So, Advanced Tegyrius's text (don't have him in front of me),
at "inferior" (non-overlayed; we need a new term for this?), says
that Cam Assamites can burn a blood during a referendum to gain
a vote. Just to double-check, this does include the Blood Hunt,
correct?
Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I
remember some postings on the subject recently, but don't remember
the resolution.
Are Assamites that come into play after this referendum passes
considered to be Cam, or only the ones present when the vote was
called?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> So, Advanced Tegyrius's text (don't have him in front of me),
> at "inferior" (non-overlayed; we need a new term for this?), says
Non-Overlaid: "Advanced".
Overlaid: "Merged".
> that Cam Assamites can burn a blood during a referendum to gain
> a vote. Just to double-check, this does include the Blood Hunt,
> correct?
Blood Hunt is a referendum, per the rulebook (which *should* be the
first source for "double-checking" things).
> Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
> Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I
It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
sect to Camarilla.
> remember some postings on the subject recently, but don't remember
> the resolution.
> Are Assamites that come into play after this referendum passes
> considered to be Cam, or only the ones present when the vote was
> called?
Only the ones in play.
--
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/
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Are Assamites that come into play after this referendum passes
>> considered to be Cam, or only the ones present when the vote was
>> called?> Only the ones in play.
Still not a bad card, saves a couple of Allegiance Counter actions...
Votewise, Merged Tegyrius (Mergyrius?) is a pretty awesome Justicar.
3 votes and can burn 1 blood for another is not bad at all, even for
the cost. Thanks, LSJ!
Further question:
How does Legendary Vampire interact with Merging vampires?
Let's say that "plain" Tegyrius has been in play for awhile,
and then I merge the Advanced version onto that vampire during my
influence phase.
Does this count for the timing of "entering play from the uncontrolled
region", so I can play LV on him during my next Master Phase?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> Further question:
> How does Legendary Vampire interact with Merging vampires?
It doesn't notice a merge (beyond the change in capacity, if any)
> Let's say that "plain" Tegyrius has been in play for awhile,
> and then I merge the Advanced version onto that vampire during my
> influence phase.
> Does this count for the timing of "entering play from the uncontrolled
> region", so I can play LV on him during my next Master Phase?
No. Tegyrius didn't enter play on your last turn. He was already in
play (and had been for a while). He merged on your last turn (which
is similar to, say, playing a Master: Discipline card on him - he
changes, but he doesn't re-enter play).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:53:23 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>Jozxyqk wrote:
[snip]
>
>Blood Hunt is a referendum, per the rulebook (which *should* be the
>first source for "double-checking" things).
or, rather, if there is diablerie, there is a referendum to see if a
Blood Hunt will be called on the perpetrator. :)
that's what i read in the rulebook, anyway. ;)
>> Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
>> Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I>
>It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
>sect to Camarilla.
>>> remember some postings on the subject recently, but don't remember
>> the resolution.
>> Are Assamites that come into play after this referendum passes
>> considered to be Cam, or only the ones present when the vote was
>> called?>
>Only the ones in play.
aw man.
can we put this on the RT list for review? i just built an assamite
vote deck and it'd work a bit better if it changed the default sect.
thanks. (heh)
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
salem wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:53:23 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:>>Jozxyqk wrote:>>>Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
>>>Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I>>It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
>>sect to Camarilla.> can we put this on the RT list for review? i just built an assamite
> vote deck and it'd work a bit better if it changed the default sect.
> thanks. (heh)
It is already on the RT list, yes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 19 May 2003 09:49:16 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:53:23 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> scrawled:>>>Jozxyqk wrote:>>>>Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
>>>>Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I>>>It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
>>>sect to Camarilla.>> can we put this on the RT list for review? i just built an assamite
>> vote deck and it'd work a bit better if it changed the default sect.
>> thanks. (heh)>
>It is already on the RT list, yes.
oh cool. i was actually just making airy fairy wishes that i thought
would never come true. must be that black cat that just crossed my
path bringing me good luck. actually the stupid cat is sitting in my
lap making it hard to type, but oh well...
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EC8E0DC...@white-wolf.com>...
> salem wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:53:23 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> > scrawled:
> >>Jozxyqk wrote:
> >>>Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
> >>>Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I
> >>It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
> >>sect to Camarilla.
> > can we put this on the RT list for review? i just built an assamite
> > vote deck and it'd work a bit better if it changed the default sect.
> > thanks. (heh)
>
> It is already on the RT list, yes.
I'd push for allowing Assamites to choose Camarilla as their default
sect when they enter play. Considering the Schism within clan
Assamite, this would seem to fit things best.
> It is already on the RT list, yes.
