Black Hand - is it sect-specific?

I asked this before, buried in a response to a response, but I will try again. Jalan Aajav is Sabbat, and a Black Hand Seraph. If Jalan Aajav gets a Writ of Acceptance, or "Goes Anarch" (as Seraph doesn't seem to be a Title), or whatever, does he continue to be a Black Hand/Seraph? The website says that there are "no new rules", so by the current rules, Black Handedness would stick around with the vampire, whether he's Sabbat, Camarilla, Independent, or Anarch. What's the official word?

[ quoted text not captured ] The official word: There are no new rules in Black Hand. -- 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/

Jozxyqk wrote: > I asked this before, buried in a response to a response, but I will try > again. > > Jalan Aajav is Sabbat, and a Black Hand Seraph. > > If Jalan Aajav gets a Writ of Acceptance, or "Goes Anarch" (as Seraph > doesn't seem to be a Title), or whatever, does he continue to be a > Black Hand/Seraph? I think it's fairly safe to speculate that Black Hand will be treated as a sub-sect, just like Anarch is a sub-sect of Independant. So, if a Black Hand vamp changes sects, they would lose their Black Hand status, just like an Anarch who changes sects loses their Anarch status. (I would also not be surprised if Seraph were a title, even if it's one that gives no votes, and thus Seraphs could not go anarch.) --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote: > I think it's fairly safe to speculate that Black Hand will be treated as > a sub-sect, just like Anarch is a sub-sect of Independant. So, if a > Black Hand vamp changes sects, they would lose their Black Hand status, > just like an Anarch who changes sects loses their Anarch status. If you read LSJ's previous reply to my message, you'll see that you're wrong. Except in the case of Blooding, which is a card that specifically refers to "this Sabbat vampire", there are no new rules governing who can and can't be Black Hand. So, Lazverinus who has played Blooding and then gets a Writ of Acceptance is *not* Black Hand (unless he leaves the Camarilla again), but Jalan Aajav who gets a Writ of Acceptance *is* still Black Hand, and a Seraph. Again, since there are "no new rules", it also indicates to me that Seraph is not a Title.

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<VyNqb.99529$275.274911@attbi_s53>... [ quoted text not captured ] As an aside, note the wording on Blooded: "+1 Stealth action. Requires a ready Sabbat vampire. Put this card on the acting vampire and move one blood from the blood bank to this vampire. This Sabbat vampire is Black Hand. A vampire can only have one Blooding." So, if you play Blooding and then change sects to Cam or Anarch, you're no longer Black Hand (since it says 'This _Sabbat_ vampire is Black Hand', not 'this vampire'). (Though this won't apply for the vampires innately Black Hand, like Teresita or Jalan-Aajav, who should retain their Hand status regardless.) -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FABA8D5...@white-wolf.com>... > > If Jalan Aajav gets a Writ of Acceptance, or "Goes Anarch" (as Seraph > > doesn't seem to be a Title), or whatever, does he continue to be a > > Black Hand/Seraph? > > > > The website says that there are "no new rules", so by the current > > rules, Black Handedness would stick around with the vampire, whether > > he's Sabbat, Camarilla, Independent, or Anarch. > > > > What's the official word? > > > > The official word: > There are no new rules in Black Hand. I love it when Vtes Cards go along with Canon. Now we can have secret members of the Black Hand in all Sects of the game. -johnmeier1

