Are Bahari Vampires considered "Independent?"
Thanks,
Robba Yaga
Card Texts:
Name: Lilith's Blessing
[Promo-20100401]
Cardtype: Master
Cost: 1 pool
Master.
Put this card in play. As a master phase action, you may tap this card to search your library for a master: Discipline card and choose a ready non-Bahari vampire you control who has no blood. That vampire gains the Discipline card (if any) and 3 blood and becomes Bahari.
Artist: Matt Smith
> Robba wrote:
> I didn't find any reference to this in the rules book. Someone should add Bahari rules (unless I simply missed the reference).
>
> Thanks,
> RY
>
There's nothing to add, or miss for that matter. Bahari is only relevant to Lilith's Blessing.
Infamous Insurgent grants the trait, but it doesn't do anything except prevent the use of Lilith's Blessing.
> Robba wrote:
> Are Bahari Vampires considered "Independent?"
>
> Thanks,
> Robba Yaga
>
> Card Texts:
> Name: Lilith's Blessing
> [Promo-20100401]
> Cardtype: Master
> Cost: 1 pool
> Master.
> Put this card in play. As a master phase action, you may tap this card to search your library for a master: Discipline card and choose a ready non-Bahari vampire you control who has no blood. That vampire gains the Discipline card (if any) and 3 blood and becomes Bahari.
> Artist: Matt Smith
>
They aren't.
A rule would be needed if they were, indeed.
> Robba wrote:
> I didn't find any reference to this in the rules book. Someone should add Bahari rules (unless I simply missed the reference).
>
The logic is that the rulebook doesn't need an entry for "Bahari" because it appears nowhere in the entire game except for one card where it is properly defined; the absence of said card in play meaning that the player has no need of being aware of 'Bahari'.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> Robba wrote:
> I didn't find any reference to this in the rules book. Someone should add Bahari rules (unless I simply missed the reference).
>
> Thanks,
> RY
>
A lot of keywords aren't in the rulebook, because they don't do anything except fulfill conditions of other effects.
Do you really need a rulebook entry for "gun", "Seraph" or "hunter-list"?
.
./\.
EDIT: I took too long to post because I was working on my latest "signature art". And got beat to the answer. Oh well.
Actually, IMHO, a complete rulebook would have a index with definitions of all odd words such as Seraph, Hunter-List, Bahari, etc.
Seems safe to assume everyone knows what a "gun" or "melee weapon" is.
Robb
There's no more need to create a "Bahari" definition, ruleswisely, than there is to declare what a gun is (and perhaps a gun is more important than a Bahari, since some cards already interact with guns).
A Seraph is a vampire who can play cards that require a Seraph.
Anyone is free of sending me a short (less than 20 words) description of the "keywords" they think are missing, and they can then be added to the WoD Glossary (vekn.net/index.php/rulebook/11-special-terms)
> Robba wrote:
> Seems safe to assume everyone knows what a "gun" or "melee weapon" is.
>
> Robb
>
OK, pop quiz: Is a chainsaw a melee weapon? What about if it's gas-powered? What if it belongs to Talbot?
A "melee weapon" is only a "melee weapon" if card text says it is. And that's all it is, a keyword on a card. Just like Bahari.
What is a Bahari? A vampire who can be affected by cards that affect Bahari vampires.
Yeah, so this is otherwise retarded...
Chainsaw = Melee
Gas-Powered Chainsaw = Melee
Talbot's Chainsaw = Not a Melee Weapon
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Chainsaw is not a melee weapon:
>
> Name: Chainsaw
> [Jyhad:U2]
> Cardtype: Equipment
> Cost: 2 pool
> Weapon.
> 3 damage {as a strike}, usable only once each combat.
> Artist: Mark Poole
>
Gas-Powered Chainsaw is, and Talbot's isn't.
I was asking rhetorically, to point out that "undocumented" keywords are nothing more than words on cards that trigger effects, regardless of consistency
Still amused that juggernaut managed to get the question wrong... Heh.