Hmm... Just curious as to why the RT needs to make a ruling on this one.
From a previous post, you have already stated that:
>Hey, quick question.>>With cards like Giovanni Acceptance, Invitation Accepted, Revocation of
Tyre,
>and Ravnos Acceptance what exactly happens?
Ah. Obviously my list above is a little short. There are several ways
to change sect directly to Camarilla, but no way to change directly
to Independent or Sabbat (short of undo'ing one of the Camarilla effects).
Anyway, on to your questions:
>(Some of the card text):>>Ravnos Acceptance [DS]>Cardtype: Political Action>Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Political Card-Worth 1 Vote.>If this <referendum> is successful, all Ravnos change their status from><Independent> vampires to Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All>options available to Camarilla clans are now open to the Ravnos.>>Invitation Accepted [AH]>Cardtype: Political Action>Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.>If this <referendum> is successful, all Followers of Set are considered>Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to
Camarilla
>clans are now open to the Followers of Set.>>>If you look at the DS versions compared to the AH ones, they seem a bit>different.>>The AH ones seem to imply a more lasting effect ("for the rest of the
game")
>whereas with the DS versions, it could be implied that only the Giovanni
and/or
>Ravnos currently in play change sect.
Maybe, but it seems easier to read it as all Ravnos (i.e., "the Ravnos" as
a clan).
>In addition, how does the clause "all Ravnos change their status from>Independent vampires to Camarilla vampires" affect Anka, Priestess of
Thorns
>who is Sabbat? (Since she can't really change "from" Independent).
as per the AH parallels - the change is just "to Camarilla".
>Alternatively, if there was a hypothetical Assamite or FoS who was Sabbat
and
>the appropriate acceptance vote was played, would it affect him/her? Would
"all
>Followers of Set are considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of the
game"
>win over the "Sabbat" card-text of that vampire?
Yes.
--
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/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
So after reviewing this earlier post - the Invitation Accepted/Revocation of
Tyre changes the clan's status as well as the individual clanmate's clan
status to Camarilla for the rest of the game. Thus if any additional
clanmates enter into play after the vote has passed, their sect of choice
would be Camarilla and not what is printed on their card.
Is this correct?
Take care,
Todd B.
Todd Banister wrote:
>>It is already on the RT list, yes.> Hmm... Just curious as to why the RT needs to make a ruling on this one.
Since the previous mechanism ("All Assamites are Camarilla" as a
continuously-applied effect) bumps into the "go anarch" action
(Assamite goes Anarch "permanently" changing his sect to indy (until it
changes again), but then bumps into his permanently-applied "for all time"
unstoppable Tyre effect which sets him back to Camarilla, and stops
being Anarch (since his sect changed back).
[LSJ 16-APR-2003]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E9DCF1B.5060204%40white-wolf.com
(and surrounding thread).
> From a previous post, you have already stated that:
[snip holy extra newlines, Batman]
Since it wasn't cited, here it is for anyone else who needs a copy:
[LSJ 16-JUL-2001]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B5899F7%40MailAndNews.com
My "seems easier to read" justification there now has been proven
short-sighted. Halcyan2's assertion back then that, for at least the
Gio/Rav versions (since the templates differ), only the in-play
vampires are affected seems insightful.
> So after reviewing this earlier post - the Invitation Accepted/Revocation of
> Tyre changes the clan's status as well as the individual clanmate's clan
> status to Camarilla for the rest of the game. Thus if any additional
> clanmates enter into play after the vote has passed, their sect of choice
> would be Camarilla and not what is printed on their card.
>
> Is this correct?
No.
It had been that Revocation of Tyre continuously made every Assamite
Camarilla (not their "sect of choice" and not just "when entering play").
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Since the previous mechanism ("All Assamites are Camarilla" as a
> continuously-applied effect) bumps into the "go anarch" action
> (Assamite goes Anarch "permanently" changing his sect to indy (until it
> changes again), but then bumps into his permanently-applied "for all time"
> unstoppable Tyre effect which sets him back to Camarilla, and stops
> being Anarch (since his sect changed back).
>
> [LSJ 16-APR-2003]
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E9DCF1B.5060204%40white-wolf.com
> (and surrounding thread).
Gotcha - I must have missed that thread. Hmm.... that IS an interesting
dilemma. Given that situation, I've got to think that it's probably best for
these change-o-sect votes to apply only to currently controlled clanmates.
Luckily for the Assamites, Tegyrius will gladly assist those late coming
'mates into the Camarilla....
> > From a previous post, you have already stated that:
>
> [snip holy extra newlines, Batman]
Yeah, that cut-n-paste from Google didn't come out as cleanly as I would
have liked. :)
Thanks for the quick response.
