LSJ - demons & politics

Hi =) we were just puzzled about Herald of thopeth's card text : with this template, may he be able to call Charming lobby (despite being an ally) and then add bewitching oration, voter captivation for more life ? =) i know it sounds strange, but it can be the designer's intention after all. reyda

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:a3tkd1$120$1...@quark.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] LSJ allready answered this: He cant since allies cant vote.

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:a3tkd1$120$1...@quark.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] IIRC, every political action starts with "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth." And the Herald is not a vampire, is he? Jeroen

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:25:42 +0100, jeroen rombouts wrote: > IIRC, every political action starts with "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. > Called by any vampire at +1 stealth." And the Herald is not a vampire, > is he? He plays Charming Lobby "As a vampire with a capacity of 5". He doesn't take the action provided by the political card. Thus, the question, as Chraming Lobby doesn't have a Vampire restriction. Francois

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:31:23 +0100, Francois Gombault wrote: > He plays Charming Lobby "As a vampire with a capacity of 5". He doesn't > take the action provided by the political card. > > Thus, the question, as Chraming Lobby doesn't have a Vampire > restriction. Ah. Just found the reference in the rule book. Allies cannot call referendums. [6.1.7] Pesky, pesky rulebook. Francois

[ quoted text not captured ] No. [LSJ 06-DEC-2001]. Allies cannot call referendums. [6.1.7] -- 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/

"Francois Gombault" <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> wrote in message news:a3tvjb$8d2$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net... > On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:25:42 +0100, jeroen rombouts wrote: > > > IIRC, every political action starts with "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. > > Called by any vampire at +1 stealth." And the Herald is not a vampire, > > is he? for regular political cards, yes, but for the purpose of charming lobby, it *may* have been ruled differently. > He plays Charming Lobby "As a vampire with a capacity of 5". He doesn't > take the action provided by the political card. > > Thus, the question, as Chraming Lobby doesn't have a Vampire restriction. yes, it was really worth asking =)

In message <a3uapj$18i$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes: <Allies who are pseudo-vamps being unable to Charming Lobby> >for regular political cards, yes, but for the purpose of charming lobby, it >*may* have been ruled differently. Given that by Charming Lobby's text you "call" the referendum, you cannot do this anwyay - since you are prohibited from calling the referendum. -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

>> Hi =) >> >> we were just puzzled about Herald of thopeth's card text : with this >> template, may he be able to call Charming lobby (despite being an ally) and >> then add bewitching oration, voter captivation for more life ? =) >> >> i know it sounds strange, but it can be the designer's intention after all. >> > >No. [LSJ 06-DEC-2001]. >Allies cannot call referendums. [6.1.7] Just as a reminder, are allies prohibited from *voting* in a referendum? (Assuming there's some method which way they can get votes such as pre-FN Alamut). Halcyan 2

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:58:12 +0100, Halcyan 2 wrote: > Just as a reminder, are allies prohibited from *voting* in a referendum? > (Assuming there's some method which way they can get votes such as > pre-FN Alamut). The herald seems to be able to play Dread Gaze, right ? Francois

James Coupe skrev i meddelandet <7wc6HV6v...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... >In message <a3uapj$18i$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes: ><Allies who are pseudo-vamps being unable to Charming Lobby> >>for regular political cards, yes, but for the purpose of charming lobby, it >>*may* have been ruled differently. > >Given that by Charming Lobby's text you "call" the referendum, you >cannot do this anwyay - since you are prohibited from calling the >referendum. > Why isn't the "allies cannot call referendums" part overcomed by the cardtext on charming lobby in this case? Compare with "tapped vampires cannot block", which is overcomed by Wake with evenings freshness... What's the difference here? /Henrik Isaksson

