Caitiff, the Puzzling

Okay, so the matter of Caitiff being clanless came up at the NYC qualifier a couple of days ago. Someone was playing a weenie vote deck and tried to name caitiff for Con Boon. They found out that they couldn't do so. This re-raised some questions which I've never seen satisfactorily answered. Here they are: 1. Just to be clear, Caitiff is not a clan, correct? 2. Not all clanless vampires are Caitiff, correct? e.g. Shock troops is not caitiff. 3. I've seen discussions that involved reputable sources talking about a deck running Mukhtar Bey and third tradition to make caitiff babies ( I think they were for consumption by Al' Muntaquim). So, if caitiff isn't a clan, why does Third Tradition produce Caitiff babies, as opposed to generic, claness babies? The card says nothing about transferring nebulous keywords from the parent, just the clan. So yah. I searched the rules, and all I found was a single mention which said that technically Caitiff are clanless. That's it.

1) Caitiff is a trait, not a clan. LSJ 11-21-2005 2) Not all clanless vampires have the Caitiff trait. LSJ 11-21-2005 3) New vampires sired by Caitiff are Caitff, by ruling. (Embrace, Third Tradition, etc.) LSJ 12-28-2001 and LSJ 01-02-2002

The really short version is... Cause LSJ said so. [this post existed because the cancel button still doesn't work properly] Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

LSJ had nothing to do with it AFAIK. The source material states that Caitiff are clanless iirc. 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

Yes Kevin, and that's ALL it said. As printed, embrace, 3rd trad, etc have NO reason to transfer the Caitiff "trait" to the baby. I was just trying to figure out if there was some rule I missed, or if it was simply "because".

Embrace Put this card in play; it becomes a non-unique vampire with 1 capacity of the same clan as the acting vampire. 3rd Trad Put this card in play; it becomes a non-unique 1-capacity vampire of the same clan as the acting vampire. So, since Caitiff are clanless, what would you have the card do? 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

Well, since Caitiff are clanless, as printed, those cards would put clanless vampires into play. They wouldn't have the caitiff keyword though. They would be vanilla clanless vampires, same as Shock Troops. Please understand, I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying that it would keep the system consistent. Honestly, I think it's pretty dumb that they made Caitiff a special case to begin with. It may have made sense, flavor wise, but in terms of the system, it requires extra rules and rulings, none of which are evident just from looking at the cards.

> Malcolm wrote: > It may have made sense, flavor wise, but in terms of the system, it requires extra rules and rulings, none of which are evident just from looking at the cards. > Well, when VTES was created, the flavor idea was very important. Creating a special rule for Caitiff is not a problem. It's like the French language: we like it because it has a lot of exceptions to the rule. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Gawd, I love this game's esoteric logic! Everything's delightfully complicated and weighed with precedent! It's one of the reasons I still play -- it's confusing; tables occasionally break out into legal rulings and canon exposition. B)

> Adonai wrote: > 1) Caitiff is a trait, not a clan. LSJ 11-21-2005 > > 2) Not all clanless vampires have the Caitiff trait. LSJ 11-21-2005 > > 3) New vampires sired by Caitiff are Caitff, by ruling. (Embrace, Third Tradition, etc.) LSJ 12-28-2001 and LSJ 01-02-2002 > Correct on all counts.

I was arguing very similar standpoint with LSJ a few years ago. It ended, in short, as juggernaut explained. LSJ said so. Here it is: forums.white-wolf.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22762 Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Ankha wrote: > Well, when VTES was created, the flavor idea was very important. Creating a special rule for Caitiff is not a problem. > It's like the French language: we like it because it has a lot of exceptions to the rule. > Yea I agree with this . Same thing is The Prisci Block. Adds super little for the game but even experienced players can have questions about it. Another good example is Mask of a Thousand Faces.

