt referendum than to disallow them. It certainly was an added *change*, though. :-) Josh wouldn't mind changing

Chris Berger wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > > BTW, any chance of you responding to the points you requested, > > or have you finally yielded those re-doubly-iterated points as > > well? > > > I still haven't seen any points, other than "I say so." (or maybe my membership > in the ACNLSJ just forbids me from acknowledging them... ;) ) You missed the points you snipped in http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=D99t8.38175%24CU.42327%40rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net ? OK. Here's the post again. Try to use some caution with your snips. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CB4E919.165BA711%40white-wolf.com > But wouldn't you > rather I just quit posting to this thread so you have one less zealot to > respond to? Sure. It doesn't seem to be happening, though. > I still think that the rulebook says that the Blood Hunt is resolved *after* > the diablerie for the following reasons: > > - 6.5.5.5 says that a Blood Hunt may be called. 6.5.5 contains the entire > resolution of the successful diablerie, but it does not indicate that the Blood > Hunt is to be resolved as part of the diablerie. It simply indicateds that it > is *called* as part of the diablerie. 6.5.6 outlines the resolution of the > Blood Hunt. 6.5.6 is not part of 6.5.5. It lists the blood hunt as part of the diablerie in that exact section, as you say above. How do you get from that (the fact you just affirmed that the Blood Hunt is called as part of the diablerie) to the idea that it is not resolved when called? > - There is some precedent for a referendum to be seperate from the effect that > calls the referendum. Granted, a referendum is almost always part of the > action that called it (i.e. in every case but the Blood Hunt), but there are > definitely two separate parts to a political action. The referendum is > resolved after the first part is completed. Saying that a Blood Hunt may be > called as part of a diablerie is not the same as saying that a Blood Hunt is > resolved as part of a diablerie. So, the rulebook does not specifically say > that the Blood Hunt *is* part of the diablerie. No. The referendum is resolved as part of the resolution of the successful political action. > - The fact that the Blood Hunt is not a part of the action strengthens the > point. If it is not part of the action that caused it to be called, then there > is reason to believe it is not part of the diablerie. The diablerie is the thing that caused the blood hunt to be called. Just as diablerie is handled when it occurs, so is a Blood Hunt. The peculiarities of the handling of a Blood Hunt involve a suspension of the current action and (if applicable) combat. But that is not to say that it is handled after them (nor after the diablerie). > - In the absence of specific rulebook text to say that the Blood Hunt > *resolution* is part of the diablerie, one must go with the two things that > imply that the Blood Hunt is not a part (i.e. bullets 1 & 3 above). At least as valid as the "Chris says so" statement above is: In the absense of specific text to say that the Blood Hunt *resolution* is not a part of the diablerie, one must go with the thing that implies that it is part of the diablerie (i.e., 6.5.5). > However, I'm willing to just take this one as a screwed-up printing of the > rulebook that will be fixed in the next edition, because I really don't care > that much. I'm just happy that you reversed the extremely confusing ruling on > what effects are playable during a Blood Hunt. That was one added complexity > that I just really didn't think was necessary. With that reversal, the > question of whether the Blood Hunt is part of the diablerie or not just doesn't > matter. It still matters for things like RotBR. [snip tripe] [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No idea what you're saying here. Please elaborate if there's a point you're trying to make. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<a96rt5$qp23$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3CB6C8E7...@spamcop.net... > > However if the rules were correctly writen, it would be numbers > > 6.4.3.1-X to outline the various strike effects. > > Urk. That's really not the way things with section numbers > work. Did you ever play Star Fleet Battles? Did "hellbores" > take effect after "phasers" because their rules section came > later? Oh, man...that would have been the best. I would have played the Kzintis all the time, because their massive drone arsenal would always take effect first! (As it was, I played a lot of Romulans, because they had cool ships. And then Klingons for pretty much the same reason.) > > I recall in the OLD method of play, the strikes were all made then after > > all additional strike set, the effects totaled and applied, but we never > > actually attempted to press before strike resolution. As Josh states, that has never been the case. I have come across a whole lot of players that have thought this, but I've never ever seen anything in print that actually said this. I'm glad Josh dug out the old Jyhad rulebook though, because I hate doing that. I had to do it a little while ago to point out to someone that you have *always* had to pay 1 pool and use 4 transfers (the pool part was the sticking point) to move the vampire off the top of your crypt and into your uncontrolled region. I couldn't figure out how someone could have missed that for so long. Additional strikes are still a constant source of confusion for a lot of the newer players in our group. I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it's mostly because they want to gain an additional strike and use Claws or something. Xian

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB712B2...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > But wouldn't you > > rather I just quit posting to this thread so you have one less zealot to > > respond to? > > Sure. It doesn't seem to be happening, though. > That's because you asked me to reply. *sigh* Can never satisfy you, eh LSJ? Also not dealing with your other "points" here. Deal with it. =P

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB7131E...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3CB6B1A9...@white-wolf.com... > > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > In your English, is not 6 an entirely different number from 5? Does not 6 > > come > > > > *after* 5? It does in the English we use in the ACNLSJ. > > > > > > And how many times will this point need to be made before you get it? > > > The section numbering of the rules doesn't impart sequencing. > > > See <several other sections of the rules as previously noted>. > > > > > The numbers don't even imply grouping? As in, 6 can be part of 5??? Maybe > > that should be fixed... > > No idea what you're saying here. > Please elaborate if there's a point you're trying to make. > Assuming: 5. Some effect: 5.1 part of 5 5.2 part of 5 5.3 part of 5 .... 6. Some effect. There is no reason to believe that 6 is "part of 5". That is, if the numbers in the rulebook mean anything at all, they imply grouping, no? If the effect described in 6 is part of the effect described in part 5, should it not be numbered accordingly?

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB712B2...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > But wouldn't you > > > rather I just quit posting to this thread so you have one less zealot to > > > respond to? > > > > Sure. It doesn't seem to be happening, though. > > > That's because you asked me to reply. *sigh* Can never satisfy you, eh LSJ? I asked for replies to the points you claim don't exist and which I relisted in response to your claim that I was ignoring yours. But since you were still heckling from the peanut gallery, I fugured it wouldn't hurt to try to redirect your efforts to the constructive side of things. Sorry about that. > Also not dealing with your other "points" here. Deal with it. =P No problem at all. I was just trying to make sure you saw them that time, since you keep claiming not to have. -- 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/