[ quoted text not captured ] Right. And would gain two votes for doing so. [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik wrote: > Why isn't the "allies cannot call referendums" part overcomed by the > cardtext on charming lobby in this case? Compare with "tapped vampires > cannot block", which is overcomed by Wake with evenings freshness... What's > the difference here? Not much, really. Just the idea that the "allies cannot call referndums" is immutable, like "You cannot bleed yourself". [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ skrev i meddelandet <3C63B537...@white-wolf.com>... >Henrik wrote: >> Why isn't the "allies cannot call referendums" part overcomed by the >> cardtext on charming lobby in this case? Compare with "tapped vampires >> cannot block", which is overcomed by Wake with evenings freshness... What's >> the difference here? > >Not much, really. >Just the idea that the "allies cannot call referndums" is immutable, like >"You cannot bleed yourself". > You can only bleed your prey: Kindred spirits... A (d)-action may only be blocked by the target methuesalehs minions: Eagles sight... and so on. Come on now LSJ, wouldn't it be cooler and more in the spirit of rule 1.4 if the Herald could call a Charming lobby vote? /Henrik Isaksson

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:23:35 +0100, LSJ wrote: > Just the idea that the "allies cannot call referndums" is immutable, > like "You cannot bleed yourself". In my humble opinion, this is not a very satisfying answer. How can one differentiate rules that can be overcomed by card text, from rules that are "immutable" ? I'm trying to find out why the Herald can't do the Charming Lobby stuff. So far I've only found one possible explaination. Please tell me if my logic is flawed : Herald can play cards requiring Presence as a 5-cap vampire. He can play Charming Lobby, then. However, the vote card which is played consequently doesn't require any discipline. So the Herald would play it as an ally, and call the vote as an ally, something he is not allowed to do. Sounds pretty far fetched, heh ? ;) Francois

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 13:08:40 +0100, Francois Gombault wrote: > Herald can play cards requiring Presence as a 5-cap vampire. He can play > Charming Lobby, then. However, the vote card which is played > consequently doesn't require any discipline. So the Herald would play it > as an ally, and call the vote as an ally, something he is not allowed to > do. Forget that, this IS flawed, because then the Herald could be able to call a referendum to burn an Anarch Revolt. Okay, then I still don't have any correct explaination to prevent the Herald to call referendums via Charming Lobby. Reminders : Charming Lobby [Jyhad, V:TES] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Presence +1 stealth {political action. [pre] Call a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand (play that card) or allowed by an effect in play. If the referendum passes, then the next referendum called by any vampire} thereafter passes automatically. 6.1.7. Political Action (+1 stealth) A political action card is a special kind of action card. As indicated on the cards, these actions have a default +1 stealth and can only be played by vampires (allies cannot call referendums). 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. [LSJ 08-FEB-2001] Some ideas are immutable. (not an exact quote, I admit ;) Francois

In message <a40c8d$1b78mu$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de>, Henrik <henrik.isa kDELE...@spray.se> writes: >Why isn't the "allies cannot call referendums" part overcomed by the >cardtext on charming lobby in this case? Looking at it from another direction: - You play Charming Lobby as a vampire. - However, you will still play a political action card or call the vote to burn Anarch Revolt (say) as an ally The pseudo-vampire card text allows the first step, it doesn't allow the second. (Since they don't require Presence, he doesn't count as a vampire.) Since you cannot perform the whole action, you can't start it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:46:16 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > Looking at it from another direction: > > - You play Charming Lobby as a vampire. - However, you will still play a > political action card or call the vote > to burn Anarch Revolt (say) as an ally > > The pseudo-vampire card text allows the first step, it doesn't allow the > second. (Since they don't require Presence, he doesn't count as a > vampire.) > > Since you cannot perform the whole action, you can't start it. > I would agree with this if ChLob's text didn't explicitely cover calling the referendum to burn Anarch Revolt : << Charming Lobby [Jyhad, V:TES] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Presence +1 stealth {political action. [pre] Call a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand (play that card) >> here, say we're not allowed, okay, although this is debatable. << or allowed by an effect in play. >> here, we don't play any card, we're still executing ChLob's text, so we're still considered a vampire for that purpose ** Francois