I think only reason why Talbot's Chainsaw isn't melee weapon is because back in Jyhad where it was first printed chainsaws weren't considered melee weapons, and they never bothered to change it later (whereas gas-powered was only printed in a later set where they had changed their mind).
> Pascal wrote:
> There's no more need to create a "Bahari" definition, ruleswisely, than there is to declare what a gun is (and perhaps a gun is more important than a Bahari, since some cards already interact with guns).
>
> A Seraph is a vampire who can play cards that require a Seraph.
>
> Anyone is free of sending me a short (less than 20 words) description of the "keywords" they think are missing, and they can then be added to the WoD Glossary (vekn.net/index.php/rulebook/11-special-terms)
>
Might be better to add a section explaining the concept/function of keywords, rather than listing some of them. Possibly with a few examples of the most common keywords (Black Hand, Gun).
Something like:
Some cards have keywords in addition to their card text. These keywords allow other cards to refer to a specific type of card.
For crypt cards keywords are written in bold text along with sect and titles.
For library cards keywords are written in bold text at the top of the text box.
> Robba wrote:
> Actually, IMHO, a complete rulebook would have a index with definitions of all odd words such as Seraph, Hunter-List, Bahari, etc.
>
What do you mean by 'definition'? Do you mean:
a) it would be nice having a long-ish list of various keywords and explanations of what they mean in the World of Darkness ("A Hunter List allows the Imbued to share cookie recipes with other like-minded individuals and arrange bake sales..."), or
b) it would be nice to have a long-ish list of various keywords, and exactly what effect they have on the game?
I think people have interpreted you as asking for b, but your comment that people know what guns and melee weapons are makes me wonder if you mean a).
If you do mean a), I'm not sure the rulebook is the right place for a comprehensive list of WoD terminology - but putting one together in a separate document would seem perfectly reasonable.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Yeah, so this is otherwise retarded...
>
> *SNIP*
>
> Talbot's Chainsaw = Not a Melee Weapon
>
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
How does Talbot's CS work if it is not a melee weapon?
Shoot bolt's of undead energy?
Even a Kerrie, which can be used even at long, is a melee weapon
Retarded indeed!
Being released in a set before certain keywords were invented is no problem; haven't keywords like "animal" etc been added to other cards?
(not sure if all such cards have been reprinted since)
Finnish Politics!
Many typeless retainers had a type added (Winthrop, ..).
Adding a keyword to a card might change existing rulings, or make some balanced stuff unbalanced (so what about these !Salubris with a melee Talbot's Chainsaw ?)
Because they can't get to obliterate things with Aggravated damage using !Salubri stuff already? My own !Salubri deck can often pop out 7agg with Kerries...
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Sure. But then you need the Kerrie *and* the rush card to be efficient.
And you have to handle the damage.
I'm not saying Chainsaws will never be melee weapons. I'm saying making such a change would require some testing first.
> Lönkka wrote:
> How does Talbot's CS work if it is not a melee weapon?
> Shoot bolt's of undead energy?
>
This is a card game. Card text > theme.
You could cut someone with a razor blade, but Aaron's Feeding Razor has no text to allow it to be used as a weapon, so it isn't one.
They could have put the keyword "Melee weapon" on the Ankara Citadel and it would be a Melee weapon because of card text, regardless of whether it narratively makes sense.
> Lönkka wrote:
> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
> How does Talbot's CS work if it is not a melee weapon?
> Shoot bolt's of undead energy?
>
One "argument" (more a case of trying to retrospectively explain it, rather than arguing for it) in the past was that the things printed as melee weapons would, in general, rely substantially on the wielder's skill and muscle strength in order to accurately apply a heavy hit. Chainsaws move some of this to the ability to pull the power cord.
Of course, then you get Gas-Powered Chainsaw printed...
> Lönkka wrote:
> Being released in a set before certain keywords were invented is no problem;
>
On the contrary. Talbot's Chainsaw was printed in the set that melee weapon was added - that is, both Talbot's Chainsaw and melee weapon were in the base, Jyhad set. So it would appear to have been a design choice. (Possibly a mistaken one.)
