Of Noble Blood

Hi Methuselahs, I asked about this card when DS came out, and got a very confusing answer from Tom, making it sound like this was a vote card????? Here is the card: Of Noble Blood Action cost 1 blood Requires ready Primogen +1 Stelath Action Choose a vampire with a capacity above 5. Put this card on that vampire. The Vampire is now a Primogen of his or her clan. Not useable on Catiff. My original question was whether or not this card could be played on someone elses minions, and when I would have to declare who was recieving it, ie. before or after blocking. Tom's response was that terms of the votes are defined after the chance to block has ended, which doesn't help me much, since this is not a political action. Does this card have Eratta making it a political action, or a directed action, or is it still completely ambiguous? HELP!!!!! Algustas *****Perplexity is the beginning of Knowledge.***** Kahlil Gibran

[ quoted text not captured ] None of the above. It is always undirected (and at +1 stealth), but you don't name the target until after the effect (action) remains unblocked. Tom's response was that the specifics of this action are not divulged in the same manner that specifics of voting terms are not divulged. Why this (Noble Blood) is an exception to the general rule (that non-vote actions are completely defined as announced) is not clear, but probably has something to do with WotC covering up the error (omission) in the card text on a card that was clearly intended to be used only on vampires you control. So, the undirected action, if not blocked, can then target any vampire on the table (in the controlled areas of the various Meths) who aren't Caitiff and who have capaicty six or more. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Backing into a fan, the firefly http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | was delighted to no end! Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Hi Scott, Thanks for the response. On 12 Jul 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > Algustas <arob...@efn.org> writes: [Of Noble Blood description deleted.] > > My original question was whether or not this card could be played > >on someone elses minions, and when I would have to declare who was > >recieving it, ie. before or after blocking. > > Tom's response was that terms of the votes are defined after the > >chance to block has ended, which doesn't help me much, since this is not > >a political action. > > Does this card have Eratta making it a political action, or a > >directed action, or is it still completely ambiguous? HELP!!!!! > > None of the above. It is always undirected (and at +1 stealth), > but you don't name the target until after the effect (action) remains > unblocked. Tom's response was that the specifics of this action are > not divulged in the same manner that specifics of voting terms are > not divulged. Why this (Noble Blood) is an exception to the general > rule (that non-vote actions are completely defined as announced) is > not clear, but probably has something to do with WotC covering up the > error (omission) in the card text on a card that was clearly intended > to be used only on vampires you control. > > So, the undirected action, if not blocked, can then target any vampire > on the table (in the controlled areas of the various Meths) who aren't > Caitiff and who have capaicty six or more. Hmm, then that Justicar accross the table who hs been shooting down my votes is about to become a Primogen instead, and she can't even block.... Sounds like house rule time.... Algustas *****If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.***** Otto Von Bismark