[ quoted text not captured ] Reason to believe that the blood hunt is a part of 5: 5.5 part of 5. > in the rulebook mean anything at all, they imply grouping, no? If the effect > described in 6 is part of the effect described in part 5, should it not be > numbered accordingly? Again (third, fourth time? I forget), see the section numbering for actions, combat, and political actions to see that the numbers don't mean what you want them to. The numbers "group" rules into logical pieces. Not necessarily distinct ones or sequential ones. See 6.4.3, 6.4.4, and 6.4.5. No really. See those sections. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You missed the point. I was looking for something that actually says then the action ends. According to the rules an action ends after combat. And ONLY then. There needs to be closure for actions that do not have combat. > > > > I could find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political > > > > action is still going on with the referendum. The action has to be > > > > successful, hence over, before you arrive at the vote. > > > > > > I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action > > > is over before the referendum. > > > > I find no rule in the rule book that tells that the political action is > > not over before the referendum. > > No need to list everything that is not true in a rulebook. > You claim that the action is over before it resolves, so the onus > is on you to provide evidence to that effect. I cannot, there is nothing in the rules to establish when an action actually ends outside of combat. Unless you accept that the phrase "action is succesful" to mean the action is ended. And if you do, then the referendum occurs after the action has ended. > > > A successful action is one that is not blocked [6.2.3]; > > > > >***it need not be "over" to be successful.*** > > > > So where did you pull that out of? Not from the rules. > > Don't need rules to say waht is "not needed". We need the rules to say what IS needed. Hence my arguement. > > Yea, but as I wrote elsewhere is it clunky and poorly defined. > > Constructive suggestions are, as always, welcome. > Even for sections which are clear enough already. and I'm working on that. As much as possible. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > The rulebook is correct. > > > It states that the resolution of a political action (unblocked) is: > > > a referendum is called (not "a referendum will then be called later" > > > or "a referendum is called. This referendum is somehow disassociated > > > from the current action."). > > > > Well then if this is the case, maybe the referendum is indivisible from > > the political action. > > It occurs as part of a political action already, so in that sense > is indivisible (although it can also be called independently of a > political action - by way of a Blood Hunt - of course). I concur. I went back and checked the Old Jyhad rules. In that version, the vote/referendum is part of the action. In that case all the political mods actually modify the action ect. Once we rules got organized better, the schism of Political action having to be successful prior to the referrendum being taken, creates a timing gap that had to be fixed by adding extra wording to the referendum to allow for the play of these cards. > > I would fully support the referendum being a functional part os the > > action and key to determining whether or not the political action IS > > successful. Failure of the referendum would mean that the political > > action failed. > > The referendum is a part of the action already. Changing the rules > for "successful action" for that case (to alter the cases in which > Freak Drive could be played, for instance) is not warranted. If the referendum were directly tied to the political action, meaning the success of the action is fully dependant on passage of the vote, I don't see what issues would be needed to warrent any change to the play of freak drive. Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:3CB6C328...@spamcop.net... > > > Domain of evernight triggers with the effect of being succesful. Not > > after the action is succesful > > An action is "successful" when its effects take place, not > before. So if you play an action modifier "when an action is > successful", you play it after the effects take place. I just don't understand whay people can accept diablery has being indivisible, yet cannot accept card text like that about to be a part of a "succesful" action. Not AFTER a success. > > This is another thing that's "always been the way it is". From > the original Jyhad rulebook: > > --------- > 14. SUMMARY OF THE COURSE OF AN ACTION > > 1) A player's action is declared, and an action card is played if > necessary. The acting minion is tapped. > 2) If a Methuselah was directly affected, he or she has the opportunity > to try to block the action. If the action is blocked, the blocking minion > is tapped, and combat ensues (exception: Leave Torpor action, Sec. 16.2). > 3) If the action was not directed against a Methuselah, then your prey > may attempt to block the action. If your prey does not block the action, > then your predator may attempt to block the action. > 4) If unblocked, the minion's action is successful. The Methuselah must > then pay any cost associated with the action. If the Methuselah cannot pay > the cost, whatever can be paid is paid, and the effects of the unpaid > cards do not take place. Players cannot play the same action modifier card > more than once per action. > --------- > > You can see at (4) that the action "is successful" when the > Methuselah (or minion) pays the cost of the action. Clearly > any action modifiers played "when an action is successful" then > need to be played after that. So cards have to wait to step 5 to see if they can be player. Why not just lump them atomically into "is successful". I was looking at this earlier today. Did you know what I dug up? way in the front of the rule book, there is a little read line that said a minion may only attempt one action during the minion phase. Talk about the original NRA. if we had kept that rule, freak drive and other cards would never have been a problem. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > Well thats my point. The ONLY time a action is over according to the > > > rules is after the resolution of combat. > > > > > > 6.2.3 > > > snip > > > Once the combat is resolved, > > > the action is over. > > > > > > other than that you have to put up with this wordy section, again 6.2.3 > > > > > > If the action is successful (all block attempts were > > > unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, > > > and the effects of the successful action take > > > place > > > > I don't see your point in there. Nowehere does it indicate that > > the action ends before being resolved. Indeed, it indicates quite > > the opposite. > > You missed the point. I was looking for something that actually says That's what I was getting at when I said I don't see your point, yeah. > then the action ends. According to the rules an action ends after > combat. And ONLY then. There needs to be closure for actions that do > not have combat. It doesn't say "only" then will it end. The term "resolve" implies the end, at any rate. After a combat is resolved, then the combat is over. After an action is resolved, then the action is over. After a referendum is resolved, ... After a master card play is resolved, ... After a game is resolved, ... etc. The bit about combat is in there to help get the notion that the combat is a part of the action across. Listing one instance of when the action ends doesn't imply that there aren't other instances. Is that closer to addressing your point? > > No need to list everything that is not true in a rulebook. > > You claim that the action is over before it resolves, so the onus > > is on you to provide evidence to that effect. > > I cannot, there is nothing in the rules to establish when an action > actually ends outside of combat. Unless you accept that the phrase > "action is succesful" to mean the action is ended. And if you do, then > the referendum occurs after the action has ended. OK. I do not see that the phrase means that the action is ended. I see the phrase as meaning that the action is not blocked and therefore the effects of the action are to be applied. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Man talk about a a rules book from hell. I eventually simply gave up, and that was after I attempted to retype the rules at home to include all the errata, it was simply unplayable by definition. Of course once you through out any hope of cohesive rules the game was acceptable. Not sure what the version 10.X is like I stopped playing about 13 years ago. > > I recall in the OLD method of play, the strikes were all made then after > > all additional strike set, the effects totaled and applied, but we never > > actually attempted to press before strike resolution. > > No, that was never the case. If you played it that way, you > were playing it wrong. From the original Jyhad rulebook: > > ------- > 15.1. Combat Sequence > > Each round of combat has the following phases: > > 1) Establish range by maneuver. > 2) Choose strike. > 3) Resolve strike. > 4) Any additional strikes. > 5) Press. > -------- > > You can see that "Resolve strike" - in this section that > actually tells you it's establishing the phases of combat > ;-) - comes before "Any additional strikes". I noticed that latter. And I must admit, was playing incorrectly on this point, or rather I should state, I was allowing myself to get beat up by people I allowed to circumvent the rules. Did you notice that most of the rules are not numbers in detail, that the minion phase is this wandering paragraph explaining what you do. That vampire diablerized are not "burned" and not burned from agro damage? Yet cards from the same set do refer to the "burn" a vampire. I support the new rules 100%, but still thing they can be better. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Card. > > > "... of blood on a vampire being burned..." > > > > > > Ruling: > > > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > > > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. > > > Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the > > > opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be > > > destroyed/stolen. [RTR 28-SEP-1998] > > > > > > Ergo: RotBR requires burning. > > > > Ergo, you've ruled yourself into a corner. > > > > Card text outline the game effects, it does not have limited card text > > such as. REQUIRES: X like infernal vampire, clan ect. > > The ruling is sufficient. > See also Taste of Vitae. > No corner here. This is the way the cards function. > So your implying that Say, theft of vitea cannot be play vs a vampire with no blood, since there is no appropriate target. With RotBR, you can have a null set. I find nothing that requires you to play the card only if you succesfully burn a vampire. The Card sets parameters that establish the outcome of what will happen IF you burn a vampire. Raille

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB6DF8E...@white-wolf.com... > > > > BTW, any chance of you responding to the points you requested, > > or have you finally yielded those re-doubly-iterated points as > > well? > > > I still haven't seen any points, other than "I say so." (or maybe my membership > in the ACNLSJ just forbids me from acknowledging them... ;) ) But wouldn't you > rather I just quit posting to this thread so you have one less zealot to > respond to? What? and leave me to the wolves? Oh BTW, there is a secret clause forbiding you from acknowledging them. See subsection 1.C Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > Still no matter how much you state the diablery is unmodifiable, atmoic > > or indivisible, the fact is that certian game requirements do. > > The five steps of diablerie are indivisble. > The fifth step is handled as described in the rulebook, complete with > a full referendum that can have effects played within it as any other, > as stated. And during this fifth step, which is part of the diablery, your not modifying the event by such items as tossing the edge, tossing political cards, playing Di to burn a PA as its played, buring a vampire to satisfy the Segregation, ect. diablery is modifiable, in very limited circumstances. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Raille wrote: > > > > The key word is blocked, the card definately says an action that is NOT > > > > blocked. > > > > > > The key phrase is "after this vampire performs an action". > > That is Not Blocked. > > > > Your snipping text to support your statements. > > ? > You offered a key word from the rules (a snip to support you statement). > I reciprocated. > No need to try to find subterfuge there. > > The "That is not blocked" adds an additional limit to whether the card > can be played at all. It doesn't alter the timing set by "after this > vampire performs an action". Well Duh! I don't think I'm allowed to play it before the action is blocked. So what I see here is that I think that once all possible blockers have declined to block, I can play freak drive. You seem to take this as after the minion resolves the action. Since I begin to perform the action the moment I declare the action. And the rules determine that a action is succesful once its either at the end of combat or resolved. the FD should have errata to state that is played after a successful action (for the inf). Currently, it seems the step between blocking and resolving, is not good enough to play the freak drive. Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Hey Raille - I don't mean to be rude, but I'm getting the idea > that you've never been too familiar with the exact rules of the > game. (That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course.) No rude at all. Actually I am fairly good with the rules, I'm just in my nit pick mode and I'm actually working on poking holes in the rules as writen. > Freak Drive has *always* been played after the action succeeds > (meaning after it has gone unblocked and effects have been > applied). The "that is not blocked" text is telling you that > you can only play it, at inferior, if you weren't blocked before > performing the successful action. The "as above, but usable > even if the action is blocked" text spells out that the "blocked" > part is telling you what conditions the card requires to be > playable. The part that tells you *when* to play it is "after > this vampire performs an action". The action has been performed > *after* its effects have been applied, but not when you're still > in the "does anyone block? well then, do you Deflect?" stage > of the action. I find that just cause some one *Always* has done something some way, does not always mean thats the correct way. Sometimes people where blinders. See my reference about miss playing the original combat sequence. > You could actually argue that, if you read Freak Drive strictly, > the superior still only works on successful actions, since it > doesn't say "even if the action fails" but only "even if the > action is blocked" - that would mean that the only benefit of > superior Freak Drive would be that you could use it after > being blocked and continuing via Form of Mist or something (and > that inferior Freak Drive wouldn't be usable after a continued- > by-Form-of-Mist action). But intent seems clear enough in the > other direction (that superior Freak Drive is usable on failed > actions that were blocked). True, but if you have the SUP, you can always default to the inf. > Josh > > muddying the waters? Hell! more like watering the mud. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB73F73...@spamcop.net... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > An action is "successful" when its effects take place, not > > before. So if you play an action modifier "when an action is > > successful", you play it after the effects take place. > > I just don't understand whay people can accept diablery has being > indivisible, yet cannot accept card text like that about to be a part of > a "succesful" action. Not AFTER a success. But you don't know if you're going to be successful until you have actually succeeded. I don't know, it makes sense to me... [snip jyhad-rulebook quote] > > You can see at (4) that the action "is successful" when the > > Methuselah (or minion) pays the cost of the action. Clearly > > any action modifiers played "when an action is successful" then > > need to be played after that. > > So cards have to wait to step 5 to see if they can be player. Why not > just lump them atomically into "is successful". That would be basically the same thing, wouldn't it? As for Freak Drive only requiring that the action not be blocked, if you read it that way, what's to stop you from playing it before you give anyone a chance to declare blockers? After all, the action is (currently) unblocked. That's why the sensible (to me) way to read Freak Drive (and the like) is that the "after this vampire performs an action" means "after the action has succeeded". > I was looking at this earlier today. Did you know what I dug up? > > way in the front of the rule book, there is a little read line that said > a minion may only attempt one action during the minion phase. > > Talk about the original NRA. if we had kept that rule, freak drive and > other cards would never have been a problem. Wow, cool. Do you have a playtester's pre-release rulebook? Or are you referring to the sentence in the "Quick Reference" at the beginning that says "Each ready and untapped minion may attempt one action."? Unfortunately the Jyhad rulebook (as I have it) went on to contradict that in the detailed explanation-of-rules part... "If your minion manages to untap due to a card effect this phase, it may take another action." But it would've been good if they'd stuck with the first bit. :-) Josh easily startled

