Can a Sterile vampire with PRO play Dual Form at Superior?
My logic in favour is that Sterile refers to putting other vampires in play and Dual Form is clearly the same vampire splitting into two; thematically (and potentially in the wording of the sterile definition) it makes sense that they can play Dual Form at PRO.
There are currently 3 vampires that have PRO and are sterile:
Name; Clan; Grouping; Capacity;
Pariah Abomination 2 6
Zubeida Abomination 5 8
Sylvie Helgon Ahrimane 6 9
Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot take actions to put other vampires in play.
Dual Form:
PRO = This acting vampire's capacity is reduced by 1. Put this card in play, tapped. It becomes a non-unique vampire with the same clan, capacity and Disciplines as the acting vampire. You may move up to 2 blood from the acting vampire to this vampire. If either minion leaves the ready region, the other is burned.
Thanks.
Dual Form at superior is an action that puts a vampire in play.
Sterile vampires can't play Dual Form at superior.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Dual Form at superior is an action that puts a vampire in play.
> Sterile vampires can't play Dual Form at superior.
>
My point was that thematically the above is wrong. Dual forming has nothing to do with sterility, unlike embracing people, hence my question. Allowing it would only effect 3 vampires currently, none of whom see serious play. Dual Form at PRO already has a cost of 2 , a permanent-1 capacity effect and a very difficult to control symbiotic burn relationship, so it is already very different from the other embrace cards (embrace, creation rites, 3rd trad progeny, becoming etc).
> Borris wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Dual Form at superior is an action that puts a vampire in play.
> > Sterile vampires can't play Dual Form at superior.
> >
> My point was that thematically the above is wrong. Dual forming has nothing to do with sterility, unlike embracing people, hence my question. Allowing it would only effect 3 vampires currently, none of whom see serious play. Dual Form at PRO already has a cost of 2 , a permanent-1 capacity effect and a very difficult to control symbiotic burn relationship, so it is already very different from the other embrace cards (embrace, creation rites, 3rd trad progeny, becoming etc).
>
There are many things that are thematically wrong in the game, from a an stray dog being able to fly a Learjet, to the capacity of some vampires conflicting with V;tM cannon (Gratiano was supposed to be the Lasombra antediluviana child, yet he is younger than Lambach that is Tzismisce's grandchild, for instance, and Sutekh is a hell lot older than Hardestadt the younger, not same age).
From the game mechanics standpoint, however, cards that have the text "put this card in play... it becomes a X capacity vampire" are considered actions to put a vampire in play and therefore can't be taken by Sterile vampires.
You could make an argument about the balance of such a rule regarding Dual Form, but I guess that would be a thread better made in the Suggestion board as opposed to the Rules Questions board, that is about the rules as they stand right now.
It's one of the case where the rule have chosen to be simple as opposed to be intuitive. It would "make sense" that sup' dual form is not affected by sterility, but it would require an errata or convoluted sterility rule, for objectively allowing weak vampire to play a weak card. It does not seem worth it.
> Borris wrote:
> Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot take actions to put other vampires in play.
>
This is incorrect. The correct definition is:
Sterile: A vampire that cannot take an action to create a vampire.
PASCAL:
What is the definition of "create"?
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
> KevinM wrote:
> This is incorrect. The correct definition is:
>
> Sterile: A vampire that cannot take an action to create a vampire.
>
> PASCAL:
> What is the definition of "create"?
>
The line quoted by Borris is in the rulebook, Section 11. The line you quote is in the glossary, but as you noted the glossary is loosely worded. It is only supposed to be a reminder, not a binding rule.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> You could always just add an addendum to Dual Form.
> "This action may be taken by a Sterile Vampire"
>
At the current point, that's an errata (or a rule change), which need to be diffused widely. Is it worth it ?
> Franz wrote:
> ... to the capacity of some vampires conflicting with V;tM cannon (Gratiano was supposed to be the Lasombra antediluviana child, yet he is younger than Lambach that is Tzismisce's grandchild, for instance, and Sutekh is a hell lot older than Hardestadt the younger, not same age).
>
A bit off topic, sorry, but this is rather interesting. I´ve always considered the terminology with "younger" and "older" wrong for the game. Maybe it should have been "of greater/lesser capacity" or something like that, but it´s a bit too late to change I guess.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> it would require an errata or convoluted sterility rule, for objectively allowing weak vampire to play a weak card. It does not seem worth it.
>
oh really?
almost all embrace-type cards now specifically say "requires a non-sterile vampire", so if it was really wanted it'd be easy to just change the rulebook definition of sterile into a keyword that means nothing on its own (like "gun" or "hunting ground"). easy peasy.