The WotC design team apparently never felt compelled to issue a change. LSJ's general position was not to issue errata for the sole purpose of upgrading cards (and especially wallpaper) - but if there was some other reason to make change, it was okay to pick the 'better' outcome.
Well as I've mentioned in the past, it makes perfect sense for there two be two categories of weapons, based on their 'range of effectiveness'.
Can only cause damage/strike effectively at close range - Melee Weapon
Can cause damage/strike effectively at long range or close range - Ranged Weapon (i.e. Gun)
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Well as I've mentioned in the past, it makes perfect sense for there two be two categories of weapons, based on their 'range of effectiveness'.
>
> Can only cause damage/strike effectively at close range - Melee Weapon
> Can cause damage/strike effectively at long range or close range - Ranged Weapon (i.e. Gun)
>
Of course not! That would be way too intuitive and not confusing enough.
If you're going to make game design changes and card text updates, that's fine.
But my general opinion about VTES and CCGs is treat the keywords as keywords. Ignore their "real world" meaning. If the rulebook or another game effect references that keyword, then follow the instructions.
Leaving room for "interpretation" only leads to more disagreements and confusion.
There are some prime candidates for additions to the glossary:
Move
Steal
Transfer
These are obvious ones that should be defined somewhere, and their distinctions made public. Where there is no difference, we should consider retrospective errata to introduce the keyword. It is one of the things I think which would be a useful errata of a number of cards; to add in keywords and/or replace phrases with the keyword.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Well as I've mentioned in the past, it makes perfect sense for there two be two categories of weapons, based on their 'range of effectiveness'.
>
> Can only cause damage/strike effectively at close range - Melee Weapon
> Can cause damage/strike effectively at long range or close range - Ranged Weapon (i.e. Gun)
>
Many things make perfect sense (Aaron's Feeding Razor being a weapon etc.). That doesn't mean they must be done. I can't see the purpose of applying your suggestion apart of saying "it's closer to real life" which is non-sense in a game.
Talbot's chainsaw is a weapon by design, nothing else.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> There are some prime candidates for additions to the glossary:
>
> Move
> Steal
> Transfer
>
> These are obvious ones that should be defined somewhere, and their distinctions made public. Where there is no difference, we should consider retrospective errata to introduce the keyword. It is one of the things I think which would be a useful errata of a number of cards; to add in keywords and/or replace phrases with the keyword.
>
Do you have any rule issue with those words?
Because basically they do the same thing, except that they're used in different context. "Steal" implies you move it from an "unwilling" minion (an opponent's one). It's clearer for human beings to understand.
Using always the exact same one word in that case is clearer for computers, not humans.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Well as I've mentioned in the past, it makes perfect sense for there two be two categories of weapons, based on their 'range of effectiveness'.
>
> Can only cause damage/strike effectively at close range - Melee Weapon
> Can cause damage/strike effectively at long range or close range - Ranged Weapon (i.e. Gun)
>
Sweet! I'd love to be able to use ammo cards with the Ivory Bow. Note that, in the case of Mr. Winthrop, Retainer/Ally subtype was added in Final Nights and they decided to ensure that all Retainers and Allies had a subtype.
Non-Camarilla
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Well as I've mentioned in the past, it makes perfect sense for there two be two categories of weapons, based on their 'range of effectiveness'.
>
> Can only cause damage/strike effectively at close range - Melee Weapon
> Can cause damage/strike effectively at long range or close range - Ranged Weapon (i.e. Gun)
>
Pedantry: You probably don't mean "i.e. gun" (which implies ranged weapon = gun), but "e.g. gun" (that gun is an example). There are various ranged weapons that aren't guns, and which wouldn't make sense as guns (with the implications that they can use ammo and magazines).