LSJ wrote: > > > > Reworking the rules as you suggest has been attempted (See Complete > Rules Outline), but that format would fail miserably at the primary > purpose of the rulebook (which is: to teach people how to play the > game). Uhm, perhaps with the advent of the electronic age and the speed of the internet, we could do a detailed step by step for the grognards, and leave the rules book simplified for the novice. In this manner anyone interested enough to start questioning the rules, could be pointed to the "Tome of enternal Knowledge" Raille

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB740EC...@spamcop.net... [re SFB rulebook] > Man talk about a a rules book from hell. I eventually simply gave up, > and that was after I attempted to retype the rules at home to include > all the errata, it was simply unplayable by definition. Of course once > you through out any hope of cohesive rules the game was acceptable. > > Not sure what the version 10.X is like I stopped playing about 13 years > ago. Yes, it was quite the rulebook. :-) I haven't actually played in at least four years myself. [another jyhad-rulebook quote snipped] > I noticed that latter. And I must admit, was playing incorrectly on > this point, or rather I should state, I was allowing myself to get beat > up by people I allowed to circumvent the rules. > > Did you notice that most of the rules are not numbers in detail, that > the minion phase is this wandering paragraph explaining what you do. Yup. They do have a lot of numbered sections though - all the way up to 19 (the glossary), thoroughly outdoing our 10 modern sections. (Of course, we probably have more subsections within those ten. :-) > That vampire diablerized are not "burned" and not burned from agro > damage? Yet cards from the same set do refer to the "burn" a vampire. > > I support the new rules 100%, but still thing they can be better. Well, I agree. I do think suggestions for clearer wording where the existing language is unclear will probably be more constructive than just a lot of yelling back and forth about illogicality of some ruling and so on and so forth. :-) I think adding a sentence saying when successful actions end to [6.2.3], for example, is a good idea. And at [6.4.7], it might be useful to modify the last sentence to make explicit that a retainer not burned in a given combat gets his life counters back *when combat ends*. (No timing is given; at the end of the combat is logical enough, but spelling it out is almost always better.) Josh rah rah ree kick 'em in the knee

Raille wrote: > If the referendum were directly tied to the political action, meaning > the success of the action is fully dependant on passage of the vote, I > don't see what issues would be needed to warrent any change to the play > of freak drive. Sorry. I was thinking Freak Drive said "successful" instead of "not blocked" (since the two terms are interchangeable currently). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Card. > > > > "... of blood on a vampire being burned..." > > > > > > > > Ruling: > > > > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > > > > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. > > > > Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the > > > > opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be > > > > destroyed/stolen. [RTR 28-SEP-1998] > > > > > > > > Ergo: RotBR requires burning. > > > > > > Ergo, you've ruled yourself into a corner. > > > > > > Card text outline the game effects, it does not have limited card text > > > such as. REQUIRES: X like infernal vampire, clan ect. > > > > The ruling is sufficient. > > See also Taste of Vitae. > > No corner here. This is the way the cards function. > > So your implying that Say, theft of vitea cannot be play vs a vampire > with no blood, since there is no appropriate target. No, I'm not. It "targets" the vampire and the vampire exists. It also refers to the amount of blood lost (0, in the case of a previously-empty vampire), which also exists. I'm saying it cannot be used when in combat with an ally. > With RotBR, you can have a null set. I find nothing that requires you > to play the card only if you succesfully burn a vampire. It "targets" a burning vampire, so, by the ruling, requires there to be one. > The Card sets parameters that establish the outcome of what will happen > IF you burn a vampire. I see no alternative non-vampire-target usage allowed on the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > This is another thing that's "always been the way it is". From > > the original Jyhad rulebook: > [snip] > I was looking at this earlier today. Did you know what I dug up? > > way in the front of the rule book, there is a little read line that said > a minion may only attempt one action during the minion phase. > > Talk about the original NRA. if we had kept that rule, freak drive and > other cards would never have been a problem. I assume, since you provide no reference, that you're talking about the Quick Reference on pages 4 and 5. It actually says "Each ready and untappedminion [sic] may attempt one action". It doesn't say "only attempt one". It echoes the same in the full rules: "Each untapped minion you control may take an action." [12] And it also says "untapping ... indicates ... will be able ... take another action" [6] and "You may have each of your untapped controlled minions take one action. Taking an action taps the acting minion. Announce and resolve each action before proceeding to the next. If your minion manages to untap due to a card effect this phase, it may take another action. Thus it is possible for the same minion to take several actions during a turn." [12.3] That should put to bed any ideas that the original rules meant the "only" that you have read into it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > > > > The key word is blocked, the card definately says an action that is NOT > > > > > blocked. > > > > > > > > The key phrase is "after this vampire performs an action". > > > That is Not Blocked. > > > > > > Your snipping text to support your statements. > > > > ? > > You offered a key word from the rules (a snip to support you statement). > > I reciprocated. > > No need to try to find subterfuge there. > > > > The "That is not blocked" adds an additional limit to whether the card > > can be played at all. It doesn't alter the timing set by "after this > > vampire performs an action". > > Well Duh! I don't think I'm allowed to play it before the action is > blocked. > > So what I see here is that I think that once all possible blockers have > declined to block, I can play freak drive. No. Freak Drive is played after performing the action. > You seem to take this as after the minion resolves the action. Because that's what it means, yeah. > Since I begin to perform the action the moment I declare the action. And > the rules determine that a action is succesful once its either at the > end of combat or resolved. the FD should have errata to state that is > played after a successful action (for the inf). No. Just because you begin performing something doesn't mean that things that are played after it is performed are somehow enhanced to be playable after it has begun to be performed. After you build a ship, you can sail it. That doesn't mean you can sail it before it is finished being built. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3CB74886...@spamcop.net... > > No rude at all. Actually I am fairly good with the rules, I'm just in > my nit pick mode and I'm actually working on poking holes in the rules > as writen. Poke away, my good man, poke away. :-) > I find that just cause some one *Always* has done something some way, > does not always mean thats the correct way. > > Sometimes people where blinders. > > See my reference about miss playing the original combat sequence. Well, sure, but playing Freak Drive after the action succeeds has always been the correct way. :-) > True, but if you have the SUP, you can always default to the inf. Sure. I was just saying that if you read Freak Drive too strictly, you'd conclude that the superior is almost no improvement over the inferior. > Hell! more like watering the mud. heh! Josh about done for the day

