KoT card questions for LSJ (because they're officially released today)

OK, so here's a collection of a few questions I have come up with about KoT cards. Presumably, LSJ hasn't answered any of them yet because the set wasn't officially released yet. But today is the release date... So, here's what I can remember: 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card, will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are cards that only conditionally cancel other cards? (I also asked this question in the Promos thread) 2a) Vidal - What is a definitive list of "non-infernal vampire traits" that he can fake? Beyond Anarch, Black Hand, Seraph, and Inquisitor, it gets a little bit hazy. As mentioned by James, even Red List is questionable because allies can have that trait. 2b) I know I promised not to ask this one, but I can't resist. According to his card text, Vidal can only meet a given requirement once per game. Does that include cards for which he "naturally" meets the requirements? (i.e. if he plays Majesty once, he can never play a presence card again for the rest of the game) 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her? Some examples: a) If Unmasking is in play, do allies get +1 intercept against her? b) If Fall of the Camarilla is played, does her Prince-ness make her immune to it, or does its "There is no Camarilla" make her not a Prince? c) If Recalled to the Founder is in play, can you control Karen and _two_ other Brujah without burning one of them? ... 4) Heroic Might [sup] - Does the 2R strike count as a "strike that requires Potence", for purposes of Increased Strength? (Precedent: Improvised Tactics' strike _does_ count) 5) Coterie Tactics - ugh, Coterie Tactics. a) How does this work against Block Fails cards? "That minion cannot attempt to block this action again." Does that stop both of the Coterie from attempting to block again? b) How does this work against Kiss of Ra? i) ..if neither of the Coterie has Fortitude? ii) .. if one of the Coterie has Fortitude and the other doesn't? c) If 2 anarchs are attempting to block a Fiendish Tongue action with Coterie Tactics, do they get -1 intercept *each* (for a total of -2), or just -1 for the block? ... 6) New Madness Network/Ankou/Enkil Cog This has already been answered to me unofficially, but I'm looking for an official answer to be posted: Does the new wording of Madness Network get rid of the point of the minion phase where you are "finished with your actions"? (that is, does it get rid of the Empty Vampire with Rutor's Hand loophole?) That's it for now..

After constantly refreshing, this page seems to finally be up: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_KeepersofTradition Some of my questions from the parent post, including ones with "clarifications" on the page, are still not completely answered. So I'm hoping LSJ will address them. I'm also now interested in the full repercussions of the re-definition of (D) actions...... but I need some time to think about questions that break it. (Except one: Are Political Actions always undirected? I think the answer is yes)

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > I'm also now interested in the full repercussions of the re-definition of > (D) actions...... but I need some time to think about questions that break it. > (Except one: Are Political Actions always undirected? I think the answer is yes) OK here's one set of questions about this that might answer most situations other than the most obscure case-by-case situations: I control Jaroslav. My prey controls Moncada. Jaroslav takes his action to do 1 damage to all my prey's Sabbat vampires. This action now costs a pool. Correct? Now assume the above, but Moncada has a Secure Haven. Jaroslav's action does not hurt Moncada and no longer costs a pool. Correct? Also: Can an action now change from Directed to Undirected (or vice versa) between announcement and resolution? For example: I control Jake Washington and Midget. My prey controls an Underbridge Stray and Stick, who is tapped. There are no other allies on the table. Midget attempts the superior Wave of Insanity action. It is now Directed, because my prey controls an ally. My prey burns the Underbridge Stray to untap Stick and attempt to block. Since nobody has any allies except me now, is the action now Undirected?