I fail to see how super annoying confusing effects that require multiple rulings and/or clarifications and that even veterans have questions about are good for a competitive game. Especially if the actual impact of those rulings have close to zero effect on the actual game and just seem to be there because LSJ said so.

> Izaak wrote: > Especially if the actual impact of those rulings have close to zero effect on the actual game and just seem to be there because LSJ said so. > I would substitute "because LSJ say so" by the slightly (but still not impressing) "because it make sense with the lore". Still, a dose of abstraction can be good.

> Izaak wrote: > I fail to see how super annoying confusing effects that require multiple rulings and/or clarifications and that even veterans have questions about are good for a competitive game. > I think that there are lot of good examples of bad card/game design in Vtes. But also I feel there really isn't anything to do about it.

VTES is a competitive game? Those usually offer huge prize purses. Or is it just chafing due to us all (even our poor judges) dancing to a Methuselah's tune? Ahh, how appropriately vampiric -- inexplicable, intractable, immutable. Quick, someone get me a calla lily, I'm about to swoon!

@Surreal: The difference between the confusing Caitiff mechanics and the confusing Pricii mechanics is that the Pricii mechanics are in the rules. Sure, there are things that needed to be clarified, but nothing too major. The whole thing with Caitiff being a trait as opposed to a clan BUT STILL transmitting to babies as if it were a clan is not in the rule book. Black hand is a trait too... are babies made by Black Hand vampires automatically Black Hand? I don't think so. If you put a line in the rulebook that said that traits transmit to babies, that would work, and be consistent. Of course, that might raise game balance issues, but it would be consistent within the rules. @Izaak: I agree. Even ignoring the competitive aspects of the game, random exceptions like this add to the perceived learning curve for newcomers to the game. Even if the case won't come up too often, it adds to the feeling of arcane knowledge needed to get started.

Malcolm if you read the thread I posted above, you would see that these rules were all made up without a thought about consistency. No point going back again, just accept the ruling. EDIT: I was curious about transferring Caitiff trait too... and apparently if you create Thin blooded seer with camarilla vampire it is clanless camarilla vampire that is not a Caitiff, as Caitiff and clanless are not synonyms ( although next to a term Caitiff in paper rulebook stands "technically clanless" - whatever that meant). How this Caitiff "trait" is transferred when Mukhtar Bey creates Third tradition: progeny still confuses me... Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

OOF! I just thought of another complication caused by Caitiff being a communicable trait, as opposed to a clan: If a Caitiff gains a clan somehow ( Revelation of the Sire, clan impersonation, derangement, etc), I assume they retain the "Caitiff" trait. I assume this, both because the cards say nothing about removing the Caitiff trait, and because many of those cards are removable, and thus the Caitiff will be a clanless caitiff if he burns them. Further, any babies (s)he makes would then be Caitiff + X, for X = some clan. So you could, theoretically, end up with Al-Muntaquim eating clanned vampires. You could also end up with clanned vampires using revelation of the sire to change clans. It's all very silly, but hey. OOH! Vidal Jarbeux can start the madness by emulating the Caitiff trait while he makes a baby. You get to have a brood of Toreador Caitiff then.

Revelation of the Sire removes the Caitiff trait. I expect those other cards do obscure the Caitiff trait while they are in effect.

You are quite right about revelation. Requires a ready non-sterile vampire who is not Caitiff. Put this card on a younger Caitiff. The vampire with this card is now considered to be a member of the same clan as the acting vampire. He or she is no longer considered Caitiff. His or her capacity increases by 1. Given that Revelation specifically says it suppresses the Caitiff trait, I see no reason why the others would, any more than going anarch suppresses the Black Hand trait.

The answer seems to be that Caitiff is a bit like a clan and a bit like a trait. It's a trait that takes the place of a clan. It's not found on the same part of the card as other traits. I'm just spitballing here. Basically as far as the game is concerned, Caitiff IS a clan except for any effect that actually looks at clan. In those cases Caitiff is not a clan.