Raille wrote: > Uhm, perhaps with the advent of the electronic age and the speed of the > internet, we could do a detailed step by step for the grognards, and > leave the rules book simplified for the novice. > > In this manner anyone interested enough to start questioning the rules, > could be pointed to the "Tome of enternal Knowledge" Grognards this way: http://www.vtesinla.org/outline.htm (Note that the original text file has been partially HTMLized, but that the conversion is not complete. Also, the outline itself is very old, and may need some updating. If anyone finds any errors in it, please let me know so it can be updated.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CB72D04...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > Assuming: > > 5. Some effect: > > 5.1 part of 5 > > 5.2 part of 5 > > 5.3 part of 5 > > .... > > > > 6. Some effect. > > > > There is no reason to believe that 6 is "part of 5". That is, if the numbers > > Reason to believe that the blood hunt is a part of 5: > 5.5 part of 5. > Yes. As you continue to say. It doesn't, however say that. 5.5.5 says that a blood hunt may be called. It neither implies nor states specifically that the blood hunt is resolved at this point. Saying that this statement is enough to require the blood hunt be part of the diablerie is equivalent, in my view, to saying that a normal referendum is resolved as soon as one takes the action to call it, whether successful or not. There are two parts to any normal referendum... the part by which you call the referendum, and the part during which the referendum is resolved. Granted, they are both part of the same action, when called as a normal political action. In the case of the blood hunt, only the first part of that whole rigamarole is actually declared to be part of the diablerie. There are two ways to see the resolution grouped: a) as part of the diablerie - since the effect to call the blood hunt is part of the diablerie, the resolution of the blood hunt vote is assumed to be part of the diablerie. b) not part of the diablerie - since the blood hunt is listed as a separate section, and because it is "not associated with any action", the blood hunt vote is assumed to be separate from everything going on around it, and thus not part of the diablerie. (Note: in one of my posts, I asked if "separate from everything going on around it" included being separate from the diablerie, to which you replied "OK.") The only thing which seems to choose a) over b) is that you say so. Which is fine. All I want is for you to say, "the blood hunt is part of the diablerie... only because I say so, as the rules are not clear on this." (Okay, okay, I said in a post above that I was gonna just give up and go away anyway, but you know how hard it is to give up a debate, especially if the other person seems like they might be starting to see what you're getting at...) > > in the rulebook mean anything at all, they imply grouping, no? If the effect > > described in 6 is part of the effect described in part 5, should it not be > > numbered accordingly? > > Again (third, fourth time? I forget), see the section numbering for > actions, combat, and political actions to see that the numbers don't > mean what you want them to. > Assuming that's true (I'm not in the mood to look through the rules right now, so I'll take your word that the numbering is completely random and doesn't mean anything)... that's a poor way of organizing rules. If something is not a logical part of something else, then it's okay for the numbers to not indicate sequencing. When a phase or effect is meant to be a part of another phase or effect, then the numbers should indicate that. Maybe the next rulebook reprinting should take things like this into account.

LSJ wrote: > > It doesn't say "only" then will it end. > > The term "resolve" implies the end, at any rate. > After a combat is resolved, then the combat is over. > After an action is resolved, then the action is over. > After a referendum is resolved, ... > After a master card play is resolved, ... > After a game is resolved, ... > etc. > > The bit about combat is in there to help get the notion that the > combat is a part of the action across. > > Listing one instance of when the action ends doesn't imply that > there aren't other instances. > > Is that closer to addressing your point? Yes. In the next rule book version, could we move closer to a consistant word usage to signify the 'end of' > > I cannot, there is nothing in the rules to establish when an action > > actually ends outside of combat. Unless you accept that the phrase > > "action is succesful" to mean the action is ended. And if you do, then > > the referendum occurs after the action has ended. > > OK. I do not see that the phrase means that the action is ended. > I see the phrase as meaning that the action is not blocked and therefore > the effects of the action are to be applied. Well the rules say that a successful action is the end, since you apply effects at that point. 6.2.3 If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action take place. What happens after the effects take place? Can you then further modify the action with a freak drive or other effects? The action is apparently over once its been declared successful and you apply the effects. Now with regards to the Political referendum. 6.3.2. The Referendum If a political action is successful, the referendum (sometimes referred to as the vote*) is called. This could be modified to read if a political action is unblocked, the referendum () is called. This allows the referendum to be a Part of the political action, but removed enough from the action to allow the voting to proceed. This returns the context of the cards to their original aspects, and you can drop that whole paragraph that "allows" AMs/Reacts to be played in the referendum, since with this change, the referendum is part of the action. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > If the referendum were directly tied to the political action, meaning > > the success of the action is fully dependant on passage of the vote, I > > don't see what issues would be needed to warrent any change to the play > > of freak drive. > > Sorry. I was thinking Freak Drive said "successful" instead of "not > blocked" (since the two terms are interchangeable currently). > No problem, its not like I don't make glaring mistakes often enough! Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] To answer both people, yes this was the quick reference. And it would have been nice if they had kept that. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > [Re: "action is succesful"] > > OK. I do not see that the phrase means that the action is ended. > > I see the phrase as meaning that the action is not blocked and therefore > > the effects of the action are to be applied. > > Well the rules say that a successful action is the end, since you apply > effects at that point. Right. Not after that point. > 6.2.3 > If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then > the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action > take place. > > What happens after the effects take place? Can you then further modify > the action with a freak drive or other effects? Yes. (card text). > The action is apparently over once its been declared successful and you > apply the effects. Yes. Although some cards say that they are played after the resolution (after you apply the effects) but clearly must be played before the action is over (before there is no more action left to modify). > Now with regards to the Political referendum. > > 6.3.2. The Referendum > > If a political action is successful, the referendum (sometimes referred > to as the vote*) is called. > > This could be modified to read if a political action is unblocked, the > referendum () is called. A change in text that effects no change at all, since "is successful" means exactly "is unblocked". > This allows the referendum to be a Part of the political action, but > removed enough from the action to allow the voting to proceed. This > returns the context of the cards to their original aspects, and you can > drop that whole paragraph that "allows" AMs/Reacts to be played in the > referendum, since with this change, the referendum is part of the > action. Your text change is no change. What you perceive it allows is already allowed by the current text. The whole paragraph that allows AM/R to be played in the referendum would be unaffected - to be dropped or kept equally with the current text or the changed text. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CB72D04...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > Assuming: > > > 5. Some effect: > > > 5.1 part of 5 > > > 5.2 part of 5 > > > 5.3 part of 5 > > > .... > > > > > > 6. Some effect. > > > > > > There is no reason to believe that 6 is "part of 5". That is, if the > numbers > > > > Reason to believe that the blood hunt is a part of 5: > > 5.5 part of 5. > > > Yes. As you continue to say. It doesn't, however say that. 5.5.5 says that a As you continue to say. > blood hunt may be called. It neither implies nor states specifically that the > blood hunt is resolved at this point. Saying that this statement is enough to A referendum, once called, is resolved. This is too obvious to require being said at all, much less being beaten to death over the course of so many messages. > require the blood hunt be part of the diablerie is equivalent, in my view, to > saying that a normal referendum is resolved as soon as one takes the action to > call it, whether successful or not. There are two parts to any normal You've got to call it. If the action to call it is blocked, then it is not called, obviously. > referendum... the part by which you call the referendum, and the part during > which the referendum is resolved. Granted, they are both part of the same > action, when called as a normal political action. In the case of the blood > hunt, only the first part of that whole rigamarole is actually declared to be > part of the diablerie. There are two ways to see the resolution grouped: In the case of the normal action, the "part by which you call it" (the attempt to call it - the action) can be blocked and therefore you must wait to see if it is not blocked. In the case of a Blood Hunt, the "part by which you call it" is step 5. [6.5.5] It cannot be blocked or otherwise prevented from happening [6.5.6] - it just happens. It is called when called. > a) as part of the diablerie - since the effect to call the blood hunt is part > of the diablerie, the resolution of the blood hunt vote is assumed to be part > of the diablerie. > > b) not part of the diablerie - since the blood hunt is listed as a separate > section, and because it is "not associated with any action", the blood hunt > vote is assumed to be separate from everything going on around it, and thus not > part of the diablerie. (Note: in one of my posts, I asked if "separate from > everything going on around it" included being separate from the diablerie, to > which you replied "OK.") > > The only thing which seems to choose a) over b) is that you say so. Which is That and the rules - where calling the blood hunt it listed as one of the steps of diablerie. Contrast with the only reason to choose b) over a) is that you say so and that you want to impart some meaning to the section numberings that they clearly do not have ("clearly" when looking at the rules as a whole). > fine. All I want is for you to say, "the blood hunt is part of the > diablerie... only because I say so, as the rules are not clear on this." > (Okay, okay, I said in a post above that I was gonna just give up and go away > anyway, but you know how hard it is to give up a debate, especially if the > other person seems like they might be starting to see what you're getting > at...) I see your point, and the failings of it, sure. > > > in the rulebook mean anything at all, they imply grouping, no? If the > effect > > > described in 6 is part of the effect described in part 5, should it not be > > > numbered accordingly? > > > > Again (third, fourth time? I forget), see the section numbering for > > actions, combat, and political actions to see that the numbers don't > > mean what you want them to. > > > Assuming that's true (I'm not in the mood to look through the rules right now, > so I'll take your word that the numbering is completely random and doesn't mean > anything)... that's a poor way of organizing rules. If something is not a > logical part of something else, then it's okay for the numbers to not indicate > sequencing. It's a fine way of organizing the rules. See many other complex rules sets with many sections. The numbers serve as logical groupings / topics. > When a phase or effect is meant to be a part of another phase or > effect, then the numbers should indicate that. See number 5 in section 6.5.5 > Maybe the next rulebook > reprinting should take things like this into account. It will preserve this until something better comes along, sure. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB6D0FD...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio <snip> > > > More, please clarify me a thing: > > am i allowed to "counter" with direct intervention an amaranth? > > Yes (card text). > > > or DI a RB in response of an amaranth ? > > Yes (card tex). > > > another meth could play a sudden reversal against that direct intervention? > > Yes (card text). > > > if yes, then your statement above is untrue > > No. > > > (there are effects that can be played during the diablerie process, > > not just during the referendum). > > Which? > The examples you give are not played during the diablerie process > (except maybe in response to cards played in the referendum). Let me point: amaranth is played, so we *are* on diablerie, ain't we? The fact that the DI can be played to cancel the amaranth means that the diablerie can be interrupted. Let me point further: when soul gem of etrius is supposed to work, with a vamp being "burned" by diablerie? "before" (?) the diablerie? after? And when one is supposed put the diablerized vampire on Pere Lachaise ? before ? after? Is a vampire allowed to play freak drive/cat's guidance when it has diablerized Nakova, when he/she goes to torpor suffering the 4 damage *after* the bh vote? You see, there's no a clear timing state, handling the diablerie thing as an (defective) "undvisible" unit. This is even more true considering that under the referendum we got plenty of interrupting effects, making the "undivisible" concept a very weak one, and an hard one to explain too. > > > > The bitter > > > > rose requires a "being burned" vampire, not a "burned" one. > > > > > > Right. So those would be played before diablerie. > > > > Indeed, is what i'm adressing to. > > That's what I've been saying. No, you stated that RoTBR is played *after* the bh, not before. > > > > Indeed, those three cards are worded in the logical way (being burned), > > > > it's the single unit rule that sounds still illogical, given the > > picture. > > > > > > Possibly illogical, depending on your POV. But necessary. > > > > Don't know what is POV, and the fact that was necessary is untrue. > > The RB/AtA interaction with RotBR would work fine the same > > that with this "single unit" hard-to-explain diablerie. > > Sorry for being too abbreviated. POV: point of view. > The RB problem with non-single-unit diablerie has already been described. > So far, i haven't seen any problem, other than the one concerning "how" RB would be "supposed" to work against the retain blood/equipment thing, that is, imho, a very weak point. <snip> > > > > > The Reformed vampire is "supposed" to keep his blood and equipment, > > > > > the real-WoD angle notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Supposed" ? > > > > Yes, but only under this "undivisible unit" diablerie. > > > > > > In all cases, actually. "supposed" refers to how the effect is > > > designed to behave. It works as it is "supposed" to under the > > > "indivisible" ruling. It doesn't under the "divisible" rule. > > > > > > > Given the diablerie in steps (as it is written on 6.5.5) > > > > makes just the reformed vampire in torpor with no blood > > > > (inferior) and, possibly, with no equipments left. > > > > That would be just fine. > > > > > > It might be, but it isn't how RF is "supposed" to work. > > > > Before the "atomized" (logic) diablerie, that has always been > > the right way to handle it, i think. > > No. [LSJ 24-FEB-1997], verified by the WotC Rules Team. > Ah, the old good WoC days..... Emiliano > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > The examples you give are not played during the diablerie process > > (except maybe in response to cards played in the referendum). > > Let me point: amaranth is played, so we *are* on diablerie, ain't we? If the Amaranth's effect is applied (i.e, if the play of the card is not canceled), yes. > The fact that the DI can be played to cancel the amaranth means > that the diablerie can be interrupted. No. Canceling Amaranth with DI means that the "diablerize the opposing vampire" effect doesn't happen. > Let me point further: > when soul gem of etrius is supposed to work, with a vamp > being "burned" by diablerie? > "before" (?) the diablerie? after? After. Before it cannot work, since he's not burned. > And when one is supposed put the diablerized vampire on Pere Lachaise ? > before ? > after? When the card (Pere) is played - during your master phase. > Is a vampire allowed to play freak drive/cat's guidance when it has > diablerized Nakova, when he/she goes to torpor suffering the 4 damage > *after* the bh vote? Yes. > You see, there's no a clear timing state, handling the diablerie thing as an > (defective) "undvisible" unit. There is. > This is even more true considering that under the referendum we got plenty > of interrupting effects, making the "undivisible" concept a very weak one, > and an hard one to explain too. The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, which means handling the referndum. > No, you stated that RoTBR is played *after* the bh, not before. Sorry. Right. It is played after. See the response to Joshua Duffin's post regarding the "being burned" text. > So far, i haven't seen any problem, other than the one concerning > "how" RB would be "supposed" to work against the retain blood/equipment > thing, that is, imho, a very weak point. It exists, weak or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB6E39E...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > Still no matter how much you state the diablery is unmodifiable, atmoic > > or indivisible, the fact is that certian game requirements do. > > The five steps of diablerie are indivisble. Come on, this statement is obviously untrue: even under your assuptions alone, step 5 is quite *divisible*, (by lot of effects) so, you could rule that step 1-4 are "somewhat" (still out of logic, imho) undivisible, but that 5 is not "atomic" at all. > The fifth step is handled as described in the rulebook, complete with > a full referendum that can have effects played within it as any other, > as stated. And that referendum, stated as a *part* of the diablerie, just deems the diablerie quite divisible. Emiliano > > --