I can't view the checklist page currently, so I am not sure what is discussed there. On Nov 19, 3:14 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > OK, so here's a collection of a few questions I have come up with about KoT > cards. Presumably, LSJ hasn't answered any of them yet because the set > wasn't officially released yet. But today is the release date... > > So, here's what I can remember: > > 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card, > will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are > cards that only conditionally cancel other cards? > (I also asked this question in the Promos thread) Two Wrongs doesn't cancel a minion card as it is played. It could do so later on, once in play, but then it doesn't satisfy the Dark Influences text. I think if Botched Move's effect happens, then it would then be cancelled, but a clarification would also be good. Also, there was the long discussion on what it meant by "The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played" that should perhaps get an official clarification, since there seemed to be two strong camps for reading it in different ways. Does "another Methuselah" in this case mean "other than the Methuselah who played DI2", or simply clarifying the type of cancelling card being played? > 2a) Vidal - What is a definitive list of "non-infernal vampire traits" that > he can fake? Beyond Anarch, Black Hand, Seraph, and Inquisitor, it gets > a little bit hazy. As mentioned by James, even Red List is questionable > because allies can have that trait. > > 2b) I know I promised not to ask this one, but I can't resist. > According to his card text, Vidal can only meet a given requirement once > per game. Does that include cards for which he "naturally" meets the > requirements? (i.e. if he plays Majesty once, he can never play a > presence card again for the rest of the game) His text says "can", so that would mean he doesn't have to use his ability to satisfy requirements if he can do so in other ways (i.e. playing Toreador cards, or becoming Anarch and using Anarch cards). Plus his ability won't let him use Discipline cards of disciplines he does not possess. > 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her? > Some examples: > a) If Unmasking is in play, do allies get +1 intercept against her? Unmasking affects allies, not Karen. > b) If Fall of the Camarilla is played, does her Prince-ness make her > immune to it, or does its "There is no Camarilla" make her not a Prince? Hmm ... An interesting one. It would seem to me that there being no more Camarilla means she is no longer a Prince, and thus her ability cannot protect her to keep her title, since the ability wouldn't nullify the "There is no Camarilla" global effect in the first place. > c) If Recalled to the Founder is in play, can you control Karen and _two_ > other Brujah without burning one of them? This sounds right, much like Secure Haven can protect a minion from mass effects like you mention above. > 4) Heroic Might [sup] - Does the 2R strike count as a "strike that requires > Potence", for purposes of Increased Strength? (Precedent: Improvised > Tactics' strike _does_ count) The strike comes from a card requiring Potence, so it would be a strike that requires Potence. > 5) Coterie Tactics - ugh, Coterie Tactics. > a) How does this work against Block Fails cards? "That minion cannot attempt > to block this action again." Does that stop both of the Coterie from > attempting to block again? > b) How does this work against Kiss of Ra? > i) ..if neither of the Coterie has Fortitude? > ii) .. if one of the Coterie has Fortitude and the other doesn't? > c) If 2 anarchs are attempting to block a Fiendish Tongue action with > Coterie Tactics, do they get -1 intercept *each* (for a total of -2), or > just -1 for the block? I like Coterie Tactics, but yes, your examples prove that there will be a lot of strange interactions. CT states that both minions are attempting to block, so it would seem that each would have to be dealth with separately. For Block Fails, that would seem to prevent one from blocking, and remove their intercept from the pool of intercept granted by CT. But then, if the remaining blocking minion still blocks, card text seems to indicate you would still tap both, and be able to choose the failed blocker as the actual blocker. For Kiss of Ra, I think it would be just as the card states. You couldn't use it if one of the blocking vampires had Fortitude. But if both didn't, then they'd both burn 2 blood and go to Torpor ... ouch. Fiendish Tongue et al. CT sums the two intercept values of each vampire ... so since both are blocking, both get -1 intercept (if Anarch), and so the overall intercept would get -2. Hmm, perhaps - intercept will start becoming the new +stealth ... Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 19, 12:59 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And yet, minions without Potence can play the strike (for instance, if they got the Heroic Might while previously holding a Hand of Conrad or Eye of Hazimel.) Accordingly, I'd think the strike would not count as requiring Potence, since, well, it doesn't require Potence to make the strike. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] It is a potence card. It allows a strike. It is thus a strike allowed by a potence card. Thus a potence strike.

In article <gg0se9$879$1...@aioe.org>, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card, > will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are > cards that only conditionally cancel other cards? > (I also asked this question in the Promos thread) And then, 'cause the card actually exists now, when Dark Influences is in play, does it: A) Cancel the next card that cancels a card played by another methuselah regardless of whose card is being cancelled? B) Cancel the next card that cancels a card played by another methuselah that targets someone *other* than the person who put the Dark Influence in play? Thanks, Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I think Josh has the better explanation already - given the established precedences (Improvised Tactics counts as requiring Potence and Ablative Skin counts as requiring Fortitude), it'd definitely count as a strike requiring Potence. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] How is his explanation any different, logically, from mine? mine is just smaller steps, one at a time.... And the precedence follows exactly the same logic too.