Caitiff - A Clayton's Clan: The clan you have when you don't have a clan! Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Caitiff - A Clayton's Clan: The clan you have when you don't have a clan! > And are camarilla. If you have sabbat and clanless, you are Pander. Not that they are that different

Pander is a clan.

> vtesocrates wrote: > Basically as far as the game is concerned, Caitiff IS a clan except for any effect that actually looks at clan. In those cases Caitiff is not a clan. > PASCAL can you please insert this somewhere into the "trait" section of the website, or the rulebook, or whatever, so that the precious moments of our lives can be spent contemplating weighty issues rather than minutia? Thanks. 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

it's much like when an affect such as Clan-changing causes a vampire to "lose the benefit" of their title. they still have that title text on their card (in case they qualify for the title again in the future), but every other card in the game will treat them like they're completely non-titled. Caitiff is kind of a clan that doesn't have any benefits of being a clan, even though it's treated like one for Embrace. no physical-blood benefits nor political power benefits.

> Ohlmann wrote: > And are camarilla. If you have sabbat and clanless, you are Pander. Not that they are that different > Sadly not true anymore: Anarch Convert and Reverand Adams are Independent.

> KevinM wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > Basically as far as the game is concerned, Caitiff IS a clan except for any effect that actually looks at clan. In those cases Caitiff is not a clan. > > > PASCAL can you please insert this somewhere into the "trait" section of the website, or the rulebook, or whatever, so that the precious moments of our lives can be spent contemplating weighty issues rather than minutia? Thanks. > General Rulings wrote: > > If a Caitiff creates another vampire (via the Embrace, for example), the created is Caitiff (and clanless) by default (unless card text says otherwise, of course). [LSJ 20011228] [LSJ 20020102] > Is this enough, or should we have more? It's been there for a year and a half.

Wouldn't it be simpler to "counter-rule" this "Caitiff is not a clan" thing and make Caitiff a clan ? It allows Con Booning on Caitiffs and gaining 1 more pool on Diversity, would that be a big deal ? It would help preventing unnecessary IRL Mind Numbing.

> FrançoisV wrote: > Wouldn't it be simpler to "counter-rule" this "Caitiff is not a clan" thing and make Caitiff a clan ? > An even simpler solution would be to put that "clanless camarilla or independant" == "caitiff". No strange interaction, no special rule, no or very few difference from now.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > FrançoisV wrote: > > Wouldn't it be simpler to "counter-rule" this "Caitiff is not a clan" thing and make Caitiff a clan ? > > > An even simpler solution would be to put that "clanless camarilla or independant" == "caitiff". No strange interaction, no special rule, no or very few difference from now. > Well this would be a special rule, and wouldn't easily prevent asking unnecessary question #1 : "why can't I call a con boon on Caitiff while my Caitiffs are printed with a Caitiff *clan* symbol ?". Actually all the confusion comes from the fact that card layout doesn't match the rules (Caitiff is printed in the same way as a clan symbol and not as a trait), and I think that, *in this special case*, making the rules match the layout is less costly than the other way around, and of little consequence.

I'm still unclear: If a Caitiff gains a clan in a way that does not explicitly remove the Caitiff trait, is it still there? e.g. If a Caitiff clan impersonates brujah, or gets Deranged. > Pascal wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > > Basically as far as the game is concerned, Caitiff IS a clan except for any effect that actually looks at clan. In those cases Caitiff is not a clan. > > > > > PASCAL can you please insert this somewhere into the "trait" section of the website, or the rulebook, or whatever, so that the precious moments of our lives can be spent contemplating weighty issues rather than minutia? Thanks. > > > General Rulings wrote: > > > > If a Caitiff creates another vampire (via the Embrace, for example), the created is Caitiff (and clanless) by default (unless card text says otherwise, of course). [LSJ 20011228] [LSJ 20020102] > > > Is this enough, or should we have more? > It's been there for a year and a half. >