In message <a40n6p$l7o$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: <Charming Lobby to burn an Anarch Revolt or similar carD> >here, we don't play any card, we're still executing ChLob's text, so >we're still considered a vampire for that purpose ** Yes, but this occurs during resolution - and you were only given pseudo- vampire status for playing the card. (Card text of Herald.) Strikes and actions have delayed resolution from playing, whereas other cards function as one. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:9x6rn0p2...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a40n6p$l7o$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault > <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: > <Charming Lobby to burn an Anarch Revolt or similar carD> > >here, we don't play any card, we're still executing ChLob's text, so > >we're still considered a vampire for that purpose ** > > Yes, but this occurs during resolution - and you were only given pseudo- > vampire status for playing the card. (Card text of Herald.) > > Strikes and actions have delayed resolution from playing, whereas other > cards function as one. Whoa thar pilgrim. Wouldn't that line of reasoning imply that the "Akhenaten plays Ex Nihilo" thing wouldn't even go as far as putting the card on Akhenaten, since he's (according to this argument) no longer playing the card as a vampire when it resolves? It might also imply that Herald couldn't usefully play, eg, Social Charm, but a little handwaving about how bleeding isn't a vampires-only action could avoid that conclusion. Josh howdy pilgrim

In message <a40rc3$1b0qrq$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >Wouldn't that line of reasoning imply that the "Akhenaten >plays Ex Nihilo" thing wouldn't even go as far as putting >the card on Akhenaten, since he's (according to this >argument) no longer playing the card as a vampire when it >resolves? Whilst [LSJ 20010615] suggests that it can be placed on the vampire (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=eb4eb7f8.0106150931.5a42ee51%40pos ting.google.com), we can also find that [LSJ 20001121] (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8vdoj8%24a0m%241%40nnrp1.deja.com& rnum=2) suggests that when Burst of Sunlight resolves, Talaq is an ally. Since the delayed resolution is similar, I'm unsure why Akhenaten would count as a vampire for resolution purposes of the above - and so the action would seem to fizzle at the point of "Put this card on this vampire". I would ask LSJ to clarify. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:57:58 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > In message <a40n6p$l7o$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault > <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: <Charming Lobby to burn > an Anarch Revolt or similar carD> >>here, we don't play any card, we're still executing ChLob's text, so >>we're still considered a vampire for that purpose ** > > Yes, but this occurs during resolution - and you were only given pseudo- > vampire status for playing the card. (Card text of Herald.) > > Strikes and actions have delayed resolution from playing, whereas other > cards function as one. > From the rulebook [6.2], the acting sequence is as follows : Announce the Action (play "as the action is declared" modifiers) (eventually play some other modifiers) Resolve Any Block Attempts (stealth and intercept sequence) (more modifiers, maybe) Resolve the Action Please correct the above sequence if I missed something. When exactly in this sequence does the Ally playing an action card "as a vampire" loses its pseudo-vampire status ? Francois