[ quoted text not captured ] Logically, it's not different; however, it is more credible when directly tied to a previous ruling (instead of coincidentally following the same logic as that previous ruling without mentioning it.) Also, yours talks about 'allowed by a potence card' which is a little imprecise language; there's an admittedly nitpicky difference between 'allowed by potence' and 'requires potence', but the latter is the wording the card/rules use and your wording isn't. But that difference is that 'this strike requires potence' is exactly what Increased Strength is looking for; 'this strike is allowed by Potence' is not so explicitly identical. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, if you want to nitpick, fine. What i truly said was the following at most basic level: 1 Card requires Pot 2 Card allows a strike 3 Strike is Pot strike. But English is not Logic. It's a conversational language. So when you break it into little chunks, it gets messy. IF X allows Y, and Y cannot happen without X, then Y requires X. Make sense? Yes I could have happily quoted previous ruling. But that means I would not have to actually think it out for myself then, would I?

[ quoted text not captured ] Here's the super nitpicky, "this certainly beats working" reply: I guess the real answer is "your explanation skips logic steps for the sake of making them smaller"; The key difference is that your shortened version assumes that 'just because a strike is allowed by a card that required a discipline in the past to play, it therefore counts as requiring it to use the strike now, even if you are not able to meet that requirement now' which does not necessarily logically follow without the previous ruling from LSJ about that case. yours -could- follow these steps (to be logically complete): 1) It (Heroic Might) is a Potence card. 2) It allows a strike. 3) It is not actively being played. 4) LSJ has established that cards not actively being played still count as 'requiring' the discipline when used (ref. Improvised Tactics and Ablative Skin) 5) Per 1) and 2), it is thus a strike allowed by Potence. 6) "allowed by Potence" is the same as 'requiring Potence'. 7) per 4) and 6), it counts as 'a strike requiring Potence'. 8) Since Increased Strength triggers on 'a strike requiring potence', it triggers on Heroic Might's strike. QED. And obviously steps 6 and 7 drop out if you don't use 'allowed by potence'. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] It does, except that it is possible for Y to happen without X currently existing - as noted before, I can absolutely make Heroic Strike cards with a disciplineless Anarch Convert. In which case Y is arguably happening without X. Which is why the ruling of 'it still counts because it required Y in the past' matters. > Yes I could have happily quoted previous ruling. But that means I > would not have to actually think it out for myself then, would I? Nothing wrong with thinking it out - I am -certainly- not suggesting you shouldn't have thought through and posted the explanation you did. (Especially since we frequently find cases where previous rulings either no longer make sense or create new problems.) -John Flournoy

And dear god, I had no idea that there was that much quoted, irrelevant text in our reply chain. Apologies. -John Flournoy

Thrall of Arika wrote: > I can't view the checklist page currently, so I am not sure what is > discussed there. > > On Nov 19, 3:14 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: >> 1) Dark Influences -- If DarkI is "in play" after canceling some card, >> will it insta-cancel cards like Botched Move and Two Wrongs, which are >> cards that only conditionally cancel other cards? >> (I also asked this question in the Promos thread) > > Two Wrongs doesn't cancel a minion card as it is played. It could do > so later on, once in play, but then it doesn't satisfy the Dark > Influences text. Correct. > I think if Botched Move's effect happens, then it > would then be cancelled, but a clarification would also be good. Botched Move has to begin resolving before it is determined whether it will cancel a card or not, which comes after it could be canceled by Dark Influences. > Also, there was the long discussion on what it meant by "The next card > played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is > played" that should perhaps get an official clarification, since there > seemed to be two strong camps for reading it in different ways. Does > "another Methuselah" in this case mean "other than the Methuselah who > played DI2", or simply clarifying the type of cancelling card being > played? It is a description of the type of canceling card being played -- a card someone plays that cancels a card played by someone else. A card a Methuselah plays to cancel another card she played is not affected. >> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her? >> Some examples: >> a) If Unmasking is in play, do allies get +1 intercept against her? > > Unmasking affects allies, not Karen. Correct. >> b) If Fall of the Camarilla is played, does her Prince-ness make her >> immune to it, or does its "There is no Camarilla" make her not a Prince? > > Hmm ... An interesting one. It would seem to me that there being no > more Camarilla means she is no longer a Prince, and thus her ability > cannot protect her to keep her title, since the ability wouldn't > nullify the "There is no Camarilla" global effect in the first place. She is immune to it (and remains a Camarilla Prince) as long as she remains a Prince. If she loses the Prince title, she loses the immunity and immediately becomes Independent. >> c) If Recalled to the Founder is in play, can you control Karen and _two_ >> other Brujah without burning one of them? > > This sounds right, much like Secure Haven can protect a minion from > mass effects like you mention above. You'd have to burn one of them (since you control three). But you may choose Suadela and have her ignore the effect. Or, if it suited your Grand Scheme, you could choose one of the other two. >> 4) Heroic Might [sup] - Does the 2R strike count as a "strike that requires >> Potence", for purposes of Increased Strength? (Precedent: Improvised >> Tactics' strike _does_ count) > > The strike comes from a card requiring Potence, so it would be a > strike that requires Potence. Correct.

