A Few Things

Just a few various questions and comments: #1. That's where I saw it! A while back (within the past week or two) someone brought up the topic of allies being "older" or "younger" than a vampire, and I *knew* I had seen it somewhere before (I even searched the Monger for text). I just found it! According to the Clarification/Ruligns for Kindred Coercion: "Despite the name of the card, the inferior may cancel the votes of Allies (as well as vampires) not older than the acting vampire/minion. The superior version may change the votes of Allies (as well as vampires) not older than the acting vampire/minion. [TOM 19960205] " I'm guessing that the "not older" part was supposed to be in the parentheses? In any case, I suppose we ignore the older/younger part in regards to allies... #2. I know that Seeds of Corruption refers to all non-sect, non-title text that is not a restriction. So while not being able to commit diablerie, or equip, etc. is considered a restriction, how about normal penalties? Does Blythe no longer have -1 Hand Damage vs. Malks? Do you no longer have to burn pool when Hasina goes into torpor? Do Ventrue no longer have free shots at Kemintiri? #3. In previous discussions, we have learned that for Illegal Search and Seizure and Machine Blitz, a vampire's strength (and bonuses) are added when calculating how much damage the weapon does. Does this also apply to Concealed Weapon? So Lazverinus (with Obfuscate) can Conceal a Bastard Sword (which would do 4 damage) but not a Bang Nakh (which would do 5)? Or is this different since the weapon isn't in play yet and strength damage can't be calculated yet? #4. For Delaying Tactics' "cannot take the same political action this turn," is this specific to all cards of that title or just that specific card. I think I know the answer (all cards of that title) since if you have 2 KRC's in your hand, how can you tell the difference between the two? And just to doublecheck, using it on something like an Anarch Revolt burn vote will then prevent that Methusaleh's minions from trying to burn a second, different Anarch Revolt? #5. Speaking of Anarch Revolt, is taking such an action to call a "referendum" considered a political action? Also, are all political actions also inherently referendums (or more appropriately, lead to referendums. I know you can have a successful (unblocked) PA with a failed referendum)? #6. Is it correct to say that the clarification for Bureaucratic Overload: "Only vampires must burn an extra blood to attempt political actions. [RTR] " is somewhat extraneous since "allies cannot call referendums" (6.1.7). This is somewhat tied with the whole PA vs. referendum thing. But since the rulebook says that, why was there a ruling for Overload if the situation isn't relevant anyway? #7. Does the "This minion cannot be affected by (D) actions." of Secure Haven apply to the controller's (D) actions as well? I know that in lots of cases (like Cryptic Mission) the (D) part is there as a reminder on who can block, but is it still a directed action (at yourself that your predator and prey can block)? Thus can you Cryptic Mission your own vampire who has a Secure Haven? That's about it for now, though I'm sure I'll think of a bunch more questions later... Thanks! Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20010222045608...@ng-cg1.aol.com... > Just a few various questions and comments: [younger/older allies part snipped] > #2. I know that Seeds of Corruption refers to all non-sect, non-title text that > is not a restriction. So while not being able to commit diablerie, or equip, > etc. is considered a restriction, how about normal penalties? Does Blythe no > longer have -1 Hand Damage vs. Malks? Do you no longer have to burn pool when > Hasina goes into torpor? Do Ventrue no longer have free shots at Kemintiri? From the clarifications: "Special ability" includes all non-sect, non-title text. (note that this only means that the affected vampire cannot do anything that he is allowed to do only by special ability - not that he can now overcome some special restriction. Assamites still cannot commit diablerie, for example) [LSJ 19970801] The important part here is "that the affected vampire cannot do anything that he is allowed to do only by special ability", so in all the examples you give, the restrictions still apply. > #3. In previous discussions, we have learned that for Illegal Search and > Seizure and Machine Blitz, a vampire's strength (and bonuses) are added when > calculating how much damage the weapon does. Does this also apply to Concealed > Weapon? So Lazverinus (with Obfuscate) can Conceal a Bastard Sword (which would > do 4 damage) but not a Bang Nakh (which would do 