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <a40rc3$1b0qrq$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin > <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Wouldn't that line of reasoning imply that the "Akhenaten > >plays Ex Nihilo" thing wouldn't even go as far as putting > >the card on Akhenaten, since he's (according to this > >argument) no longer playing the card as a vampire when it > >resolves? > > Whilst [LSJ 20010615] suggests that it can be placed on the vampire > > (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=eb4eb7f8.0106150931.5a42ee51%40pos > ting.google.com), > > we can also find that [LSJ 20001121] > > (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8vdoj8%24a0m%241%40nnrp1.deja.com& > rnum=2) > > suggests that when Burst of Sunlight resolves, Talaq is an ally. > > Since the delayed resolution is similar, I'm unsure why Akhenaten would > count as a vampire for resolution purposes of the above - and so the > action would seem to fizzle at the point of "Put this card on this > vampire". > > I would ask LSJ to clarify. Good point. Probably a better ruling would draw the line between "things that happen because the card is played" and "things that happen because the card is in play". So if an ally can play a card "as a vampire", then the effects of the card go off as if he were a vampire. For other effects, including effects generated by that card remaining in play, he is not treated as a vampire. Moving the line thus would put Talaq in danger from his Burst of Sunlight strike. It would also allow the Herald to play Charming Lobby in order to call a referendum. Neither of those are true currently. I'll put this on the RT list for review. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a40tkp$q97$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: >When exactly in this sequence does the Ally playing an action card "as a >vampire" loses its pseudo-vampire status ? It's hard to say, as we have two interestingly interacting rulings on the table. LSJ is reviewing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Good point. > >Probably a better ruling would draw the line between >"things that happen because the card is played" and "things >that happen because the card is in play". So if an ally can >play a card "as a vampire", then the effects of the card >go off as if he were a vampire. For other effects, including >effects generated by that card remaining in play, he is not >treated as a vampire. > >Moving the line thus would put Talaq in danger from his >Burst of Sunlight strike. > >It would also allow the Herald to play Charming Lobby in >order to call a referendum. > >Neither of those are true currently. > >I'll put this on the RT list for review. Ewwww! That's starting to look extremely convoluted and very counter-intuitive. I think we should just keep things the way they are! Halcyan 2 ...evilwhinyBaaliplayerstryingtoruinitforTalaq...

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Henrik wrote: >> Why isn't the "allies cannot call referendums" part overcomed by the >> cardtext on charming lobby in this case? Compare with "tapped vampires >> cannot block", which is overcomed by Wake with evenings freshness... What's >> the difference here? > >Not much, really. >Just the idea that the "allies cannot call referndums" is immutable, like >"You cannot bleed yourself". So a (hypothetical) ally with the text "This ally can call referendums" wouldn't in fact be able to call referendums? What is the reason some rules are so written in stone that they can't even in principle be broken by card text, and how do we differentaite them from those rules which can be overridden by card text? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Nothing succeeds like excess"

In message <20020209020923...@mb-fd.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes: >Ewwww! That's starting to look extremely convoluted and very counter-intuitive. > >I think we should just keep things the way they are! At the moment, they mean that in some circumstances, when an effect resolves you're a vampire, and in others you're an ally. Care to explain why Akhenaten is a vampire for Ex Nihilo resolution but Talaq isn't a vampire for Burst of Sunlight resolution? [ quoted text not captured ]

>At the moment, they mean that in some circumstances, when an effect >resolves you're a vampire, and in others you're an ally. > >Care to explain why Akhenaten is a vampire for Ex Nihilo resolution but >Talaq isn't a vampire for Burst of Sunlight resolution? Because I use Talaq more often than I use Akhenaten? =P Halcyan 2

LSJ wrote: >Henrik wrote: >> Why isn't the "allies cannot call referendums" part overcomed by the >> cardtext on charming lobby in this case? Compare with "tapped vampires >> cannot block", which is overcomed by Wake with evenings freshness... What's >> the difference here? > >Not much, really. >Just the idea that the "allies cannot call referndums" is immutable, like >"You cannot bleed yourself". If I may suggest, another reason could be ambiguity of card text. It is clear that card text on Herald was intended to overcome the rule against allies playing discipline cards, but not clear that it was intended to overcome specifically the rule against their calling of votes. With Wake, there is no ambiguity about the intent of the card and what default rule it intends to overcome.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:14:34 GMT, Johan Lundstrom wrote: >What is the reason some rules are so written in stone that they can't >even in principle be broken by card text, and how do we differentaite >them from those rules which can be overridden by card text? They are differentiated by being called "Golden Rules". The second of these gives cards permission to override any of the other rules. There are higher-order metarules (rules about rules) such as tournament rules but these are not relevant in this case. Andrew

> So a (hypothetical) ally with the text "This ally can call > referendums" wouldn't in fact be able to call referendums? No. In this case, the card text explicitly allows the ally to call referendums. Herald does not explicitly allow it - yes, his ability allows him to play the Charming Lobby, but it doesn't allow him to call referendums. Let's say there's an ally - Akashic Mage. Let's say he has a restriction - cannot bleed. Then let's give him the special - may play cards requiring basic Dominate as if he were a vampire of capacity 4. Could he Govern? No. Because he can't bleed. Consider all allies to have explicit card text saying "May not call referendums" and you're all set. Fanboy