Please quote responsibly.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > [some answers that were helpful] Thanks Scott, but why did you skip question #2? The "FAQ" about Vidal doesn't really answer my question. Which of the following requirements count as "non-infernal vampire traits"? titled/Specific Title non-Sterile anarch non-anarch "with capacity above/below X" black hand inquisitor "with a Kerrie" seraph "of the same Circle as..." flight "who can commit diablerie" "with no blood" "with 3 or more Aye/Orun" non-Red List Red List "with True Faith" "a vampire who has been chosen for a contract on..." And what about 2b? Is it safe to assume that Vidal can play as many Scorns of Adonis in a game as he wants? > >> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her? > >> Some examples: Another example: Is this a correct interpretation: Torpid Blood - Her actions in torpor do not cost an extra blood. It does not cost her an extra blood to rescue an older vampire. It does not cost a younger vampire an extra blood to rescue her. And for #5, re: Coterie Tactics, I'm still unclear on Kiss of Ra. "Only usable when a vampire who does not have Fortitude attempts to block this acting minion." If Coterie Tactics is being used, and one of the blockers has Fortitude, and the other doesn't, then are the requirements still satisfied? I would assume that in that case, yes it is playable and it affects only the one without Fortitude. But if neither one of the blockers has Fortitude, do you choose one to be affected? or both? (also looking forward to reading your response on my "New (D) action definition" questions which might have gotten lost in the pile of Blooded-Sand-vs-Carneggy-overquoting-fight) Thanks.

On Nov 19, 7:20 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > I would assume that in that case, yes it is playable and it affects only the one without Fortitude. > But if neither one of the blockers has Fortitude, do you choose one to be affected? or both? From the preview page: "Any "block fails" effect played on one of the minions will cause the block to fail, but the effect (usually involving "cannot attempt to block again" and possibly more severe effects as well) is applied only to one of the blockers (chosen by the Methuselah playing the effect)." Gut feeling says this carries over to Kiss of Ra and other effects besides "block fails" effect (i.e., only one of the blockers is affected, chosen by the methuselah playing Kiss). More generally, effects that apply to "the blocking minion" should probably be read as applying to "a blocking minion" where Coterie tactics is involved. -witness1

In article <4924A945...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It is a description of the type of canceling card being played -- a card > someone > plays that cancels a card played by someone else. A card a Methuselah plays > to > cancel another card she played is not affected. Yaa for sanity! [ quoted text not captured ]

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> [some answers that were helpful] > > Thanks Scott, but why did you skip question #2? > The "FAQ" about Vidal doesn't really answer my question. > > Which of the following requirements count as "non-infernal vampire traits"? > > titled/Specific Title > non-Sterile > anarch > non-anarch > "with capacity above/below X" > black hand > inquisitor > "with a Kerrie" > seraph > "of the same Circle as..." > flight > "who can commit diablerie" > "with no blood" > "with 3 or more Aye/Orun" > non-Red List > Red List > "with True Faith" > "a vampire who has been chosen for a contract on..." Most of those are answered in the checklist page. "Traits are basically the bold terms found at the top of card text to give it some kind of label. Clan and uniqueness are also traits." But for the record: A trait is a term used in card text (usually in bold at the top, not within the prose) to give it some kind of label. It may have some rulebook-defined meaning or effect, like "blood cursed" or "sterile", or it may not be defined by the rules, like "ammo" or "seraph". It doesn't include capacity (a number) or Disciplines, but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and so on. Basically anything that Seeds of Corruption doesn't count. It also includes unique, even though vampires omit that trait from their texts (since they are unique by default). Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g. anarch) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed. As far as Vidal is concerned, "non-<trait>" is also a trait (including other forms like "untitled" or "with no title"). For Vidal in particular, note that the following are not traits (listed here for Googling; these should be obvious from the above and/or from innate obviousness): (un)tapped (not) ready younger/older above/below certain capacity contested empty with some amount/range of blood with some card (like Aye, Kerrie, or True Faith) same clan/sect/age/circle can(not) commit diablerie has(n't) commited diaberlie (non-)acting attempting to block is bleeding/hunting bled/hunted/acted/blocked (un)successfully moved to the ready region since your last turn controlled by another/the same Methuselah And he cannot meet non-vampire traits (like "Mortal" or "Ghoul" or "Ammo" or creed). Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that Vidal can meet (not exhaustive): Baron Liaison Caitiff Inquisitor Seraph non-Camarilla non-Red List > And what about 2b? Is it safe to assume that Vidal can play as many > Scorns of Adonis in a game as he wants? Crazy safe to assume. >>>> 3) Karen Suadela - How do specific Gehenna cards "not affect" her? >>>> Some examples: > > Another example: > Is this a correct interpretation: > Torpid Blood - Her actions in torpor do not cost an extra blood. Correct. She's immune. Card text. > It does not cost her an extra blood to rescue an older vampire. Correct. She's immune. Card text. > It does not cost a younger vampire an extra blood to rescue her. No. That younger vampire is not immune to the effects. > And for #5, re: Coterie Tactics, I'm still unclear on Kiss of Ra. From the checklist page: "Any "block fails" effect played on one of the minions will cause the block to fail, but the effect (usually involving "cannot attempt to block again" and possibly more severe effects as well) is applied only to one of the blockers (chosen by the Methuselah playing the effect)." > "Only usable when a vampire who does not have Fortitude attempts to block this acting minion." > > If Coterie Tactics is being used, and one of the blockers has Fortitude, and the other doesn't, > then are the requirements still satisfied? > I would assume that in that case, yes it is playable and it affects only the one without Fortitude. > But if neither one of the blockers has Fortitude, do you choose one to be affected? or both? > > (also looking forward to reading your response on my "New (D) action definition" questions > which might have gotten lost in the pile of Blooded-Sand-vs-Carneggy-overquoting-fight) May want to start new topics for new topics.