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB8171E...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > The examples you give are not played during the diablerie process > > > (except maybe in response to cards played in the referendum). > > > > Let me point: amaranth is played, so we *are* on diablerie, ain't we? > > If the Amaranth's effect is applied (i.e, if the play of the card is > not canceled), yes. > > > The fact that the DI can be played to cancel the amaranth means > > that the diablerie can be interrupted. > > No. Canceling Amaranth with DI means that the "diablerize the > opposing vampire" effect doesn't happen. It was happening, and it is canceled. > > Let me point further: > > when soul gem of etrius is supposed to work, with a vamp > > being "burned" by diablerie? > > "before" (?) the diablerie? after? > > After. Before it cannot work, since he's not burned. Step 3: the diablerized vampire is burned. step 4 and 5 have nothing to do with 3. So, tell me where do you get the "after" "before" the burning (step 3). I'm supposed to check effect that triggers upon a specific event (step 3), and not to check them after (a lot) they have happened. Is still for this reason that i find this "undivisible" rule inconsistent, since it forces player to activate/check effects *after* the contingency has happened, and not *when* it happens. > > Is a vampire allowed to play freak drive/cat's guidance when it has > > diablerized Nakova, when he/she goes to torpor suffering the 4 damage > > *after* the bh vote? > > Yes. How? vampire in torpor cannot play AM o reactions, the "cached" 4 damage by nakova's ability should trigger as soon as the "indivisible" unit is over, and so if that makes the (diablerist) vampire in torpor, it cannot allow him/her to play a.m or reactions. > > You see, there's no a clear timing state, handling the diablerie thing as an > > (defective) "undvisible" unit. > > There is. There is, but it's very unclear. > > This is even more true considering that under the referendum we got plenty > > of interrupting effects, making the "undivisible" concept a very weak one, > > and an hard one to explain too. > > The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things > between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, > which means handling the referndum. which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. > > So far, i haven't seen any problem, other than the one concerning > > "how" RB would be "supposed" to work against the retain blood/equipment > > thing, that is, imho, a very weak point. > > It exists, weak or not. Then if weak points are allow to exist, then the game rule enivroment will be weak, and players will argue aganist it. This is just what it's happening here. Emiliano > --

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > [Re: "action is succesful"] > > > OK. I do not see that the phrase means that the action is ended. > > > I see the phrase as meaning that the action is not blocked and therefore > > > the effects of the action are to be applied. > > > > Well the rules say that a successful action is the end, since you apply > > effects at that point. > > Right. Not after that point. > > > 6.2.3 > > If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then > > the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action > > take place. > > > > What happens after the effects take place? Can you then further modify > > the action with a freak drive or other effects? > > Yes. (card text). I really have a problem with FD's card text. Are you sure the online version is correct? The point were all block attempts are unsuccessful should be adequate for play of freak drive, as well as further into the resolution of effects, or after. > > The action is apparently over once its been declared successful and you > > apply the effects. > > Yes. Although some cards say that they are played after the resolution > (after you apply the effects) but clearly must be played before the action > is over (before there is no more action left to modify). > Snip > Your text change is no change. What you perceive it allows is already > allowed by the current text. The whole paragraph that allows AM/R > to be played in the referendum would be unaffected - to be dropped > or kept equally with the current text or the changed text. It is a change, however its like saying you step into a room with your left foot and turn on the light, or you step into the room and turn on the light. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > > Ah, the old good WoC days..... > Its hard to acceept the term 'good' in the same sentance as WoTC. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > After you build a ship, you can sail it. That doesn't mean > you can sail it before it is finished being built. > Actually it depends on the ship. Some are simple enough or compartmentalized enough that partial completion is adequate for a outting. But basically, you don't want to since you make it unsafe. Now if you have a suicide thing going... Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct, but would that make it any less powerful of a card? And to clarify. I don't mean to imply that the card could not further be played later in th action, or at the end of the action. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > 6.2.3 > > > If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then > > > the cost of the action is paid, and the effects of the successful action > > > take place. > > > > > > What happens after the effects take place? Can you then further modify > > > the action with a freak drive or other effects? > > > > Yes. (card text). > > I really have a problem with FD's card text. Are you sure the online > version is correct? Yes: "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > The point were all block attempts are unsuccessful should be adequate > for play of freak drive, as well as further into the resolution of > effects, or after. No. You play it after it is performed, not merely after it has been deemed successful. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > Let me point: amaranth is played, so we *are* on diablerie, ain't we? > > > > If the Amaranth's effect is applied (i.e, if the play of the card is > > not canceled), yes. > > > > > The fact that the DI can be played to cancel the amaranth means > > > that the diablerie can be interrupted. > > > > No. Canceling Amaranth with DI means that the "diablerize the > > opposing vampire" effect doesn't happen. > > It was happening, and it is canceled. OK. > > > Let me point further: > > > when soul gem of etrius is supposed to work, with a vamp > > > being "burned" by diablerie? > > > "before" (?) the diablerie? after? > > > > After. Before it cannot work, since he's not burned. > > Step 3: the diablerized vampire is burned. > step 4 and 5 have nothing to do with 3. They are part of diablerie, as 3 is. > So, tell me where do you get the "after" "before" the burning (step 3). > I'm supposed to check effect that triggers upon a specific > event (step 3), and not to check them after (a lot) they have happened. The diablerie is what burns the vampire. You play stuff that happens before he burns before he burns (before the diablerie). You play stuff that happens after after. > > > Is a vampire allowed to play freak drive/cat's guidance when it has > > > diablerized Nakova, when he/she goes to torpor suffering the 4 damage > > > *after* the bh vote? > > > > Yes. > > How? vampire in torpor cannot play AM o reactions, the "cached" 4 damage > by nakova's ability should trigger as soon as the "indivisible" unit is > over, and so if that makes > the (diablerist) vampire in torpor, it cannot allow him/her to play a.m or > reactions. Acting vampires in torpor can play modifiers. You're right, Cat's Guidance cannot be played from torpor. Didn't realize you had switched topics on me there. > > The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things > > between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, > > which means handling the referndum. > > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. Do not confuse the inability to squeeze outside effects in between steps with the handling of each step. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Isn't that say, force of will???:)

