So in a particularly preposterous game we just played involving 4 vote
decks, we had an inordinate amount of title contestation--at one point
in the game, we had 2 Princes of Atlanta contesting, 2 Princes of
Boston contesting, 3 Princes of DC contesting, and then we noticed that
we also had an Archbishop of DC in play too. We became confused and
looked in the newest rulebook, and discovered that according to the
ambigious wording, a given city can have one Prince or Archbishop,
which made us more confused, and then we remembered the old obsolete
Sabbat rule about vampires getting to fight 'cause of this sort of
thing, and got even more confused.
So what happens if there is a Prince and an Archbishop of the same city
in play at the same time? Do they contest?
Thanks,
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yes, they do. Just out of curiousity I looked up the relevant piece of
text. Much to my surprise, I found nothing on the C,R,E page, even
though I distinctly recall when this was "errataed" after SW came out.
Oh well, the rulebook says (4.2, first paragraph):
Some titles are unique. For example, there can be only one prince or
archbishop of a particular city (see Vampiric Sects, sec. 10). If more
than one vampire in play claims the same title, then the title is
contested. While the title is being contested, the vampires involved
in the contest are treated as if they have no title, but they remain
controlled and may act and block as normal.
I guess the devil lies in the details. I can see though why you would
get the impression that princes and archbishops contest among
themselves, but not among eachother... I guess if many people draw
the same conclusion, it would be better to elaborate the concept of
city-based dominion (and say something like, some titles are tied to
and represent dominion over a given city - irrespective of the actual
title (Prince, Archbishop, Baron or Monitor) vampires reigning over
the same city are considered to contest).
--
Bye,
Daneel
In message <ops2m1yd...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
writes:
>I guess the devil lies in the details. I can see though why you would
> get the impression that princes and archbishops contest among
> themselves, but not among eachother... I guess if many people draw
> the same conclusion, it would be better to elaborate the concept of
> city-based dominion (and say something like, some titles are tied to
> and represent dominion over a given city - irrespective of the actual
> title (Prince, Archbishop, Baron or Monitor) vampires reigning over
> the same city are considered to contest).
This is actually sort-of already done, but in 10.x rather than 4.x.
10.x is much more explicit about this, and is referenced by 4.x which
only mentions it as an example.
10.1 The title of prince is associated with a particular city
and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
prince or archbishop of the same city.
10.2 Like Camarilla princes, the title of archbishop is
associated with a particular city and can be contested by
another vampire who claims the title of prince or archbishop of
the same city.
These ever-so-slightly unhelpfully gloss over Barons, which is covered
only in 10.5.
10.5 The title of baron is associated with a particular city
and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
prince, archbishop or baron of the same city. If the title is
contested with a prince or an archbishop, then the anarch's cost
to contest it is increased by 1 blood.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Daneel wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2005 22:58:48 -0800, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:>> So what happens if there is a Prince and an Archbishop of the same city
>> in play at the same time? Do they contest?>
> Yes, they do. Just out of curiousity I looked up the relevant piece of
> text. Much to my surprise, I found nothing on the C,R,E page, even
> though I distinctly recall when this was "errataed" after SW came out.
It was changed when SW came out, yes.
It was never errata'ed to be so -- the rule always matched the printed
rulebook at the time.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c196a98d244ab2cf
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Daneel wrote:
> I guess the devil lies in the details. I can see though why you would
> get the impression that princes and archbishops contest among
> themselves, but not among eachother.
Yeah, I think when Sabbat came out, the titles didn't contest each
other (i.e. you could have both a Prince and an Archbishop of the same
city), but there was that wacky "they can attack each other" rule,
which may have always been optional, but then quickly became disavowed
by the inherriting design team.
It seems reasonable that when the rules were refitted with the WW
takeover, the Prince/Archbishop rules were reconsidered or clarified,
and I never noticed. As noted, that Princes and Archbishops (and
Barons, for that matter) all contest each other isn't spelled out in
the same portion of the rules as the rules for title contestation
(section 10 vs section 4?), so it is easy to miss. At least by me.
And as I can't remember the last time I was in a game where we had
contested titles, let alone a 4 way contestation between 3 Princes and
an Archbishop, I haven't really thought about it till now :-)
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> and I never noticed. As noted, that Princes and Archbishops (and
> Barons, for that matter) all contest each other isn't spelled out in
> the same portion of the rules as the rules for title contestation
> (section 10 vs section 4?), so it is easy to miss. At least by me.
The example given in 4 of titles contesting is "there can only be one
prince or archbishop of a particular city". And it immediately thereupon
directs the reader to section 10.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <Ul2G$W+bDktDFw$q...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>,
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
// This is actually sort-of already done, but in 10.x rather than 4.x.
// 10.x is much more explicit about this, and is referenced by 4.x which
// only mentions it as an example.
//
// 10.1 The title of prince is associated with a particular city
// and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
// prince or archbishop of the same city.
//
// 10.2 Like Camarilla princes, the title of archbishop is
// associated with a particular city and can be contested by
// another vampire who claims the title of prince or archbishop of
// the same city.
//
// These ever-so-slightly unhelpfully gloss over Barons, which is covered
// only in 10.5.