Nosferatu Bestial is an exception, doesn't mention non-sterile even in the reprinted version. but I strongly doubt this hypothetical rule change would lead to a single deck using clan impersonate into Nosferatu Bestial. (if I'm wrong and it becomes the new metagame, you can all curse my name while you add one line of errata to the card database)
what's funny is this one TWD actually does use Dual Form with a sterile vampire. I was never quite sure if was supposed to be used at basic for the untap, or illegally used at superior to create vampires. either way seemed pretty clever.
> Haze wrote:
> almost all embrace-type cards now specifically say "requires a non-sterile vampire", so if it was really wanted it'd be easy to just change the rulebook definition of sterile into a keyword that means nothing on its own (like "gun" or "hunting ground"). easy peasy.
>
And - like quite often - it has nothing to do with what I say. You're talking of the length of the errata/rule change vs me that talk about that erratas are to be avoided anyhow. Erratas should be done when it's useful for game balance or because nobody play the card correctly, since people are reasonably hard to reach and because having a card that does not do what is printed on it is irritating.
In which way Dual form being playable by sterile vampire is important for the game ? Both Dual form and sterile vampire are pretty rare and not all that powerful anyway, so effort may be better channeled on more pressing topic.
@Ohlmann:
Since VTES is potentially heading PoD, then you could do errata the card in two ways:
1) Edit the new PoD Dual Form
2) Make it part of the next RTR.
It also already sounds like a lot of the cards will be getting at least a minor visual overhaul (or will be put on hold until they can be overhauled).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> 1) Edit the new PoD Dual Form
>
It require that the PoD include Dual Form. I suspect not every card will be in the PoD at once, and Dual form is at best average priority - it's not like it's a staple of Protean.
Cards with erratas (say, Villein or the future Lillith Blessing) are more important to put into PoD, I agree, but in Dual Form case it's more like that when it will be put into PoD then it may (or may not) be errated, not the other way around. The errata is absolutely confidential.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> 2) Make it part of the next RTR.
>
Which is an errata to broadcast to people, which is something I'd better not see too often, especially for niche case like this one.
I am not even convinced that, all thing considered, it's something to fix at all. A vampire which blood cannot sustain new vampire cannot sustain being split ? It's not even too illogical given the lore, and it have very few real effect on the game.
Sometime, simplicity is best. There is few reason to bother with an errata which will allow two* vampires to play the superior version of dual form. Let's not add exception for everything.
* : Pariah couldn't play it even if he were not sterile, since it's undirected.
I didn't say that editing the card is vital (frankly I can't give much of a damn) BUT if you are going to say that either Dual Form needs a change or "Sterile" needs a change I'd advocate you change the card and leave the rule alone (since its the only time a problem with the Sterile Rule has come up).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I didn't say that editing the card is vital (frankly I can't give much of a damn) BUT if you are going to say that either Dual Form needs a change or "Sterile" needs a change I'd advocate you change the card and leave the rule alone (since its the only time a problem with the Sterile Rule has come up).
>
I agree.
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I didn't say that editing the card is vital (frankly I can't give much of a damn) BUT if you are going to say that either Dual Form needs a change or "Sterile" needs a change I'd advocate you change the card and leave the rule alone (since its the only time a problem with the Sterile Rule has come up).
>
There's no actual problem as the rule is very simple - a vampire gets put in play, so a sterile vampire can't do it.
From the "real world" WoD point of view, this isn't the only problem with sterility.
- A sterile vampire can't take the final action that summons the Great Beast (either the final "move a counter" action if there is one, or the initial play of the card if the vampire is an 11+ cap). In WoD terms, this is a summoning ritual, not an embrace.
- A sterile vampire can't play Chain of Command (because it puts vampires in play). In WoD terms, you're dominating younger vampires (hence the Dominate), not embracing them.
- Sterile Ahrimanes vampires can play Blood Bond. Their oWoD weakness involves not being able to embrace new vampires or create Blood Bonds.
Just checking...
If one of the "Dual Formed" leave the ready region the other burns... that includes banishment, remove from game or other similar effects... Right?
> wesile wrote:
> If one of the "Dual Formed" leave the ready region the other burns... that includes banishment, remove from game or other similar effects... Right?
>
If you're no long in the ready region, you've left the ready region, triggering Dual Form's text. There are explicit rulings including:
- going to torpor
- being burned (often because people chained Dual Form's together, and you get a domino effect of vampires being burned, triggering the next Dual Form)
- Banishment
- Social Ladder (remove from the game)
There are threads discussing leaving play via Descent into Darkness or Reality, where no-one is told that doesn't work. (Which seems reasonable.)
I can't find an explicit ruling discussing what happens if the unique vampire is contested, but since a contested vampire is no longer in the ready region, that should trigger it too.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> I can't find an explicit ruling discussing what happens if the unique vampire is contested, but since a contested vampire is no longer in the ready region, that should trigger it too.
>
There's no need for a ruling. As long as the vampire is no longer in the ready region, the other "Form" burns.
Is a vampire still in ready region when it is contested? No.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director