LSJ wrote: > > I really have a problem with FD's card text. Are you sure the online > > version is correct? > > Yes: "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that > is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > > > The point were all block attempts are unsuccessful should be adequate > > for play of freak drive, as well as further into the resolution of > > effects, or after. > > No. You play it after it is performed, not merely after it has been deemed > successful. So your saying that there is no point between being unseccessfully blocked and the resolution of a successful action? And if no, why could not FD be allowed to interact during both points as per its card text. This would only extent the time when its played a small fraction, and as far as i can see, have no significant game change other that allowing some cards to work more in line with the printed text, than the current situation allows. If Yes, why has resolution and success of an action become intermingles with the unsuccessfully blocked phrase. Its almost like you have determined that these two are indivisible, especially since one happens without interuption with the other. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > > The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things > > between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, > > which means handling the referndum. > > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. Correct, what we could use is a official statment to the effect that Diablery is not indivisible. It can be modified, slightly, by other effects. Its just that LSJ has got in a rut and has not found a proper term to apply to diablery to state that the effects are mostly indivisible. Websters anyone? Raille

LSJ wrote: > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. > > Do not confuse the inability to squeeze outside effects in between steps > with the handling of each step. > So if your squeezing effects in, then that section becomes modified, or as some would say, divisible. Thats the crux of the problem, you continue to state the diablery is indivisible, then tell us that you can play outside effects to change the outcome of the diablery and blood hunt. The argument continues due in part, to the effects you state in one post that its indivisible, then in the next say you can effect it by X, in X situation. Consistance is the key here. No one has any problem with the actual game play, we just need a consistant termanology onhow to arrive at the desired effects. Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that > > is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > > You play it after it is performed, not merely after it has been deemed > > successful. > > So your saying that there is no point between being unseccessfully > blocked and the resolution of a successful action? No. I'm saying that effects which say they are done after the action is performed are done after the action is performed, i.e., after the effects of the action are resolved. > And if no, why could not FD be allowed to interact during both points as > per its card text. This would only extent the time when its played a Because its card text says so. > small fraction, and as far as i can see, have no significant game change > other that allowing some cards to work more in line with the printed > text, than the current situation allows. The current situation follows card text. Your proposal would be a digression from working in line with the printed text. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CB8481B...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > Let me point: amaranth is played, so we *are* on diablerie, ain't we? > > > > > > If the Amaranth's effect is applied (i.e, if the play of the card is > > > not canceled), yes. > > > > > > > The fact that the DI can be played to cancel the amaranth means > > > > that the diablerie can be interrupted. > > > > > > No. Canceling Amaranth with DI means that the "diablerize the > > > opposing vampire" effect doesn't happen. > > > > It was happening, and it is canceled. > > OK. Ok? if it is ok, then it was happening, and to be canceled it needs to be interrupted, and that makes the diablerie "interruptable" > > > > > Let me point further: > > > > when soul gem of etrius is supposed to work, with a vamp > > > > being "burned" by diablerie? > > > > "before" (?) the diablerie? after? > > > > > > After. Before it cannot work, since he's not burned. > > > > Step 3: the diablerized vampire is burned. > > step 4 and 5 have nothing to do with 3. > > They are part of diablerie, as 3 is. > As the choose strike step is part of the combat, but not for that reason you plays the maneuvers during it. > > So, tell me where do you get the "after" "before" the burning (step 3). > > I'm supposed to check effect that triggers upon a specific > > event (step 3), and not to check them after (a lot) they have happened. > > The diablerie is what burns the vampire. You play stuff that happens > before he burns before he burns (before the diablerie). You play stuff > that happens after after. I can't see how this can be taken as a good point: is just the step 3 of diablerie gets the (victim) vampire burned. Not the 1, 2, 4,5, not before, not thereafter. We do not "burn" the vampire during step 4, or 5, nor we burn it thereafter. If an effect triggers upon the "burning", then it should triggers upon the appropriate time segment (the burning); disallowing such timing concept for defending a poor rule is not a good idea. > > > > Is a vampire allowed to play freak drive/cat's guidance when it has > > > > diablerized Nakova, when he/she goes to torpor suffering the 4 damage > > > > *after* the bh vote? > > > > > > Yes. > > <snip about am/reaction timing> > > > The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things > > > between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, > > > which means handling the referndum. > > > > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. > > Do not confuse the inability to squeeze outside effects in between steps > with the handling of each step. Indeed, i'm not confusing, i just want to play effects that check for the "burning" when actual X burns, not before, not thereafter. The inability you speak is sprouting from this "undivisible" diablerie concept, but it is pretty detrimental to the general rule enviroment, whereas we need precise timing steps to make cards effects fit into them, not the contrary (cards dictiting their own sub-specialized-rule and changing the general rule concept). Emiliano > --

[ quoted text not captured ] Effects are playable during the referendum because that's how referendums work. Each step is resolved by resolving the step. In the case of step 5, that involves conducting the referendum. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm "in a rut" because the same question/point keeps getting asked/made over and over again. As I've said, the steps are indivisible. The referendum is handled as the rules say it is. (I did manage to get out of trying to extend the indivisibility partways into the referendum, so that's a rut that I'm out of, but that you still seem to be in.) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CB753D5...@white-wolf.com>... > Raille wrote: > > In this manner anyone interested enough to start questioning the rules, > > could be pointed to the "Tome of enternal Knowledge" > > Grognards this way: http://www.vtesinla.org/outline.htm > > (Note that the original text file has been partially HTMLized, but > that the conversion is not complete. Also, the outline itself is > very old, and may need some updating. If anyone finds any errors > in it, please let me know so it can be updated.) I think that the following edits need to be made: In section I there are sub-sections A, B, C, D, G, H? Section II.A.1, I believe, has been clarified to mean "Untap *all* cards you control. Unless some effect is preventing the untap, eg Infernal." Section II.A.3.c has been mis-edited to become part of II.A.3.b.iii. Section II.C, it is not clear to me, by the sentence: "[6.5.2] NOTE: Any time one of your vampires is ready during your minion phase and has no blood and is not prevented from hunting, he must hunt immediately." what happens if the minion has no blood and *is* prevented from hunting, eg by NRA. Section II.C.1, should read "Note: *Your* bleed actions...", perhaps a comment should also be made that the (D) on bleed action cards is reminder text of this fact, only. Section II.C.8.b, state that the method of payment for the action needs to be announced with the action. Should the note at the end of Section II "NOTE: Only one out-of-turn master card may be played in lieu of a Master Phase Action in your next master phase." read "...in lieu of *each* Master Phase Action..."? I'm not sure what the ruling is on this. Section III.F.1, are definitions of action type required here? Section IV.D specify when "during press step" effects are applied, eg Dagon's Call. To borrow contentious terms: are "press step", "damage resolution", "determine blockers", "resolve diablerie" etc all atomic? If so, could some general rulings be made about the timing of "During X" type-cards when X is an atom. Section VI is not too clear on aggravated damage. Perhaps, it should be explicitly stated that the first point sends a vampire to torpor (if not already there?) subsequent points burn either blood or the vampire. Generally, could examples be included? Perhaps, a companion document of examples. * lehrbuch