//
// 10.5 The title of baron is associated with a particular city
// and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
// prince, archbishop or baron of the same city. If the title is
// contested with a prince or an archbishop, then the anarch's cost
// to contest it is increased by 1 blood.
Actually, the net sum of the way these are worded is that
contesting titles is asymmetric. A baron can have his title
contested by a prince or archbishop without contesting their
title at all (since they are explicited listed as only contesting
each other). With the extra cost when contested this seems
really bad for barons, and I'm having a hard time believing
this is whats really intended... especially since section 4.x
doesn't handle barons at all, which suggests that this is a
huge oversight in need of rewrite.
Brent Ross
In message <dpkrdu$qhh$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>, Brent Ross
<bwr...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
>Actually, the net sum of the way these are worded is that
>contesting titles is asymmetric. A baron can have his title
>contested by a prince or archbishop without contesting their
>title at all (since they are explicited listed as only contesting
>each other). With the extra cost when contested this seems
>really bad for barons, and I'm having a hard time believing
>this is whats really intended... especially since section 4.x
>doesn't handle barons at all, which suggests that this is a
>huge oversight in need of rewrite.
Going backwards:
4.x isn't in need of a rewrite. 4.x says:
4.2. Contested Titles
Some titles are unique. For example, there can be only one
prince or archbishop of a particular city (see Vampiric Sects,
sec. 10).
It also doesn't mention Justicars, or the card-text based title of
Liaison, either. The example is just that - an example.
Regarding the wording, it is slightly awkward but the effect is not what
you describe.
10.5 The title of baron is associated with a particular city
and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
prince, archbishop or baron of the same city. If the title is
contested with a prince or an archbishop, then the anarch's cost
to contest it is increased by 1 blood.
It doesn't really matter who kicks off the contesting in the first
place, as once a title is contested (such as a Prince contesting a Fee
Stake) it applies to both (or more) holders of the title - they contest
each other. So it doesn't matter if it's the Prince who starts it or
the Baron (or the Archbishop).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1fluBaVc...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>,
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
// Regarding the wording, it is slightly awkward but the effect is not what
// you describe.
//
// 10.5 The title of baron is associated with a particular city
// and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
// prince, archbishop or baron of the same city. If the title is
// contested with a prince or an archbishop, then the anarch's cost
// to contest it is increased by 1 blood.
//
// It doesn't really matter who kicks off the contesting in the first
// place, as once a title is contested (such as a Prince contesting a Fee
// Stake) it applies to both (or more) holders of the title - they contest
// each other. So it doesn't matter if it's the Prince who starts it or
// the Baron (or the Archbishop).
My point is that the rules are pretty badly written. In this case
it's nice to assume that contesting works in the logical way...
however, the rules for what contests a prince/archbishop title do
not list a barony. This is a huge oversight in my books, since in
this case it is not simply an example... it is a list of the
things which contest the title.
The total sum of what the rules say end up with baronies being
contested without causing contestion (unless it's against another
baron). A complete an utter mess that isn't explicitly corrected
in section 4 (like section 10 one can make inferences based on
ideas of "common sense"... but that shouldn't be necessary in well
written rules, especially when this could be a lot clearer by
adding only a couple words). Not that fixing section 4 is
important... fixing secions 10.1 and 10.2 to include baron is
pretty much what really needs doing, or better yet simply pulling
them all together and refering to them as city titles (complete
with a definition... something which also should have already been
done since since the term "city title" is refered to on Anarch
Secession, but without a definition on that card or in the rule
book... another example of rule sloppiness).
Brent Ross
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:34:58 +0000 (UTC), bwr...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Brent Ross) scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
But your arguments seem to be based on the idea that 'contesting' is
where one vampire is paying blood while they don't have the benefit of
their title. But contesting, by it's very nature, requires two or more
vampires to be contesting amongst each other. The idea that the Baron
has his title inert and paying for it, while the prince or archbishop
who shares his city does not, is meaningless. That's not contesting,
that's one vampire squirting blood out it's anus for no reason.
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Brent Ross wrote:
> In article <1fluBaVc...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>,
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> // Regarding the wording, it is slightly awkward but the effect is not what
> // you describe.
> //
> // 10.5 The title of baron is associated with a particular city
> // and can be contested by another vampire who claims the title of
> // prince, archbishop or baron of the same city. If the title is
> // contested with a prince or an archbishop, then the anarch's cost
> // to contest it is increased by 1 blood.
> //
> // It doesn't really matter who kicks off the contesting in the first
> // place, as once a title is contested (such as a Prince contesting a Fee
> // Stake) it applies to both (or more) holders of the title - they contest
> // each other. So it doesn't matter if it's the Prince who starts it or
> // the Baron (or the Archbishop).
>
> My point is that the rules are pretty badly written. In this case
> it's nice to assume that contesting works in the logical way...
> however, the rules for what contests a prince/archbishop title do
> not list a barony. This is a huge oversight in my books, since in
> this case it is not simply an example... it is a list of the
> things which contest the title.
You had difficulty finding the proper section that listed it in the
rulebook, and while understandably difficult for you, does not mean
that they were badly written.
I have to say that saying that the entirety of the rules are badly
written is a pretty gross overstatement.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp