Sabbat and non-Camarilla

Are Sabbat vampires non-Camarilla? I know that the only Vampire cards stating non-Camarilla are the Giovanni, Ravnos, Assamite and Setites, so, according to the cards, the term non-Camarilla doesn't apply to Sabbat Vampires. It means that Sabbat vampires could vote during a Closed Session called by a Camarilla vampire. Errr... pretty weird, isn't it? The problem also arises with Camarilla Segregation. Is there an "official" errata or what is the general opinion on this matter? Gilles

Gilles Garnier <g.ga...@ags.fr> writes: >Are Sabbat vampires non-Camarilla? Yes. There are now three classifcations of Vampires: 1) Camarilla 2) Independent 3) Sabbat >I know that the only Vampire cards stating non-Camarilla are the >Giovanni, Ravnos, Assamite and Setites, so, according to the cards, the >term non-Camarilla doesn't apply to Sabbat Vampires. Non-Camarilla means "not in group (1)". It includes both independent and Sabbat vampires. Similarly, Non-Sabbat means "not in group (3)". -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Voyager: http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | To boldly get lost where no Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | one has been lost before!

Question: would then the clanless vamps from the original release of cards be Camarilla or Independent? Chick Lewis --------------------------- [ quoted text not captured ]

chick...@aol.com (ChickLewis) writes: >LSJ wrote: >There are now three classifcations of Vampires: >1) Camarilla >2) Independent >3) Sabbat >Question: would then the clanless vamps from the original release of >cards be Camarilla or Independent? Caitiff are considered Camarilla vampires, even though they have no clan. They can Seize Praxis without any difficulty (and do so with remarkable regularity :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

ChickLewis (chick...@aol.com) wrote: : Question: would then the clanless vamps from the original release of : cards be Camarilla or Independent? It has been established that the Caitiff are Camarilla vampires that are clanless. Such is life. -spongy

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : chick...@aol.com (ChickLewis) writes: : >LSJ wrote: : >There are now three classifcations of Vampires: : >1) Camarilla : >2) Independent : >3) Sabbat : >Question: would then the clanless vamps from the original release of : >cards be Camarilla or Independent? : Caitiff are considered Camarilla vampires, even though they have no : clan. They can Seize Praxis without any difficulty (and do so with : remarkable regularity :-) I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff considered to be Camarilla by definition? Or are they merely considered Camarilla because they do not have card text indicating otherwise? If WotC were to print a vampire card with the Caitiff symbol, and the words "non-camarilla", would this be a contradiction? If it is, what then would you call a clanless, independent vampire? John Whelan

John Whelan (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : : >LSJ wrote: : : >There are now three classifcations of Vampires: : : >1) Camarilla : : >2) Independent : : >3) Sabbat : : Caitiff are considered Camarilla vampires, even though they have no : : clan. : : I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff : considered to be Camarilla by definition? Or are they merely considered : Camarilla because they do not have card text indicating otherwise? By CCG definition from WotC, when the first non-camarilla vamps were introduced in DS. I'm not certain whether this was phrased as a clarification of their "card text" or whether it was made a definition. My recollection leads me to believe that it was a "definition" of Caitiff. I'm not sure how this ties in to the role playing game, though. : If WotC were to print a vampire card with the Caitiff symbol, and the : words "non-camarilla", would this be a contradiction? My assumption based on my recollection would be "yes". : If it is, what then would you call a clanless, independent vampire? I would say that it would be a clanless, independent vampire. :) -spony

jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: Caitiff are considered Camarilla vampires, even though they have no >: clan. They can Seize Praxis without any difficulty (and do so with >: remarkable regularity :-) >I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff >considered to be Camarilla by definition? Or are they merely considered >Camarilla because they do not have card text indicating otherwise? By definition, in my book. But, by card text according to WotC. However, one of the Ventrue Antitribu is missing the "Sabbat" card text, so, by WotC standards, that would make him a Camarilla vampire. (Holding a Sabbat title, no less :-) Lazverinus, Thrall of Lambach 10 Capacity AUS DOM FOR POT pro Ventrue Antitribu Archbishop of Houston: +2 hand damage Now, in this light, how would you prefer that Caitiff be identified as Camarilla vampires? >If WotC were to print a vampire card with the Caitiff symbol, and the >words "non-camarilla", would this be a contradiction? In the WoD? No. This would be as things should be. In the game as it stands? Yes. A vampire's starting clan (Caitiff included in this loose usage of clan) determine's his starting sect (which is why I can say with some assurity that Lazverinus is a Sabbat vampire.) >If it is, what then would you call a clanless, independent vampire? Non existent. But, if they choose to print one, I'd call it Caitiff as well. (If they move so far, hopefully they'll issue errata that all Caitiff are independent) [ quoted text not captured ]

jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes: Date: 22 Jan 1997 22:00:09 -0500 Message-ID: <5c6k7p$s...@dorsai.dorsai.org> >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: Caitiff are considered Camarilla vampires, even though they have no >: clan. They can Seize Praxis without any difficulty (and do so with >: remarkable regularity :-) >I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff >considered to be Camarilla by definition? Not by definition, but the way WotC has set things up a Caitiff is assumed Camarilla unless otherwise stated. >Or are they merely considered >Camarilla because they do not have card text indicating otherwise? More or less. In the World of Darkness, most Caitiff are independent anarchs. When WotC printed Jyhad, the Caitiff had no text regarding their Camarilla association but all had full Camarilla privileges. So the default for a Caitiff with no additional text is to be Camarilla, even though this doesn't accurately capture the demographics of the WOD. >If WotC were to print a vampire card with the Caitiff symbol, and the >words "non-camarilla", would this be a contradiction? No, just an exception to the usual rules. No reason you couldn't have a "non-Camarilla" Ventrue by the same effect. Possibly there will be an anarch expansion someday, and many of the vampires in that expansion should be "non-Camarilla" Caitiff, and would need that printed on their cards. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

John Whelan writes: >I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff >considered to be Camarilla by definition? Or are they merely considered >Camarilla because they do not have card text indicating otherwise? Half and half. Most cities are run by either the Camarilla or the Sabbat. A clanless in a Sabbat city will be recruited into the Pander. A clanless in any other city is Camarilla by default. The Camarilla will let just about any vampire into their fold. >If WotC were to print a vampire card with the Caitiff symbol, and the >words "non-camarilla", would this be a contradiction? Not really. Look at the Pander. >If it is, what then would you call a clanless, independent vampire? Dead meat. -- ________________ Love is never having to ______ ___@^^^^\ / \ say, 'Shut the hell up!' / \ @ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ > (^^^^^\ _______ ___/ \---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz / \_____________/ \__________________________________/

In article <19970124170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes: > Date: 22 Jan 1997 22:00:09 -0500 > Message-ID: <5c6k7p$s...@dorsai.dorsai.org> > > >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > > >: Caitiff are considered Camarilla vampires, even though they have no > >: clan. They can Seize Praxis without any difficulty (and do so with > >: remarkable regularity :-) > > >I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff > >considered to be Camarilla by definition? > > Not by definition, but the way WotC has set things up a Caitiff is assumed > Camarilla unless otherwise stated. > > >Or are they merely considered > >Camarilla because they do not have card text indicating otherwise? > > More or less. In the World of Darkness, most Caitiff are independent > anarchs. When WotC printed Jyhad, the Caitiff had no text regarding their > Camarilla association but all had full Camarilla privileges. So the > default for a Caitiff with no additional text is to be Camarilla, even > though this doesn't accurately capture the demographics of the WOD. > > >If WotC were to print a vampire card with the Caitiff symbol, and the > >words "non-camarilla", would this be a contradiction? > > No, just an exception to the usual rules. No reason you couldn't have a > "non-Camarilla" Ventrue by the same effect. Possibly there will be an > anarch expansion someday, and many of the vampires in that expansion > should be "non-Camarilla" Caitiff, and would need that printed on their > cards. Except that I don't think the term non-Camarilla is used anymore--in the Sabbat rules folder, Assamite, Giovanni, Ravnos, and Setite are referred to as Independent. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request

OK, I've got a different slant on the Non-Camarilla definition argument, which has probably been errated here before now, but I have to ask, I'm afraid. Cornelius Ottavio. Gets an additional +1 bleed if your prey controls a ready Non-Camarilla vampire. However, what exactly defines a Non-Camarilla vampire? Do Sabbat count? Should all references to Non-Camarilla be changed to 'Independent Clan'???) I'm not bothered about Caitiff - we always assumed in our group that they were the scum of the Camarilla (except for Smudge - he rocks!!!) However, I also have another question that is gonna annoy the heck out of everybody: What defines Sect? Does clan define Sect or vice versa? If Ian Forestal used a Writ of Acceptance, would he become a standard Tremere? I would think not, but in the WoD there are a number of vampires who have defected from the Sabbat (mostly) to the Camarilla and take the 'antitribu' suffix (Lasombra antitribu predominantly). If a Lasombra were to get a Writ, would he or she change clan? They would not be accepted by their original clan or sect any more, that's for sure. Would they become Caitiff/Pander? And how exactly to Camarilla vampires defect? Unless there's a card that I haven't got from the Sabbat, do they have to resort to Clan Impersonations? And even then, you've still got the same problem - the vampire is changing clan, *not* sect. And my final question is a little annoying - do Pander count as a Clan? Can you Consanguineous Boon/Condemnation them? I would think not - again the WoD definition, and the fatc that I see Pander as Caitiff 'antitribu'. Oh well, that should keep you going for a while :-) -- Pax Vobiscum Justin Grace

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup, have to agree with that. However, I am assuming that cards like Covenant of Blood and Imperial Decree mean that *both* Sabbat and Independent clans can rush Camarilla clans and vice-versa? ---- James Coupe

>>> >I'm curious about one thing of no consequence whatsoever. Are Caitiff >>> >considered to be Camarilla by definition? Actually, the Camarilla considers all Vampires to be part of it, whether they want to or not. This is the prime reason for the existence of the Anarchs and Sabbat (and to a lesser extent, the Inconnu, but if any of the other sects bothered them there would be such severe retribution that they might think Gehenna had actually come...:)) -Daisy Malkavian Justicar "Reality and I had a fundamental differing of opinions. We're currently undergoing trial separation."