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > > > > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. > > > > > > Do not confuse the inability to squeeze outside effects in between steps > > > with the handling of each step. > > > > > > > So if your squeezing effects in, then that section becomes modified, or > > as some would say, divisible. > > > > Thats the crux of the problem, you continue to state the diablery is > > indivisible, then tell us that you can play outside effects to change > > the outcome of the diablery and blood hunt. > > > > The argument continues due in part, to the effects you state in one post > > that its indivisible, then in the next say you can effect it by X, in X > > situation. > > > > Consistance is the key here. No one has any problem with the actual > > game play, we just need a consistant termanology onhow to arrive at the > > desired effects. > > Effects are playable during the referendum because that's how referendums > work. > > Each step is resolved by resolving the step. In the case of step 5, that > involves conducting the referendum. And I agree. Its just the minor point that to a limited degree, diablery is interuptable. As such you can not in good faith continue to insist that the diablery is indivisible. See the ruling on Cam. Segregation. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that > > > is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > > > You play it after it is performed, not merely after it has been deemed > > > successful. > > > > So your saying that there is no point between being unseccessfully > > blocked and the resolution of a successful action? > > No. I'm saying that effects which say they are done after the action > is performed are done after the action is performed, i.e., after the > effects of the action are resolved. > > > And if no, why could not FD be allowed to interact during both points as > > per its card text. This would only extent the time when its played a > > Because its card text says so. > > > small fraction, and as far as i can see, have no significant game change > > other that allowing some cards to work more in line with the printed > > text, than the current situation allows. > > The current situation follows card text. Your proposal would be a digression > from working in line with the printed text. > Did you read the text on Freak drive lately?? It refers to a unblocked action not a succesful action. Since you already ruled that a vampire can burn themself to the Cam Seg, prior to resolving a succesful action, there is a point where you have been unblocked and can burn at your option, you could also play a freak drive at this point also. So you can have a unblocked action which is not succesful since the minion is no longer with us. Unblocked does not mean succesful. Please read your rules and card text. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > > > The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things > > > > between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, > > > > which means handling the referndum. > > > > > > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > > > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. > > > > Correct, what we could use is a official statment to the effect that > > Diablery is not > > indivisible. It can be modified, slightly, by other effects. > > > > Its just that LSJ has got in a rut and has not found a proper term to > > apply > > to diablery to state that the effects are mostly indivisible. > > I'm "in a rut" because the same question/point keeps getting asked/made > over and over again. > > As I've said, the steps are indivisible. The referendum is handled as the > rules say it is. (I did manage to get out of trying to extend the > indivisibility partways into the referendum, so that's a rut that I'm > out of, but that you still seem to be in.) I'm starting to get out of it. Really. I just have to ignore the extreamly minor corner case representation and just play the game. Raille

lehrbuch wrote: > > Generally, could examples be included? Perhaps, a companion document > of examples. Darn and I have not had time to read through this yet. Raille

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 21:43:15 -0400, Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote: > > > >Did you read the text on Freak drive lately?? > >It refers to a unblocked action not a succesful action. > >Since you already ruled that a vampire can burn themself to the Cam Seg, >prior to resolving a succesful action, there is a point where you have >been unblocked and can burn at your option, you could also play a freak >drive at this point also. > Sure you could, and the freak drive would untap you at that point, so if youd like to play it there, and then tap when blocked, or tap when the action resolves, feel free. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Freak Drive is playable after the action is performed (card text, as belabored already). Just because it is only playable on an unlocked action (after that successful action is performed) doesn't mean it is playable immediately upon determining that the action is successful. Trying to wiggle in some corner-cases for fizzled actions (which are unblocked but then not resolved at all for some reason, like having no acting minion around or not being able to pay the cost) is not going to change the fact that FD is played after the action is performed, although it does illustrate that some actions can be unblocked and still not resolve (so not be successful). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CBA11D2...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > > > The steps of the diablerie are uninterruptable. You can't insert things > > > > between them. The steps are handled as described in the rules, however, > > > > which means handling the referndum. > > > > > > which means that step 5 is quite divisible, and being it part of the > > > diablerie makes the diablerie itself quite divisible. > > > > Correct, what we could use is a official statment to the effect that > > Diablery is not > > indivisible. It can be modified, slightly, by other effects. > > > > Its just that LSJ has got in a rut and has not found a proper term to > > apply > > to diablery to state that the effects are mostly indivisible. > > I'm "in a rut" because the same question/point keeps getting asked/made > over and over again. If this starts over and over again, it means that the point the "undivisible" rule makes is weak. > > As I've said, the steps are indivisible. The referendum is handled as the > rules say it is. And nowhere in the rule, originally, stated that diablerie steps 1-4 are undivisible. Then, we have just to take this "undivisible" point since is a "LSJ say so" point. Still a weak one, sorry. Emiliano > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > If this starts over and over again, it means that the point the > "undivisible" rule makes is weak. So you say. The point, however weak, is necessary, as previous stated (and restated again and again). > And nowhere in the rule, originally, stated that diablerie steps 1-4 are > undivisible. Right. This has been covered, again and again. > Then, we have just to take this "undivisible" point since is a "LSJ say so" > point. > Still a weak one, sorry. Still necessary, sorry. -- 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/

"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Enzu8.36832$SR5.9...@twister1.libero.it... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3CBA11D2...@white-wolf.com... > > I'm "in a rut" because the same question/point keeps getting asked/made > > over and over again. > > If this starts over and over again, it means that the point the > "undivisible" rule makes is weak. Or that the people arguing aren't willing to stop. :-) > > As I've said, the steps are indivisible. The referendum is handled as the > > rules say it is. > > And nowhere in the rule, originally, stated that diablerie steps 1-4 are > undivisible. > Then, we have just to take this "undivisible" point since is a "LSJ say so" > point. Of course it is. That's what makes it a 'ruling' and not a 'rule in the rulebook'. The ruling was made, mainly, because LSJ would rather have a ruling to this effect than new errata to Reform Body. Is this impossible to understand, or do you just not like it? And if you don't like it, what do you think would be better? Josh the neverending story

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:a9f4s3$2p00q$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Enzu8.36832$SR5.9...@twister1.libero.it... > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3CBA11D2...@white-wolf.com... > > > > I'm "in a rut" because the same question/point keeps getting asked/made > > > over and over again. > > > > If this starts over and over again, it means that the point the > > "undivisible" rule makes is weak. > > Or that the people arguing aren't willing to stop. :-) > > > > As I've said, the steps are indivisible. The referendum is handled as > the > > > rules say it is. > > > > And nowhere in the rule, originally, stated that diablerie steps 1-4 are > > undivisible. > > Then, we have just to take this "undivisible" point since is a "LSJ say > so" > > point. > > Of course it is. That's what makes it a 'ruling' and not a > 'rule in the rulebook'. > That's has been deemed a pretty weak ruling, nonetheless. > The ruling was made, mainly, because LSJ would rather have > a ruling to this effect than new errata to Reform Body. > Ah, thanks; then, to not errating a single cards, we change an entire sequence handlings logic. Nice. > Is this impossible to understand, or do you just not like it? I understand enough, and i don't like the consequences it produces, that's all. > And if you don't like it, what do you think would be better? > Read the thread, i already gave my opinion about: there would be no problem getting a "divisible" (1-4) diablerie. Just a RB vs RotBR timing. Ciao Emiliano <snip>

"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mZEu8.40334$m41.1...@twister2.libero.it... > > That's has been deemed a pretty weak ruling, nonetheless. Well, I outlined my suggestion too, but I don't expect it could be implemented before a new printing of the rulebook. (I'd like to see the current steps 1-3 condensed into one step, 4 becomes 2, 5 becomes 3, "outside" effects are allowed between 1, 2, and 3. The only really noticeable effect currently would be that Ritual of the Bitter Rose would be playable before surviving the blood hunt referendum.) > Ah, thanks; then, > to not errating a single cards, we change > an entire sequence handlings logic. > Nice. The sequence matters when, besides the few specific cards we've been talking about? The Nakova/Freak Drive/Cat's Guidance case would be exactly the same if diablerie were divisible as it is now, wouldn't it? Besides that, errata is considered 'worse' than rulings under the current regime. Players have consistently complained about errata (especially errata that hasn't been and isn't likely to be put in print via reprints) to existing cards. > I understand enough, and i don't like the consequences > it produces, that's all. Well, I sort of agree. But I don't think there's much to be done about it now. The logic of the current ruling isn't any worse than the logic of "divisible" diablerie, and so there aren't really any holes that can be poked in it. Not liking the way it changes a card isn't enough reason to "go back" I guess. (Apparently RotBR doesn't get the consideration of "intended to be used even if not surviving the blood hunt" that RB does for "intended to preserve blood and equipment.") Josh ch ch changes