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:9F6577198103A73A.106FB64B...@lp.airnews.net... > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:14:34 GMT, Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > >What is the reason some rules are so written in stone that they can't > >even in principle be broken by card text, and how do we differentaite > >them from those rules which can be overridden by card text? > > They are differentiated by being called "Golden Rules". The second of > these gives cards permission to override any of the other rules. > Also, the rule that says that hand damage is not ranged also is somehow not able to be overridden by card text, even by a combo of cards which would lead to a ranged hand strike. This rule should probably be moved to the Golden Rules. ;)

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:32:15 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > In message <a40tkp$q97$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault > <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: >>When exactly in this sequence does the Ally playing an action card "as a >>vampire" loses its pseudo-vampire status ? > > It's hard to say, as we have two interestingly interacting rulings on > the table. LSJ is reviewing it. > And for the sake of completeness, and since you're in the process of refining the mechanics, I have an other question. Let's imagine the Tzimisce ally "Big Eyed Ghoul", who can play cards requiring basic Auspex as a 3-cap vampire. To block the following actions, it plays Enhanced Senses. Could this ally block a Slaughtering the Herd action (allies can't block) ? Could this ally block an action modified by Daring the Dawn (vampires can't block) ? Francois

In message <a47vov$4it$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: [An Auspex Pseudo-Vampire] >Could this ally block a Slaughtering the Herd action (allies can't block) ? No. Having the ability to play Auspex cards isn't the same as being a vampire for blocking purposes. (But you could still use Aura Reading, say.) >Could this ally block an action modified by Daring the Dawn (vampires >can't block) ? I would tend to say yes. He plays them as a vampire of... but this doesn't actually stop him being an ally. [ quoted text not captured ]

Francois Gombault: >And for the sake of completeness, and since you're in the process of >refining the mechanics, I have an other question. > >Let's imagine the Tzimisce ally "Big Eyed Ghoul", who can play cards >requiring basic Auspex as a 3-cap vampire. > >To block the following actions, it plays Enhanced Senses. > >Could this ally block a Slaughtering the Herd action (allies can't block) ? >Could this ally block an action modified by Daring the Dawn (vampires >can't block) ? In both cases, he must be treated as an ally in terms of deciding if he can attempt to block. He declares the block attempt first, and does so as an ally. Then, to determine if the block is successful, he adds intercept as a vampire. It would be a bit more tricky, I guess, if he were to play some Auspex card that granted him block ability. For instance, supposing could play Superior Auspex cards, what if he played Eagle's Sight? Similarly could he play some hypothetical Auspex version of WWEF (assume it is identical to WWEF but has no Do-Not-Replace restriction). -- John Whelan

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:igG8j75D...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a47vov$4it$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>, Francois Gombault > <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> writes: > [An Auspex Pseudo-Vampire] > >Could this ally block a Slaughtering the Herd action (allies can't block) ? > > No. Having the ability to play Auspex cards isn't the same as being a > vampire for blocking purposes. (But you could still use Aura Reading, > say.) > > >Could this ally block an action modified by Daring the Dawn (vampires > >can't block) ? > > I would tend to say yes. He plays them as a vampire of... but this > doesn't actually stop him being an ally. I may be in dangerously hypothetical waters here, but: I think it does stop him being an ally for the duration of playing the card. Otherwise why would Talaq be in danger from Burst of Sunlight (if the hypothetical ruling were made that allies playing cards as vampires "remain" vampires for all effects caused by the card)? (does damage to "all vampires in combat".) I think this imaginary Auspex-playing ally *would* be able to block a 1-stealth Daring the Dawn action with Enhanced Senses, though, because although he plays the Enhanced Senses as a vampire, he is no longer a vampire once the Enhanced Senses is done being played, and so will be (again) eligible to block and now have enough intercept to block as well. Josh possibleye?