Justin Grace <Jus...@bgrace.demon.co.uk> writes: >OK, I've got a different slant on the Non-Camarilla definition argument, >which has probably been errated here before now, but I have to ask, I'm >afraid. >Cornelius Ottavio. >Gets an additional +1 bleed if your prey controls a ready Non-Camarilla >vampire. >However, what exactly defines a Non-Camarilla vampire? Do Sabbat count? Any vampire that is not a Camarilla vampire. Sabbat vampires count. Non-Camarilla: Independent and Sabbat Non-Sabbat: Independent and Camarilla Non-Independent: Camarilla and Sabbat >Should all references to Non-Camarilla be changed to 'Independent >Clan'???) No. >I'm not bothered about Caitiff - we always assumed in our group that >they were the scum of the Camarilla (except for Smudge - he rocks!!!) >However, I also have another question that is gonna annoy the heck out >of everybody: >What defines Sect? Does clan define Sect or vice versa? Yes. Clan and sect are synonyms. Like Wild Hunt and Blood Hunt :-) >If Ian Forestal used a Writ of Acceptance, would he become a standard >Tremere? I would think not, but in the WoD there are a number of >vampires who have defected from the Sabbat (mostly) to the Camarilla and >take the 'antitribu' suffix (Lasombra antitribu predominantly). No. He would be a vampire of clan Tremere Antitribu and of sect Camarilla. >If a Lasombra were to get a Writ, would he or she change clan? They >would not be accepted by their original clan or sect any more, that's >for sure. Would they become Caitiff/Pander? No. He would be a Lasombra member of the Camarilla sect. >And how exactly to Camarilla vampires defect? Unless there's a card that >I haven't got from the Sabbat, do they have to resort to Clan >Impersonations? And even then, you've still got the same problem - the >vampire is changing clan, *not* sect. That's not a problem, any more than it was a problem for Camarilla vampires to impersonate a clan of normally Independent sect. >And my final question is a little annoying - do Pander count as a Clan? Yes. This is stated explicitly in the Sabbat rules-addendum sheet, sec. 2 >Can you Consanguineous Boon/Condemnation them? I would think not - again >the WoD definition, and the fatc that I see Pander as Caitiff >'antitribu'. The WoD definition includes the fact that Joseph Pander fought for and won clan status among the Sabbat for the "vampires with weak bloodlines". -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Kirk: How's Ensign Pilsbury? http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | McCoy: He's Bread, Jim. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justin Grace <Jus...@bgrace.demon.co.uk> writes: >OK, I've got a different slant on the Non-Camarilla definition argument, >which has probably been errated here before now, but I have to ask, I'm >afraid. >Cornelius Ottavio. >Gets an additional +1 bleed if your prey controls a ready Non-Camarilla >vampire. >However, what exactly defines a Non-Camarilla vampire? Do Sabbat count? Any vampire that is not a Camarilla vampire. Sabbat vampires count. Non-Camarilla: Independent and Sabbat Non-Sabbat: Independent and Camarilla Non-Independent: Camarilla and Sabbat >Should all references to Non-Camarilla be changed to 'Independent >Clan'???) No. >I'm not bothered about Caitiff - we always assumed in our group that >they were the scum of the Camarilla (except for Smudge - he rocks!!!) >However, I also have another question that is gonna annoy the heck out >of everybody: >What defines Sect? Does clan define Sect or vice versa? Neither. Clans are associated with certain sects, but vampires of a clan associated with one sect are free to change sects without changing clans (Blah Acceptance). If a vampire changes clans to a clan of a different sect, then he or she also changes sects to the new sect as well. (Clan Impersonation, Derangement, etc.) >If Ian Forestal used a Writ of Acceptance, would he become a standard >Tremere? I would think not, but in the WoD there are a number of >vampires who have defected from the Sabbat (mostly) to the Camarilla and >take the 'antitribu' suffix (Lasombra antitribu predominantly). No. He would be a vampire of clan Tremere Antitribu and of sect Camarilla. >If a Lasombra were to get a Writ, would he or she change clan? They >would not be accepted by their original clan or sect any more, that's >for sure. Would they become Caitiff/Pander? No. He would be a Lasombra member of the Camarilla sect. >And how exactly to Camarilla vampires defect? Unless there's a card that >I haven't got from the Sabbat, do they have to resort to Clan >Impersonations? And even then, you've still got the same problem - the >vampire is changing clan, *not* sect. Yes, they have to resort to Clan Impersonation (or be forcibly recruited via Derangement). [ quoted text not captured ]