rai...@spamcop.net writes: >Thats the crux of the problem, you continue to state the diablery is >indivisible, then tell us that you can play outside effects to change >the outcome of the diablery and blood hunt. Indivisible means the components cannot be separated from one another, and that effects cannot be played inbetween the components. You can modify the components, and *of course* if one of the components includes the possibility of sub-events those sub-events don't "divide" the component. Playing vote modifiers in the middle of a referendum doesn't "divide" it, and since other effects are in general allowable, they don't either. IMO for sensible behavior of RotBR the bloodhunt *should* be divided from the rest of the diablerie. That's the intuitive understanding anyway. It is, technically a rules change although I don't think it's incompatibly with the current printed rules. If RotBR modified the blood transfer I wouldn't consider it "interrupting" the diablerie either. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:a9f9bh$2nmt5$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:mZEu8.40334$m41.1...@twister2.libero.it... > > > > > That's has been deemed a pretty weak ruling, nonetheless. > > Well, I outlined my suggestion too, but I don't expect it > could be implemented before a new printing of the rulebook. > (I'd like to see the current steps 1-3 condensed into one > step, 4 becomes 2, 5 becomes 3, "outside" effects are allowed > between 1, 2, and 3. The only really noticeable effect > currently would be that Ritual of the Bitter Rose would be > playable before surviving the blood hunt referendum.) > > > Ah, thanks; then, > > to not errating a single cards, we change > > an entire sequence handlings logic. > > Nice. > > The sequence matters when, besides the few specific cards we've > been talking about? The Nakova/Freak Drive/Cat's Guidance > case would be exactly the same if diablerie were divisible as > it is now, wouldn't it? No, Nakova damage, Etrius'soul gem, Husamettin abilities and the like (effects triggering upon the burning of a vamp) would occour *during" step 3, that is, the *actual* burning, not after step 5 (that is, pretty after the burning). > > Besides that, errata is considered 'worse' than rulings under > the current regime. It is worse because it advocates an "undivisible" unit logic, that become "divisible" at some point (step 5), thus producing a "demi-undivisible" thing, hard to explain to new players. > Players have consistently complained about > errata (especially errata that hasn't been and isn't likely to > be put in print via reprints) to existing cards. > I agree. But players complain also about general rules change, when they make things more unclear and not clearer. -ok, i'm going to have my "tajdid" diablerizing husamettin to get two master cards at once :-) - -no, you take one right now, and the other after the BH referendum- -uh, why?- -sorry, that's the way "undivisible" unlife goes- > > I understand enough, and i don't like the consequences > > it produces, that's all. > > Well, I sort of agree. But I don't think there's much to be > done about it now. I see...:| Ciao Emiliano <snip>

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > > Freak Drive is playable after the action is performed (card text, as > belabored already). I'm totally confused as to how you cannot see the point. Point is the card text does not and should be changed, errata'd or ruled to take effect with a broader time frame. > Just because it is only playable on an unlocked action (after that > successful action is performed) doesn't mean it is playable > immediately upon determining that the action is successful. Understood. > Trying to wiggle in some corner-cases for fizzled actions (which > are unblocked but then not resolved at all for some reason, > like having no acting minion around or not being able to pay the > cost) is not going to change the fact that FD is played after the > action is performed, although it does illustrate that some > actions can be unblocked and still not resolve (so not be successful). I really don't care about any corner case. Just a touch more consistancy. Things like "We always do it that way" do not make good argument. Raille

tetragrammaton wrote: > And nowhere in the rule, originally, stated that diablerie steps 1-4 are > undivisible. > Then, we have just to take this "undivisible" point since is a "LSJ say so" > point. > Still a weak one, sorry. Agreed. Perhaps LSJ has a fear of failure responce that keeps him from acknowledging this. Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Of course it is. That's what makes it a 'ruling' and not a > 'rule in the rulebook'. > > The ruling was made, mainly, because LSJ would rather have > a ruling to this effect than new errata to Reform Body. > > Is this impossible to understand, or do you just not like it? > And if you don't like it, what do you think would be better? Tough call. More rulings to add to the tome of rulings I already have, or more errate, which I already have too much as it is. Dilemma's, dilemma's. I guess the rulings are the lessor of two evils, effect the flow of game less than the changing of card text. Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Besides that, errata is considered 'worse' than rulings under > the current regime. Players have consistently complained about > errata (especially errata that hasn't been and isn't likely to > be put in print via reprints) to existing cards. I, and a whole bunch of people from Michigan, agree. > Josh > > ch ch changes :) Raille

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Raille wrote: > > "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that > is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > > > > > Freak Drive is playable after the action is performed (card text, as > > belabored already). > > I'm totally confused as to how you cannot see the point. Likewise. FD states quite plainly when it is to be played. Noting what type of action is can be played on doesn't change that. > Point is the card text does not and should be changed, errata'd or ruled > to take effect with a broader time frame. I don't understand "does not and should be" Are you asking for errata or stating that no errata should be issued. If the latter, I agree, which is why it's not playable at a time before it says it is. > > Just because it is only playable on an unlocked action (after that > > successful action is performed) doesn't mean it is playable > > immediately upon determining that the action is successful. > > Understood. Great, so why do you keep arguing otherwise? > > Trying to wiggle in some corner-cases for fizzled actions (which > > are unblocked but then not resolved at all for some reason, > > like having no acting minion around or not being able to pay the > > cost) is not going to change the fact that FD is played after the > > action is performed, although it does illustrate that some > > actions can be unblocked and still not resolve (so not be successful). > > I really don't care about any corner case. Just a touch more > consistancy. Things like "We always do it that way" do not make good > argument. Good thing I'm not using that argument here then. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > No, Nakova damage, Etrius'soul gem, Husamettin abilities and the like > (effects triggering upon the burning of a vamp) would occour > *during" step 3, that is, the *actual* burning, not after step 5 (that is, > pretty after > the burning). No. They trigger on the burning, which occurs when he's diablerizes (not before), so the effects occur after the diablerie (since they cannot interrupt it). > > Besides that, errata is considered 'worse' than rulings under > > the current regime. > > It is worse because it advocates an "undivisible" unit logic, > that become "divisible" at some point (step 5), thus > producing a "demi-undivisible" thing, hard to explain to new > players. Making it hard to explain will do that, yeah. So try the real rules: The steps of diablerie are handled as a unit (the diablerie) - other effects cannot be played between them. The individual steps are handled as described in the rulebook (including the referendum step). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry to see you've been skipping posts. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3CBBFC60...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > No, Nakova damage, Etrius'soul gem, Husamettin abilities and the like > > (effects triggering upon the burning of a vamp) would occour > > *during" step 3, that is, the *actual* burning, not after step 5 (that is, > > pretty after > > the burning). > > No. They trigger on the burning, which occurs when he's diablerizes > (not before), so the effects occur after the diablerie (since they > cannot interrupt it). I think that is hard to say that an effect triggers during 3, but is resolved after 5..... but, anyway, you insist on that (illogical, though official) point, so be it. Anyway, i was answering to Joshua's statement just picturing how would be the functionality of "burning" effects during a "divisible" diablerie, i was not trying to give any " current ruling says so" answer. Btw, Aziz, dammar of instabul's ability is another one fired by the "indivisibility" of the diablerie, is right? Emiliano <snip> > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > Btw, Aziz, dammar of instabul's ability is another one > fired by the "indivisibility" of the diablerie, is right? No idea what fired means in this context. Since he cannot diablerize, the question is largely moot (unless a Tajdid is played), but yes, he follows the same rules as everything else does. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > Raille wrote: > > > > "Only usable immediately after this vampire performs an action that > > is not blocked. Untap this vampire." is correct. > > > > > > > > Freak Drive is playable after the action is performed (card text, as > > > belabored already). > > > > I'm totally confused as to how you cannot see the point. > > Likewise. > > FD states quite plainly when it is to be played. > Noting what type of action is can be played on doesn't change that. > > > Point is the card text does not and should be changed, errata'd or ruled > > to take effect with a broader time frame. > > I don't understand "does not and should be" > Are you asking for errata or stating that no errata should be issued. > If the latter, I agree, which is why it's not playable at a time > before it says it is. Sentence should have read: Point is, the card text does not. It should be changed, errata'd or ruled to take effect with a broader time frame. > > > Just because it is only playable on an unlocked action (after that > > > successful action is performed) doesn't mean it is playable > > > immediately upon determining that the action is successful. > > > > Understood. > > Great, so why do you keep arguing otherwise? For consistancy. Just cause its always been done that way does nto make it right. Basic point of contention. Card describes it being played after an action is unblocked. Rules do not indicated that a action is unblocked after it is resolved. In the attempt to reduce rulings, clarification and such. The card should be allowed to be played at any point from: Unblocked but not resolved through the end of the action. (point where you start a new one or end the minion phase)

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > And nowhere in the rule, originally, stated that diablerie steps 1-4 are > > > undivisible. > > > Then, we have just to take this "undivisible" point since is a "LSJ say so" > > > point. > > > Still a weak one, sorry. > > > > Agreed. > > > > Perhaps LSJ has a fear of failure responce that keeps him from > > acknowledging this. > > Sorry to see you've been skipping posts. No skipping, just had a bad morning typing. ref: Perhaps LSJ has a 'fear of failure' responce, that keeps him from acknowledging this. I think thatss what I meant. Or something like that. raille