Take care,
Todd B.
Todd Banister <tban...@primarycapital.com> wrote:
>> Since the previous mechanism ("All Assamites are Camarilla" as a
>> continuously-applied effect) bumps into the "go anarch" action
>> (Assamite goes Anarch "permanently" changing his sect to indy (until it
>> changes again), but then bumps into his permanently-applied "for all time"
>> unstoppable Tyre effect which sets him back to Camarilla, and stops
>> being Anarch (since his sect changed back).
>>
>> [LSJ 16-APR-2003]
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E9DCF1B.5060204%40white-wolf.com
>> (and surrounding thread).> Gotcha - I must have missed that thread. Hmm.... that IS an interesting
> dilemma. Given that situation, I've got to think that it's probably best for
> these change-o-sect votes to apply only to currently controlled clanmates.
> Luckily for the Assamites, Tegyrius will gladly assist those late coming
> 'mates into the Camarilla....
Couldn't you say something like:
"If this referendum passes, the default sect for Assamites is Camarilla, and
all Assamites are treated as if their printed sect were Camarilla.
This effect lasts until the end of the game."
Referring to the "printed" sect would not affect vampires who have Gone
Anarch, since the Go Anarch effect is always more recent than the printed
sect.
Would that work (for all 4 of these votes)?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> Couldn't you say something like:
>
> "If this referendum passes, the default sect for Assamites is Camarilla, and
> all Assamites are treated as if their printed sect were Camarilla.
> This effect lasts until the end of the game."
>
> Referring to the "printed" sect would not affect vampires who have Gone
> Anarch, since the Go Anarch effect is always more recent than the printed
> sect.
>
> Would that work (for all 4 of these votes)?
It might work.
It'd be a bit wonky for Assamite Embraces (those created before the referendum
are Independent, those created afterward are Camarilla).
And trying to make a card errata other cards' texts on the fly seems to me to
be asking for problems (if not now, then in the future) - that was one of the
things that led to the Assamites' Blood Curse being represented in the rules:
so that Tajdid wouldn't have to effect in-game errata like that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > "If this referendum passes, the default sect for Assamites is Camarilla,
and
> > all Assamites are treated as if their printed sect were Camarilla.
> > This effect lasts until the end of the game."
Embaces are considered Assamites, so their treated as Camarilla, or am I
just to tired to get this point?
M.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 19 May 2003 15:07:23 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>Jozxyqk wrote:>> Couldn't you say something like:
>>
>> "If this referendum passes, the default sect for Assamites is Camarilla, and
>> all Assamites are treated as if their printed sect were Camarilla.
>> This effect lasts until the end of the game."
>>
>> Referring to the "printed" sect would not affect vampires who have Gone
>> Anarch, since the Go Anarch effect is always more recent than the printed
>> sect.
>>
>> Would that work (for all 4 of these votes)?>
>It might work.
not if you wanted the 'antitribu' to keep their sabbat-ness, if indeed
anttitribu of the 4 indies were just going to be of the same clan but
with 'sabbat' in their sect designation. Like Anka, priestess of
thorns.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Jozxyqk wrote:>> Couldn't you say something like:
>>
>> "If this referendum passes, the default sect for
>> Assamites is Camarilla, and
>> all Assamites are treated as if their printed sect were
>> Camarilla.
>> This effect lasts until the end of the game."
<snip>
>> Would that work (for all 4 of these votes)?>
> It might work.
>
> It'd be a bit wonky for Assamite Embraces (those created
> before the referendum
> are Independent, those created afterward are Camarilla).
>
> And trying to make a card errata other cards' texts on the
> fly seems to me to
> be asking for problems (if not now, then in the future) -
> that was one of the
> things that led to the Assamites' Blood Curse being
> represented in the rules:
> so that Tajdid wouldn't have to effect in-game errata like that.
basically the desired effect is:
- the default clan for assamites (or the clan in question) becomes
camarilla for the remainder of the game
- independant assamites should be affected (including those that enter
play later)
- cards in play that alter the sect should be unaffected
- sabbat assamites should be unaffected
- vampires that have changed their clan to assamites should be affected
(until they revert back)
I think that this needs well thought out rules, not just errata for the
cards in question. some of the desired effects might have to be left out
too keep some simplicity, but first of all, the imact must be examined
quite well first (including future complications that might arise).