5)? Or is this different since > the weapon isn't in play yet and strength damage can't be calculated yet? Concealed weapon is explicitly named in the clarifications: A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz). [RTR 19980623] > #4. For Delaying Tactics' "cannot take the same political action this turn," is > this specific to all cards of that title or just that specific card. I think I > know the answer (all cards of that title) since if you have 2 KRC's in your > hand, how can you tell the difference between the two? Delaying Tactics speaks of the political action, not the card, as you noted yourself, so no - you cannot use just another KRC. > And just to doublecheck, > using it on something like an Anarch Revolt burn vote will then prevent that > Methusaleh's minions from trying to burn a second, different Anarch Revolt? The political action allowed by the second Anarch revolt is a different one than the first, so calling it would be permissible. > #5. Speaking of Anarch Revolt, is taking such an action to call a "referendum" > considered a political action? Yes, by card text: Anarch Revolt [Jyhad, V:TES] Cardtype: Master Master. Put this card in play. Each Methuselah burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase. Any vampire can burn this card with a successful <referendum>; calling this <referendum> is a +1 stealth <political> action. > Also, are all political actions also inherently > referendums (or more appropriately, lead to referendums. I know you can have a > successful (unblocked) PA with a failed referendum)? You are right here: You take a political action, and as a result of that there is a referndum [Rulebook 6.1.7.] > #6. Is it correct to say that the clarification for Bureaucratic Overload: > > "Only vampires must burn an extra blood to attempt political actions. [RTR] " > > is somewhat extraneous since > > "allies cannot call referendums" (6.1.7). This is somewhat tied with the whole > PA vs. referendum thing. But since the rulebook says that, why was there a > ruling for Overload if the situation isn't relevant anyway? Good point... I guess this ruling could get interesting if and when an ally surfaces who, by card text, is able to take a political action - special card text to that effect would override the standard rule you cited. > #7. Does the "This minion cannot be affected by (D) actions." of Secure Haven > apply to the controller's (D) actions as well? I know that in lots of cases > (like Cryptic Mission) the (D) part is there as a reminder on who can block, > but is it still a directed action (at yourself that your predator and prey can > block)? Thus can you Cryptic Mission your own vampire who has a Secure Haven? According to [Rulebook 6.2.2., part 1], only actions targeting another Methuselah (or something she controls) are ever considered directed. You just cannot take a directed action against yourself. > > That's about it for now, though I'm sure I'll think of a bunch more questions > later... > > Thanks! > > Halcyan 2 > -- Hardy Range hardy...@gmx.de

>The important part here is "that the affected vampire cannot do anything >that he is allowed to do only by special ability", so in all the examples >you give, the restrictions still apply. It's just that the whole "allowed to" and "restriction" aspects can change depending on interpretation. Some things that are usually a penalty (like Jimmy Dunn's special) are nullified and it's possible to turn most disadvantages into advantages. Also, is Blythe being "restricted" in striking Malkavians for 1 normal hand damage? Or is Lazverinus "restricted" for striking for only 1 or 2 damage (since his special causes him to do 3)? >Concealed weapon is explicitly named in the clarifications: > >A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would >inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This >affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz). >[RTR 19980623] Ah! Missed that one! Thanks for the ruling. >The political action allowed by the second Anarch revolt is a different one >than the first, so calling it would be permissible. I know with different Haven Uncovered's, each is a different action. But with Anarch Revolt, it just feels that they *should* be considered the same (so that they're in the same boat as the vote cards). Halcyan 2

