This is rather a request for clarification than a rules question:
Is it true that an ally who is allowed to play (some specific) cards "as a vampire" can play those cards only as a traitless, sectless, clanless and titleless vampire (unless stated on a card yet to be created otherwise)?
Starting point of my question is a ruling by LSJ that "Shadow Court Satyr" cannot get a combat card requiring "Anarch".
> Relevant wrote:
> When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any).
>
Here is the link to the ruling: groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/Cb6djGJEdi4 (maybe it should be added to the "Card Rulings section")
By the way: Some (older) allies still have the wording "as a vampire with a capacity of X". I guess the term "with a capacity of X" can be deleted (and updated accordingly e. g. in the Secret Library).
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> This is rather a request for clarification than a rules question:
>
> Is it true that an ally who is allowed to play (some specific) cards "as a vampire" can play those cards only as a traitless, sectless, clanless and titleless vampire (unless stated on a card yet to be created otherwise)?
>
Correct.
> By the way: Some (older) allies still have the wording "as a vampire with a capacity of X". I guess the term "with a capacity of X" can be deleted (and updated accordingly e. g. in the Secret Library).
>
This may matter on some cards that have a capacity requirement (eg. Death of my Conscience).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Hakuron wrote:
> > This is rather a request for clarification than a rules question:
> >
> > Is it true that an ally who is allowed to play (some specific) cards "as a vampire" can play those cards only as a traitless, sectless, clanless and titleless vampire (unless stated on a card yet to be created otherwise)?
> >
> Correct.
>
Almost. They're not sectless, they're independent - as is any other vampire without a specified sect.
[LSJ 20060312]
> LSJ wrote:
> > >When/while an ally plays a card "as a vampire", to which sect does
> > >(s)he belong?
> >
> > Being treated as a vampire but having no clan, they're treated as a
> > vampire with no clan would be - that is, they'd be Independent.
>
> Correct.
>
Independent is not a sect. Neither is anarch in the RPG. The Camarilla considers all vampires within it's jurisdiction. The Sabbat should never been as big as it is, it makes no sense. The whole concept of "sect" is ridiculous.
#just1stEditionThings
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
> direwolf wrote:
> Independent is not a sect. Neither is anarch in the RPG. The Camarilla considers all vampires within it's jurisdiction. The Sabbat should never been as big as it is, it makes no sense. The whole concept of "sect" is ridiculous.
>
> #just1stEditionThings
>
Lore-wise maybe. Rule-wise no (to make it clear, since we're in the Rules Questions section).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director