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.comhttp://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
>basically the desired effect is:
>- the default clan for assamites (or the clan in question) becomes
>camarilla for the remainder of the game
>- independant assamites should be affected (including those that enter
>play later)
>- cards in play that alter the sect should be unaffected
>- sabbat assamites should be unaffected
>- vampires that have changed their clan to assamites should be affected
>(until they revert back)
>
>I think that this needs well thought out rules, not just errata for the
>cards in question. some of the desired effects might have to be left out
>too keep some simplicity, but first of all, the imact must be examined
>quite well first (including future complications that might arise).
If it really becomes an issue, I suppose they could create a new term for the
effect, include the definition in the rulebook, and just change the card text
to use the new term for all 4 of those PA's.
Halcyan 2
> If it really becomes an issue, I suppose they could create
> a new term for the
> effect, include the definition in the rulebook, and just
> change the card text
> to use the new term for all 4 of those PA's.
>
> Halcyan 2
that would probably be the best way to handle this...
[ quoted text not captured ]
hawk_the_demon <hawkthedemon...@web2news.net> wrote:
>> If it really becomes an issue, I suppose they could create
>> a new term for the
>> effect, include the definition in the rulebook, and just
>> change the card text
>> to use the new term for all 4 of those PA's.
>>
>> Halcyan 2> that would probably be the best way to handle this...
Yeah..
I'm thinking too much about it, just because I like to fill
in the weird loopholes of rules, and because the new Tegyrius
makes one of these cards somewhat useful, if only we were clear
on what it did. :)
On Mon, 19 May 2003 09:49:16 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:53:23 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> scrawled:>>>Jozxyqk wrote:>>>>Also, this means that Revocation of Tyre might see some play.
>>>>Does this vote change the Default Sect of Assamites or doesn't it? I>>>
>>>It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
>>>sect to Camarilla.>>
>> can we put this on the RT list for review? i just built an assamite
>> vote deck and it'd work a bit better if it changed the default sect.
>> thanks. (heh)>
>It is already on the RT list, yes.
as a bit of a follow-up...the text on Revocation of Tyre reads:
Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If
this referendum is successful, all Assamites are considered Camarilla
vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to Camarilla
clans are now open to the Assamites.
so, we know that the first part of the card has the above mentioned
instantaneous effect of turning all Assamites in play into Camarilla
vampires.
Does the 2nd part, "All options available to Camarilla clans are now
open to the Assamites", effect Assamites currently NOT in play?
For example, if I influenced out Jalal _after_ successfully passing
the referendum, would he be able to call a Command of the Harpies
vote, or a vote to burn an Archon or Elysium?
What about Assamites who were in play when the referndum passed, but
then later changed sect (to Sabbat with an Into the Fire, say). Would
they still have the options available to Camarilla clans? (for example
calling the Harpies/Archon Burn/Elysium Burn, etc)
thanks,
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If
> this referendum is successful, all Assamites are considered Camarilla
> vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to Camarilla
> clans are now open to the Assamites.
>
> so, we know that the first part of the card has the above mentioned
> instantaneous effect of turning all Assamites in play into Camarilla
> vampires.
>
> Does the 2nd part, "All options available to Camarilla clans are now
> open to the Assamites", effect Assamites currently NOT in play?
No.
> For example, if I influenced out Jalal _after_ successfully passing
> the referendum, would he be able to call a Command of the Harpies
> vote, or a vote to burn an Archon or Elysium?
No.
> What about Assamites who were in play when the referndum passed, but
> then later changed sect (to Sabbat with an Into the Fire, say). Would
> they still have the options available to Camarilla clans? (for example
> calling the Harpies/Archon Burn/Elysium Burn, etc)
No.
As stated, the effect of the card can be stated as:
It has the instantaneous effect of changing all Assamites in play's
sect to Camarilla.
That is all.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > What about Assamites who were in play when the referndum passed, but
> > then later changed sect (to Sabbat with an Into the Fire, say). Would
> > they still have the options available to Camarilla clans? (for example
> > calling the Harpies/Archon Burn/Elysium Burn, etc)
>
> No.
What if you become an Archon and the change sects? It seems to me that
as the rules stand you keep the effect (cf master cards requiring
clans to bring into play) as it doesn't specify that you lose it?
Surely that can't be right?
> What if you become an Archon and the change sects? It
> seems to me that
> as the rules stand you keep the effect (cf master cards requiring
> clans to bring into play) as it doesn't specify that you lose it?
> Surely that can't be right?
the only requirement is currently that the vampire must be camarilla
when he is chosen for archon. so apparently he keeps the card... unless
there has been some ruling on it that I am not aware of.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Timlagor wrote:
[snip unrelated quote]
> What if you become an Archon and the change sects? It seems to me that
> as the rules stand you keep the effect (cf master cards requiring
> clans to bring into play) as it doesn't specify that you lose it?
Correct.
> Surely that can't be right?
Card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]