Hardy Range wrote: > "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> schrieb: > > #2. I know that Seeds of Corruption refers to all non-sect, non-title text > that > > is not a restriction. So while not being able to commit diablerie, or > equip, > > etc. is considered a restriction, how about normal penalties? Does Blythe > no > > longer have -1 Hand Damage vs. Malks? Do you no longer have to burn pool > when > > Hasina goes into torpor? Do Ventrue no longer have free shots at > Kemintiri? > > From the clarifications: > > "Special ability" includes all non-sect, non-title text. (note that this > only means that the affected vampire cannot do anything that he is allowed > to do only by special ability - not that he can now overcome some special > restriction. Assamites still cannot commit diablerie, for example) [LSJ > 19970801] > > The important part here is "that the affected vampire cannot do anything > that he is allowed to do only by special ability", so in all the examples > you give, the restrictions still apply. Blythe would no longer have -1 strength vs. Malks. She is not restricted from striking, she just has a special ability which alters her strength attribute. That ability is supressed by Seeds. (She can no longer get -1 strength vs. Malks, since that is only allowed by her card text). Similarly you can no longer lose a pool when Hasina with Seeds goes to torpor . The free rush and rush-back for Kem vs. Ventrue also no longer applies. None of those are restrictions - they are things that happen in addition to the things allowed by the rules. > > And just to doublecheck, > > using [DT] on something like an Anarch Revolt burn vote will then prevent > that > > Methusaleh's minions from trying to burn a second, different Anarch > Revolt? > > The political action allowed by the second Anarch revolt is a different one > than the first, so calling it would be permissible. Correct. [and more correct answers snipped] > > #6. Is it correct to say that the clarification for Bureaucratic Overload: > > "Only vampires must burn an extra blood to attempt political actions. > [RTR] " > > > > is somewhat extraneous since > > > > "allies cannot call referendums" (6.1.7). This is somewhat tied with the > whole > > PA vs. referendum thing. But since the rulebook says that, why was there a > > ruling for Overload if the situation isn't relevant anyway? > > Good point... > I guess this ruling could get interesting if and when an ally surfaces who, > by card text, is able to take a political action - special card text to that > effect would override the standard rule you cited. The clarification is there to answer the question raised by the "minion" usage on the card. Allies ignore "burn blood" effects already, so an ally that can call referendums (who will never be printed, BTW - too out of bounds) wouldn't need the clarification. The clarification is to reassure players that they are not mistaken when they believe that only vampires can call a referendum. > > #7. Does the "This minion cannot be affected by (D) actions." of Secure > Haven > > apply to the controller's (D) actions as well? I know that in lots of > cases > > (like Cryptic Mission) the (D) part is there as a reminder on who can > block, > > but is it still a directed action (at yourself that your predator and prey > can > > block)? Thus can you Cryptic Mission your own vampire who has a Secure > Haven? > > According to [Rulebook 6.2.2., part 1], only actions targeting another > Methuselah (or something she controls) are ever considered directed. You > just cannot take a directed action against yourself. Correct. So a vampire you control could take a Cryptic Mission against a vampire you control, even if that target has a Secure Haven, since the action is not directed. -- 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/

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Just a few various questions and comments: > > #1. That's where I saw it! A while back (within the past week or two) someone > brought up the topic of allies being "older" or "younger" than a vampire, and I > *knew* I had seen it somewhere before (I even searched the Monger for text). I > just found it! According to the Clarification/Ruligns for Kindred Coercion: > > "Despite the name of the card, the inferior may cancel the votes of Allies (as > well as vampires) not older than the acting vampire/minion. The superior > version may change the votes of Allies (as well as vampires) not older than the > acting vampire/minion. [TOM 19960205] " > > I'm guessing that the "not older" part was supposed to be in the parentheses? > In any case, I suppose we ignore the older/younger part in regards to allies... As stated earlier, allies are neither older nor younger (nor the same age) than any given vampire (or any given acting ally, for that matter). So all allies are "not older" the acting vampire. That's the point the ruling is trying to make. The fact that no ally can be "older" leads to the conclusion that all allies are "not older", and hence are acceptable targets for Kindred Coercion. [ quoted text not captured ]