Jozxyqk wrote: > If you read LSJ's previous reply to my message, you'll see that you're wrong. I did. LSJ says there are no new rules in the BH expansion. This would not be a new rule, methinks. (Note the change on the burn option to be something other than a clan requirement is also "not a new rule"). --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<8qmdne7OQ4a...@speakeasy.net>... > Jozxyqk wrote: > > If you read LSJ's previous reply to my message, you'll see that you're wrong. > > I did. LSJ says there are no new rules in the BH expansion. This would > not be a new rule, methinks. I'd say it's almost absolutely got to be a new rule. Look at it this way - if you handed a Black Hand edition starter deck to someone, would you need a description of what "Black Hand" means somewhere in the rulebook? If it means 'this is a sub-sect of the Sabbat, and only vampires that are Sabbat can have the 'Black Hand' descriptor', yes, you would. (Unlike say 'What is a ghoul' (or 'zombie', or 'mage', or 'werewolf') - which is absolutely meaningless unless it's referred to by another card.) Notice that 'Anarch means Independent and if you stop being Independent you stop being Anarch' is explicitly listed as a 'new rule' from the last expansion, according to the Anarch-edition rulebook (and website rulebook). Additionally, if it were an inherent quality of 'Black Hand' that you had to also be 'Sabbat', Blooded would not need to specify 'this Sabbat Vampire is Black Hand' - it could simply say 'This vampire is Black Hand'. > (Note the change on the burn option to be something other than a clan > requirement is also "not a new rule"). No, it's a re-write of an existing rule for 'what does the burn option icon mean', which is already in the rulebook. There's no existing rule for 'what does 'Black Hand' mean', just as there was no existing rule for 'what does 'Anarch' mean (and 'Anarch' turned out to be a new rule). > --Colin McGuigan -John Flournoy

On 7 Nov 2003 14:04:09 -0800, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) scrawled: [snip] >Notice that 'Anarch means Independent and if you stop being >Independent you stop being Anarch' is explicitly listed as a 'new >rule' from the last expansion, according to the Anarch-edition >rulebook (and website rulebook). > >Additionally, if it were an inherent quality of 'Black Hand' that you >had to also be 'Sabbat', Blooded would not need to specify 'this >Sabbat Vampire is Black Hand' - it could simply say 'This vampire is >Black Hand'. Similarly, Galaric's, Go Anarch and Seattle Committee would not need their 'burn this card(/counter) if change sect' rule, but they still have it for clarity. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<8mjoqvc3tomigc5b4...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] That's not actually the same thing. If Blooded said "This vampire is Black Hand" instead of "this Sabbat vampire", a Sabbat Vampire with blooded who picks up a Writ of Acceptance would stop being BH, but would be BH again when he loses the equipment and goes back to being Sabbat. Galaric's/Go Anarch/Seattle specifically burn the card/counter when you change sect, so that if for instance an Anarch Brujah first Clan Impersonates to Toreador and then Impersonates to say Ravnos, they won't suddenly regain Anarch status upon becoming independent again. > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm -John Flournoy

LSJ wrote: > > The official word: > There are no new rules in Black Hand. > Is new terminology a new rule? I never heard of a Seraph before. thanks, chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) prince of torrance, california *** Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus Into the eyes of the night - watching me go Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple Enter the risen Osiris - risen again - Dickinson

John Flournoy wrote: > I'd say it's almost absolutely got to be a new rule. Look at it this > way - if you handed a Black Hand edition starter deck to someone, > would you need a description of what "Black Hand" means somewhere in > the rulebook? If it means 'this is a sub-sect of the Sabbat, and only > vampires that are Sabbat can have the 'Black Hand' descriptor', yes, > you would. Well...we'll see. When the new BH rulebook comes out, one of us will be right...and one of us will be dead. =P > Additionally, if it were an inherent quality of 'Black Hand' that you > had to also be 'Sabbat', Blooded would not need to specify 'this > Sabbat Vampire is Black Hand' - it could simply say 'This vampire is > Black Hand'. 'Cept that card text overrules rulings. If you had a card that said, "Put this card on a vampire. This vampire becomes an Anarch", one could make the argument that the card could be played on titled vampires. Even if it was wrong, why introduce the confusion and not just word things properly? > No, it's a re-write of an existing rule for 'what does the burn option > icon mean', which is already in the rulebook. There's no existing rule > for 'what does 'Black Hand' mean', just as there was no existing rule > for 'what does 'Anarch' mean (and 'Anarch' turned out to be a new > rule). Which is why adding Black Hand could just be an extension of the new rule. But, we'll just have to wait and see. --Colin McGuigan

Chris Shorb wrote: > Is new terminology a new rule? I never heard of a Seraph before. By way of example, "gun" is not a rule. [ quoted text not captured ]