Q: What the hell does Transient mean on Waiting Game and White Nights Massacre. White Nights Massacre Type: Event Transient. During your next discard phase, you must burn this card, and you may either burn a vampire in torpor or, by tapping a ready werewolf ally you control or discarding a White Nights Massacre from your hand, burn all vampires in torpor. Rarity: KoT:R Waiting Game Type: Event Transient. Put this card in play with 10 counters. Whenever a non-anarch vampire takes an action, burn a counter from this card. Burn this card when it has no counters. During your untap phase, each anarch burns 1 blood or becomes Camarilla, and each ally burns 1 life. Rarity: KoT:R

[ quoted text not captured ] Nothing, yet. It's just a keyword. Much like "Government" or "Inconnu" on event cards mean nothing yet. -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits] Thank you! > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and > so on. Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't. > Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that > Vidal can meet (not exhaustive): > Baron > Liaison (...and presumably other titles) > non-Red List So "Red List" counts as a non-infernal VAMPIRE trait, even though Ossian is Red List? (This is relevant if Vidal wants to play Rebirth, so not a complete hypothetical) > > (also looking forward to reading your response on my "New (D) action definition" questions > > which might have gotten lost in the pile of Blooded-Sand-vs-Carneggy-overquoting-fight) > May want to start new topics for new topics. OK, I will...

[ quoted text not captured ] > -John Flournoy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hmmm. I was hoping that "Transient" meant that they were events that could be played more than once per game. Otherwise stocking up on extra copies of White Nights Massacre is sort of ridiculous. I guess we'll have to wait and see? -Merlin

On Nov 20, 12:15 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits] > > Thank you! > > > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and > > so on. > > Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't. > Vidal uses his special to gain a card requiring Flight. Later in the game he actually gets Flight. Is he now barred from using cards requiring Flight as he has already used Flight in this game, or does his ability get over ridden by the fact that he actually has Flight now, and is not just Forresting?

[ quoted text not captured ] He doesn't need to use his ability to meet traits that he actually has, so his ability text is irrelevant if he is playing Flight cards using the Flight that he does have. I think that's pretty clear.

[ quoted text not captured ] > -Merlin- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the game as do other events. So unless a definition comes to change that, it looks like they're just once per game, as other events are. You'll still likely want a few White Nights Massacres, since you need one in play, and can use a copy to set off the bigger effect, rather than playing with werewolves. Otherwise, it would seem they could become quite abusive. Put WNM in play, next turn Frontal Assault and knock a bunch of your prey's vampires into torpor and burn them all, already seems very powerful. To be able to keep doing in multiple times a game seems much too strong to me. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 20, 12:06 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Or equally bad, use over and over with a Baltimore Purge deck that recruits Ossian... > Chris, Thrall of Arika -John Flournoy