> Malcolm wrote: > I'm still unclear: If a Caitiff gains a clan in a way that does not explicitly remove the Caitiff trait, is it still there? e.g. If a Caitiff clan impersonates brujah, or gets Deranged. > He's no longer Caitiff. Just consider that the Caitiff trait works like a clan (ie. is lost when changing clan, is inherited by a Third Tradition) except that it's not a clan (cannot be chosen for Consanguineous Boon, Sanguine Instruction etc.) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Just consider that the Caitiff trait works like a clan (ie. is lost when changing clan, is inherited by a Third Tradition) except that it's not a clan (cannot be chosen for Consanguineous Boon, Sanguine Instruction etc.) > That's essentially what LSJ declared when Heirs to the Blood was printed. www.vekn.net/index.php/card-lists/143-heirs-to-the-blood > > That wrote: > Two new Disciplines that are only available to infernal vampires. The same way that Caitiff is not a clan, these are not true Disciplines, however (so just like "Caitiff" cannot be chosen for Consanguineous Boon, Ian Forestal couldn't use his ability to meet a Striga requirement, for example, nor could Maleficia be chosen as one of the Great Beast's Disciplines). > So Maleficia and Striga are pseudo-disciplines and Caitiff is a pseudo-clan. When yuo have to choose a clan, pseudo-clans don't count. When you have to choose a discipline, pseudo-disciplines don't count. Similarly, and more directly (again, about Heirs): [LSJ 20100226] > > LSJ wrote: > > The use of the > > symbols effectively means "requires Maleficia / requires superior > > Maleficia", which if not a discipline, is... what exactly? > > A Discipline-less Discipline. (Like Caitiff is a clan-less clan.) > > www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_HeirsToTheBlood > (The link to the checklist is the same text as earlier, obviously.)

None of those quotes address my confusion in any way. I understand that Caitiff is a trait that passes to babies. I also THINK I understand that things that affect clan DON't affect Caitiff. Therefore, I see no reason why, If a caitiff somehow gains a clan, they should not remain Caitiff. (this is based off the rules and rulings presented thus far) IN FACT, the fact that Revelation of the Sire EXPLICITLY removes the Caitiff trait, would IMPLY that simply gaining a clan does NOT, inherently, remove the Caitiff trait. None of the ruling liked thus far address that question. I grant that the answer to this question may be highly unlikely to affect any actual game... but I am determined to understand this (IMO needlessly complicated) issue to it's full extent.

Malcolm, Caitiff is a clan until you use a card which requires a clan. So, when you use Embrace (for example) the Embrace 'tells itself' "I am a Caitiff". Con Boon asks for a nominated clan. Because Caitiff is not a 'clan proper' then Caitiff cannot be chosen. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Malcolm wrote: > Therefore, I see no reason why, If a caitiff somehow gains a clan, they should not remain Caitiff. (this is based off the rules and rulings presented thus far) > On a Caitiff's driving licence, under Clan it says "None - Caitiff." Under Sect it says "Camarilla". When they upgrade to being a Brujah, the Clan bit gets covered in Tippex and replaced with the word "Brujah". [LSJ 20020301] > > LSJ wrote: > Caitiff are clanless (by the rules). > If you aren't clanless, you can't be Caitiff. (But there are other ways of being clanless e.g. Call the Great Beast. It's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.) See also: [LSJ 20081204] > > LSJ wrote: > > Malvalvis (caitiff) Clan Impersonates a Salubri, becoming > > Independent. Later, she burns the Clan Impersonation, becoming > > Caitiff again. > > > > By becoming Caitiff, she has just changed clans, certainly, since > > gaining or losing a clan is a change in clan. But she has not "change > > [d] clans [...] to a clan ...". > > > > So does she remain independent? > > No. She becomes Camarilla. Changing to Caitiff is handled the same as changing > to a clan. > Burning the CI changes them *back* to Caitiff. i.e. when Salubri, they weren't Caitiff.