I've been playing Will of the Council in my Barbed Wire Gangrel deck, and it's great fun. But it is leading to some interesting rules questions. The rulebook says a contested title grants no votes, but otherwise seems mute on what it means to have a contested title. Can I play cards that require the Prince title such as 2nd trad?
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). 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 found this on the "rulebook" page.
Correct answer from TorranceCircle.
The CRR isn't supposed to be an "extended" version of the Rulebook. It's meant to be a summary of detailed points that could be explicited after a first read of the Rulebook.
> Pascal wrote:
> Correct answer from prestonp.
>
Preston asked the question, I believe you meant to state that Andrew (TorranceCircle) had the correct answer. Are either (or both) of you going to attend the L.A. Memorial weekend tournaments?
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Correct answer from prestonp.
> >
> Preston asked the question, I believe you meant to state that Andrew (TorranceCircle) had the correct answer. Are either (or both) of you going to attend the L.A. Memorial weekend tournaments?
>
Ah, yep, I scrolled a bit too fast =)
I won't be attending the LA Memorial tournament.
Once Archbishop and Prince of same city could enter combat with each other. On Crusade cards there usually was a picture of prince getting his ass kicked.
I believe this rule is no more, right guys? It was removed, much like the rule when a vampire calling referendum has to vote for.
> galliard wrote:
> Once Archbishop and Prince of same city could enter combat with each other. On Crusade cards there usually was a picture of prince getting his ass kicked.
>
> I believe this rule is no more, right guys? It was removed, much like the rule when a vampire calling referendum has to vote for.
>
Correct, these rules do not apply in V:tES games.
but this "entering combat as an action instead of contesting" rule made sense for a very interesting interaction between players... Instead of just passive blood management. I'd be happy to see it coming back !
maybe we should try it at a special event / storyline tournament ?
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
I would argue that the number of different city is too high to have this rule work often enough. I believe it's the reason why the rule was removed.
If they were only, say, 5 cities, and all with both prince and archibishop, it would be much more likely to actually matter. For example, a special event could assign Paris to the first prince / archbishop, London to the second, Berlin to the third one, Bruxel to the fourth, Stockholm to the fifth, and after that they would be forced to contest or crusade an already-existing title.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> I would argue that the number of different city is too high to have this rule work often enough. I believe it's the reason why the rule was removed.
>
I think your assumption is wrong. At the time Sabbat was printed, some princes where widely played -gilbert duane, rake, sir walter nash etc and they had sabbat archbishop counterparts (some who don't see play anymore like lachlan), which made the rule perfectly viable. Plus, having a lasombra and a ventrue fight over a city was kinda cool. You could even build your deck so annoying key vampires would be rushable.
The only thing we needed was an archbishop for seattle so anson could have its's share of punches. The rule was removed when the sabbat expansion was reprinted as Sabbat Wars Iirc, maybe explanations were given at that time but i'm too lazy to search the newsgroup right now.
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> I think your assumption is wrong. At the time Sabbat was printed, some princes where widely played -gilbert duane, rake, sir walter nash etc and they had sabbat archbishop counterparts (some who don't see play anymore like lachlan), which made the rule perfectly viable. Plus, having a lasombra and a ventrue fight over a city was kinda cool. You could even build your deck so annoying key vampires would be rushable.
>
Having each city title mirrored is not enough ; even now, a lot of title have both sabbat and camarilla counterpart, and city title contesting is relatively rare.
The problem is that you actually need to have matching vampires to contest. Even if one is extremely often played (say, Constanza Vinti), the other end tend to be less popular (in this case, the less than stellar Sela and the above average Malabranca, both of which are not all that popular). So there will almost alway be one end uncommon, and consequently contest become pretty rare, which the match of a popular deck (but that won't be played by half the players) and an uncommon one.
They can be exceptions of course, like, say, Donal O'Connor vs Una, which both are in known and popular archetype. But that's an exceptional case, and even with this I can't say I have often seen both on a game.
Now, I am not against the idea of contesting vampire veing able to rush each other ; I just want to point out that there are too many city for this to happen consistently.
> Pascal wrote:
> Having vampires contesting their title being able to enter combat with each other?
>
> Would Leandro rush Lutz?
>
I would love that, especially since Justicar is the most often contested title in my experience. It would still be relatively rare, and I suspect it would happen more often between camarilla vampires than between camarilla and sabbat.
I believe it's consistent with the fact that vampires are not exactly peace-loving, law-abiding peoples, and discrete 'assassination' is not exactly unheard of.
(of course, Leandro is much more prone to hire some Brujah to do the deed, not unlike Prince are supposed to dispatch cronies than intercept something themselves, but that's another debate)
> Pascal wrote:
> Having vampires contesting their title being able to enter combat with each other?
>
> Would Leandro rush Lutz?
>
I have been in favor of such a rule ever since the first city contest/rush rule was eliminated.
A small side effect is that combat actually gains a slight premium in the metagame. This is a good thing IMO.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
FWIW, LSJ explained why it was removed:
[LSJ 20000515]
> LSJ wrote:
> > I don't see a game balance issue and I thought it was a nifty way of
> > handling a power struggle within a city. Certainly none of that
> > "confusion" or "common sense" stuff creeping in. Hell, I don't even
> > remember anybody complaining about it in the newsgroup.
>
> For the same reason Paralyze (and, I suspect, "Close Quarters") got
> dropped: highly limited scope without suitable justification.
> I.e., rulebook simplification.
>
Personally, during the time it was possible to rush each other, I don't think I ever saw anyone do it.
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > Robert wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > Correct answer from prestonp.
> > >
> > >
> > Preston asked the question, I believe you meant to state that Andrew (TorranceCircle) had the correct answer. Are either (or both) of you going to attend the L.A. Memorial weekend tournaments?
> >
> Ah, yep, I scrolled a bit too fast =)
>
> I won't be attending the LA Memorial tournament.
>
It would be cool if you could show, Pascal, but I was asking Preston and Andrew who are from around the L.A. area.
> Robert wrote:
> .....
>
> I won't be attending the LA Memorial tournament.
>
> It would be cool if you could show, Pascal, but I was asking Preston and Andrew who are from around the L.A. area.
>
It would be cool if you came out Pascal. To celebrate PSG winning their league!
As for me, I'll be there.