On Nov 20, 3:15 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits] > > Thank you! Yes, very much appreciated. > > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and > > so on. > > Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't. > > > Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that > > Vidal can meet (not exhaustive): > > Baron > > Liaison > > (...and presumably other titles) > > > non-Red List > > So "Red List" counts as a non-infernal VAMPIRE trait, even though Ossian > is Red List? > (This is relevant if Vidal wants to play Rebirth, so not a complete hypothetical) Red List is a trait a Vampire can have. The fact that something else can have the trait doesn't preclude that it's a trait for vampires as well. Personally, I don't agree that the lack of a trait is a trait in itself, but I can go with the flow for ease of card play. It will be interesting to see if decks can make effective use of this ability for more than a couple of cards. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 20, 12:27 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > On Nov 20, 3:15 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > [a pretty comprehensive description of non-infernal vampire traits] > > > Thank you! > > Yes, very much appreciated. > > > > > > but does include clan, sect, title, advanced, circle, flight, and > > > so on. > > > Interesting that it does include Flight. I was kind of assuming it didn't. > > > > Also for Googling, here's a list of some of the more FAQ-inducing traits that > > > Vidal can meet (not exhaustive): > > > Baron > > > Liaison > > > (...and presumably other titles) > > > It will be interesting to see if decks can make effective use of this > ability for more than a couple of cards. > Should be interesting to at least throw in a Rebirth and a Crusader Sword into most any deck with at least 2 copies of Vidal. Other good one offs, maybe: Church of the Order of St. Blaise, Powerbase: Tshwane, Chameleon, umm... can't think of too many others off the top of my head, although of course certain cards will be good in particular decks...

[ quoted text not captured ] > particular decks...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Rebirth works, but his ability wouldn't allow use of the Crusader Sword. Vidal's ability is to allow you to play cards with such requirements. It won't give him the trait to use the card later on (even if it did, it would be once only). And that's the thing, a lot of the Clan/sect cards really only work for the clan/sect itself. Sure, he could equip a Sword of Judgement, but then couldn't use it. Could put down Palla Grande, but then unless you were playing with ! Toreador, it's not much use (and if you were, you wouldn't need his ability in the first place). I don't see the Church played much in regular Sabbat decks, so I don't see it being all that strong for a deck with Vidal. PB: Tswane is a powerful one, I like that idea. The thought that struck me when i was looking through cards with requirements was a breed deck. He'd be able to play 4 Creation Rites and 2 Third Traditions, as well as various Becomings/Embraces. He also looks good for an ally deck, where you could play various clan allies. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 20, 1:13 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > > Rebirth works, but his ability wouldn't allow use of the Crusader > Sword. Vidal's ability is to allow you to play cards with such > requirements. It won't give him the trait to use the card later on > (even if it did, it would be once only). > Yeah, you're 100% correct. *facepalm* Woulda been sweet though... =) > The thought that struck me when i was looking through cards with > requirements was a breed deck. He'd be able to play 4 Creation Rites > and 2 Third Traditions, as well as various Becomings/Embraces. He also > looks good for an ally deck, where you could play various clan allies. > Yeah, also the usual good Mata Hari cards, like Ventrue Headquarters, City Gangrel Connections, Tabriz Assembly, Waste Management, etc...

"Thrall of Arika" <christoph...@amec.com> wrote in message news:9396b804-e363-40a1...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Nov 20, 5:00 am, Merlin <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Hmmm. I was hoping that "Transient" meant that they were events that > > could be played more than once per game. Otherwise stocking up on > > extra copies of White Nights Massacre is sort of ridiculous. I guess > > we'll have to wait and see? > > There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an > indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the > game as do other events. Why would you assume "Transient" means any such thing? Did they put a new rule about that in the new rulebook? If not, then it's just a trait, meaning nothing outside of other cards which would reference that trait, if any. Fred