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I think this imaginary Auspex-playing ally *would* be > able to block a 1-stealth Daring the Dawn action with > Enhanced Senses, though, because although he plays the > Enhanced Senses as a vampire, he is no longer a vampire > once the Enhanced Senses is done being played, and so > will be (again) eligible to block and now have enough > intercept to block as well. Can't play Eagle's Sight as a vampire - since vampires cannot block and therefore would not need intercept (and you can only play Eagle's Sight if you're blocking and need intercept). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C67D271...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I think this imaginary Auspex-playing ally *would* be > > able to block a 1-stealth Daring the Dawn action with > > Enhanced Senses, though, because although he plays the > > Enhanced Senses as a vampire, he is no longer a vampire > > once the Enhanced Senses is done being played, and so > > will be (again) eligible to block and now have enough > > intercept to block as well. > > Can't play Eagle's Sight as a vampire - since vampires cannot > block and therefore would not need intercept (and you can > only play Eagle's Sight if you're blocking and need intercept). You mean Enhanced Senses, right? (Though at inferior that and Eagle's Sight are the same.) This feels weird to me in that the block would succeed if Daring the Dawn were played *after* the Enhanced Senses (since the ally's back to being an ally once ES resolves), but not (apparently) if DtD is played first. Ah well, what's one more weirdness? :-) Josh to the maaaaax

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > I think this imaginary Auspex-playing ally *would* be > > > able to block a 1-stealth Daring the Dawn action with > > > Enhanced Senses, though, because although he plays the > > > Enhanced Senses as a vampire, he is no longer a vampire > > > once the Enhanced Senses is done being played, and so > > > will be (again) eligible to block and now have enough > > > intercept to block as well. > > > > Can't play Eagle's Sight as a vampire - since vampires cannot > > block and therefore would not need intercept (and you can > > only play Eagle's Sight if you're blocking and need intercept). > > You mean Enhanced Senses, right? (Though at inferior that > and Eagle's Sight are the same.) Right. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >Joshua Duffin wrote: >> I think this imaginary Auspex-playing ally *would* be >> able to block a 1-stealth Daring the Dawn action with >> Enhanced Senses, though, because although he plays the >> Enhanced Senses as a vampire, he is no longer a vampire >> once the Enhanced Senses is done being played, and so >> will be (again) eligible to block and now have enough >> intercept to block as well. >Can't play Eagle's Sight as a vampire - since vampires cannot >block and therefore would not need intercept (and you can >only play Eagle's Sight if you're blocking and need intercept). Something is awry with the game mechanics of these "as a vampire" cards. This is supposed to model minions who can create effects similar to those of vampires with disciplines even though they're not vampires and don't actually have the disciplines. In no present case is the minion "slumming" as a vampire - they should *never* get the peculiar advantages and disadvantages of vampires during the process of playing a card. There should be no "when do they go back to being an ally" decision because they should never stop in the first place. If some Tremeresque magus had an ability to actually become a vampire for the duration of an action, it should need explicit text a la Grandest Trick. Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ, the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to do this right? Correspondance mages or vicissitude-enhanced ghouls should not lose their Auspex-mimicking abilities because it's daytime; that's incredibly counterintuitive. In regards to the original Charming Lobby question, I now think the herald should be barred - because Charming Lobby doesn't grant the ability to call a vote you can't call in the first place, right? E.g. Igo can't CL to call a Parity Shift. CL might need errata to make this clear. P.S. What happened to the interpretation that CL calls a vote with no effect other than to autopass the next vote? That would solve the problem - the Herald could CL, but somebody else must call the actual vote. I see no problem with skilled lobbyists who can't actually call votes - that's what most of them are. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

In message <20020211183952...@mb-mv.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> writes: >Surely with the extensive play and rules experience of LSJ, >the Rules Team, and WW, somebody can figure out how to >do this right? LSJ did indicate this was under review. He's merely indicating how things work as they stand, so far as I can tell. [ quoted text not captured ]