However, even with that sort of situation, I can imagine close-range only weapons where I wouldn't be altogether happy with them being 'melee weapons'. For example, if a weapon can deal damage but I wasn't altogether happy with it combining with Undead Strength, I might want to avoid it being a melee weapon. (For a weapon that doesn't deal damage, like Rowan Ring, it's less of an issue because adding to no damage still leaves you at no damage.) Obvious possibilities there would include: electrical weapons, such as a cattle-prod, which I could reasonably see being something like: Strike: 2 damage, or 3 damage if the opponent is mortal a contact poison (although I might not make that instant damage anyway) a mystical artefact doing some sort of close-range magic damage
In any of those situations, were I a designer, I'd be quite pleased that melee weapon was an optional, commonly-used keyword to consider, rather than a definition.
> etherial wrote:
>
> > Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > Well as I've mentioned in the past, it makes perfect sense for there two be two categories of weapons, based on their 'range of effectiveness'.
> >
> > Can only cause damage/strike effectively at close range - Melee Weapon
> > Can cause damage/strike effectively at long range or close range - Ranged Weapon (i.e. Gun)
> >
> Sweet! I'd love to be able to use ammo cards with the Ivory Bow. Note that, in the case of Mr. Winthrop, Retainer/Ally subtype was added in Final Nights and they decided to ensure that all Retainers and Allies had a subtype.
>
That is not quite true, there are some retainers that don't have a type, such as Hatch the Viper.
> Klaital wrote:
>
> > etherial wrote:
> > Retainer/Ally subtype was added in Final Nights and they decided to ensure that all Retainers and Allies had a subtype.
> >
> That is not quite true, there are some retainers that don't have a type, such as Hatch the Viper.
>
There are a few similar, weird-but-no-one-cares gaps for allies.
- Blood Brother Ambush
- Sonja Blue (when blocking as a typeless ally)
Maybe others.
RE: Melee Weapons you don't want using "strength" strikes.
There are a few options...
1) Fix the value of the strike. (e.g. Strike: deal 2 damage, combat cards played with the strike of this weapon cannot increase the damage of this strike)
2) Make it a non-damage-dealing strike, since they ignore the strength of the wielder (e.g. Rowan Ring or something like Strike: Burn 2 blood from the opposing minion, if they have they may use damage prevention to reduce the amount of blood burned by this strike. Or for your cattle-prod idea... Strike: Burn 2 blood or 3 life from an ally.)
Option 1) gets you the effects that could be caused by magic items or similar. Option 2) would get you around the idea of Tasers/Cattle Prods or other unusual weapons that would not be particularly affected by strength.
Yes, I wasn't suggesting that all ranged weapons are guns, but that Guns are obvious Ranged Weapons. Was just a brain explosion in the middle of a busy teaching day.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> 1) Fix the value of the strike. (e.g. Strike: deal 2 damage, combat cards played with the strike of this weapon cannot increase the damage of this strike)
>
Why would I want to take up masses of card text with unnecessary garbage, when I can just not print the words "melee weapon" on it instead?
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> 2) Make it a non-damage-dealing strike, since they ignore the strength of the wielder
>
It isn't based on the wielder's strength, therefore it isn't dealing damage?
Why the hell is a Blowtorch (Weapon, not melee weapon, 1 non-ranged agg damage per strike) now not doing damage, despite the fact that it's setting a vampire on fire?
How's about... we have effects that work on weapons that we want them to, we print a keyword on those weapons, and leave it off weapons that we don't want those effects to work with? This is simple, clean, and requires precisely zero changes to the game.
Sometime, trying to do better just overcomplicate everything. Juggernaut, your idea make me think of the rule in magic of "using an artefact tap it and it stop working once taped". It seemed simple and intuitive for the one who wrote it, and it quickly became a problematic point. Let's card be what is written on them and not try to infer that from what they do.
In the same idea, why not remove the sabbat trait from antitribu, because everone know that they are sabbat ? why not remove the flying trait from the gargoyle since they all fly ? I am sure there is an awful lot of keyword you could just guess from the card instead of it being printed.
(note that it's easy to imagine a short range gun that work only at close range, would be a gun, and would not be a melee weapon at all ; or a javelin that can be thrown or used at close range, if you believe that knife like Kerrie or dagger should not be ranged)