On Nov 20, 11:18 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Nov 20, 1:13 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > > > Rebirth works, but his ability wouldn't allow use of the Crusader > > Sword. Vidal's ability is to allow you to play cards with such > > requirements. It won't give him the trait to use the card later on > > (even if it did, it would be once only). > > Yeah, you're 100% correct. *facepalm* > Woulda been sweet though... =) Sorry to disappoint. :( Well, could be a bit more expensive ... but you can Tswane out a Kali's Fang, perhaps .. or a Femur of Toomler. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 20, 1:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Thrall of Arika" <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote in messagenews:9396b804-e363-40a1...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He was saying that maybe Transient is just a trait with no rule text, and the general gist of it is that the card goes away kinda quick (just like Black Hand has a meaning to it - that you're part of an elite group of Sabbat, more or less - just no rule text). Personally, I believe that Transient was meant to have rules text. With the rulebook being misprinted, that rules text may be dropped completely, or it may wait until the next set, or it might be errata'd in. Obviously, it's not guaranteed that it *is* supposed to mean something. It could just be a trait. Two things imply that might not be true: 1 - There is no card in the set that refers to the trait other than the two cards that have it. It could be waiting there to be referred to by a future card (frex, it wouldn't have been that strange to have had a Cold Iron weapon printed in Final Nights, and not have it effect anything until Bloodlines), but I can't think of many instances where that has happened. Usually a trait is referred to either by text in the rulebook or by at least one card in a current or prior set by the time it is printed. 2 - The word sounds more like a game effect than flavor text. I don't recall if any cards effect Government or Inconnu events, so those might be a counterpoint to the first point above, but it is obvious that Government and Inconnu actually mean something in the World of Darkness. Transient, unless it's talking about a homeless man, doesn't have much meaning other than the possibility that it means something in game terms... That's not exactly conclusive evidence. But it does *seem* like it should do something. We may find out soon enough, or... we may never know. If it was supposed to mean, say, that the event could be played multiple times, WW may have just changed their minds, because the two transient events that we have look like they could be super strong if you could play multiples. (Although, I'm not 100% convinced it would be broken... maybe, maybe not.)

Thrall of Arika wrote: > On Nov 20, 5:00 am, Merlin <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> On Nov 20, 12:42 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Nothing, yet. It's just a keyword. Much like "Government" or "Inconnu" >>> on event cards mean nothing yet. >>> -John Flournoy- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - >> Hmmm. I was hoping that "Transient" meant that they were events that >> could be played more than once per game. Otherwise stocking up on >> extra copies of White Nights Massacre is sort of ridiculous. I guess >> we'll have to wait and see? >> > There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an > indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the > game as do other events. Correct. It generates no effect or exception itself. It's just a label, like Gehenna.

On Nov 20, 12:02 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Nov 20, 1:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Thrall of Arika" <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote in messagenews:9396b804-e363-40a1...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an > > > indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the > > > game as do other events. > > > Why would you assume "Transient" means any such thing? Did they put > > a new rule about that in the new rulebook? If not, then it's just a > > trait, meaning nothing outside of other cards which would reference > > that trait, if any. True, but trait names are usually chosen to indicate something about that trait. Transient basically means 'passing through', i.e., that the card won't be around for long. If the key word was just something to tag on, it could have easily been something like Dog, or Blue, if there was to be no implied meaning behind it. Much like Poacher's Hunting Ground has the key word "Derivative", not only to ensure that Poacher's didn't gain from itself being in play, but having a key word which implies that it or its effects derive from something else (in this case, other non-derivative hunting grounds). > He was saying that maybe Transient is just a trait with no rule text, > and the general gist of it is that the card goes away kinda quick > (just like Black Hand has a meaning to it - that you're part of an > elite group of Sabbat, more or less - just no rule text). > > Personally, I believe that Transient was meant to have rules text. > With the rulebook being misprinted, that rules text may be dropped > completely, or it may wait until the next set, or it might be errata'd > in. Certainly possible, that perhaps an intitial thought was to have Transients playable multiple times in a game. But as cards developed, the idea was dropped, but the name kept as a key word identifier. > Obviously, it's not guaranteed that it *is* supposed to mean > something. It could just be a trait. Two things imply that might not > be true: > 1 - There is no card in the set that refers to the trait other than > the two cards that have it. It could be waiting there to be referred > to by a future card (frex, it wouldn't have been that strange to have > had a Cold Iron weapon printed in Final Nights, and not have it effect > anything until Bloodlines), but I can't think of many instances where > that has happened. Usually a trait is referred to either by text in > the rulebook or by at least one card in a current or prior set by the > time it is printed. I think it's more a case that key words are now, to use a pun, key to how card interactions work, and we've all caught on to that now. Nothing may come of it, but it's possible that a future card may interact with Transient events. Now, instead of having to go back and retroactively define cards (like what happened with Electronic Equipment), the Transients are already in place to be referred to if ever needed. > 2 - The word sounds more like a game effect than flavor text. I don't > recall if any cards effect Government or Inconnu events, so those > might be a counterpoint to the first point above, but it is obvious > that Government and Inconnu actually mean something in the World of > Darkness. Transient, unless it's talking about a homeless man, > doesn't have much meaning other than the possibility that it means > something in game terms... Nothing directly interacts with Government or Inconnu cards, but some future card may. And they currently allow for events to be differentiated from Gehenna ones. > That's not exactly conclusive evidence. But it does *seem* like it > should do something. We may find out soon enough, or... we may never > know. If it was supposed to mean, say, that the event could be played > multiple times, WW may have just changed their minds, because the two > transient events that we have look like they could be super strong if > you could play multiples. (Although, I'm not 100% convinced it would > be broken... maybe, maybe not.) I don't know, the Baltimore Purge/White Nights seems far too strong if it could happen multiple times in a game (worse still with Enkil Cog). It could be worse than any Protect Thine Own brokenness. Waiting Game I'm seeing as less strong in this case, but could end up being so in the right, albeit unlikely, set up of mostly ally/anarch opponents. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 20, 4:13 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, I did say "look like they could be super strong" and "not 100% convinced that it's broken", which is pretty much the weakest formed conjecture of "I don't think it's broken". I would be willing to admit that it might be broken. And the simple fact that it looks possibly broken could be a good enough reason for it not happening. Obviously, it's all conjecture whether or not it was ever a possibility that Transient could mean "playable multiple times per game". It may have meant "is burned during your next discard phase," although that would be redundant for White Nights. Or maybe it was supposed to interact with a card or cards that got left out of the set either due to choice or printing error. Or, obviously, maybe it was never supposed to mean anything at all - just a trait like Government that doesn't do anything now but might in the future. I dunno - was just guessing, for no better reason than I'm excited to get my cards at ~6:30 tonight and bored at work today. > Waiting Game I'm seeing as less strong in this case, but could end up > being so in the right, albeit unlikely, set up of mostly ally/anarch > opponents. > I dunno, Waiting Game looks pretty nasty to me. Since TR, there seem to be a ton of anarch decks. I'm planning on packing it in every non- anarch deck for a while. At only once per game, it probably won't be as crippling as it could be otherwise, but does make a good excuse for packing Seattle Committee in lieu of or in addition to Twilight Camp.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FQjVk.7536$x%.844@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Eh? "Correct" that it generates no effect or exception itself - or also about the other part the previous poster suggested: that these events, unlike other events, are removed from the controlled area and placed in the ash heap immediately after play? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct that it generates no effect itself *and* also the part that the previous poster suggested: that the label is a descriptive one, applied to events which by their own effect do not remain in play for the entirety of the remainder of the game, but rather are ended (by their own accords) prior to the end of the game.

On Nov 20, 8:13 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > >> There's no new rule or description, so it seems to just be an > >> indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the > >> game as do other events. > > > Correct. It generates no effect or exception itself. It's just a label, like Gehenna. > > Eh? "Correct" that it generates no effect or exception itself - or also > about the other part the previous poster suggested: that these events, > unlike other events, are removed from the controlled area and placed in the > ash heap immediately after play? > That's not even remotely what the previous poster suggested.

On Nov 20, 9:23 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Does this mean that cards like FBI Special Affairs Division should be errated to have the "Transient" label? Card Text: Government. When an ally is burned in combat with an acting vampire, put a counter on this card, and that acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable damage (after combat ends). Burn this card when it has 4 counters. -Merlin

On Nov 21, 8:03 am, Merlin <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Does this mean that cards like FBI Special Affairs Division should be > errated to have the "Transient" label? > > Card Text: > > Government. > > When an ally is burned in combat with an acting vampire, put a counter > on this card, and that acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable damage > (after combat ends). Burn this card when it has 4 counters. > Considering that Transient as a keyword doesn't *do* anything, that seems highly unlikely.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:11bec6d0-fa3f-415f...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I suppose that's not what he meant. LSJ suggested an interpretation of his words that clarified his intent but it wasn't at obvious from his wording alone that he meant it that way. His wording, "...it seems to just be an indicator that the card doesn't remain in play for the rest of the game as do other events...", can easily be interpreted to mean that he thought the keyword 'Transient' *causes* the card to not remain in play ("...as do other events"). It helps a lot to know the wording of the events marked 'Transient', which I didn't. Fred

Merlin wrote: > On Nov 20, 9:23 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Correct that it generates no effect itself *and* also the part that the previous >> poster suggested: that the label is a descriptive one, applied to events which >> by their own effect do not remain in play for the entirety of the remainder of >> the game, but rather are ended (by their own accords) prior to the end of the game. > > Does this mean that cards like FBI Special Affairs Division should be > errated to have the "Transient" label? No. See also melee or gun or electronic.