Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires

tzimisce_dragon wrote:
> can you help me understand the difference between a lingering effect
> and an effect by a card put into play ?

It's generally just card text.

> e.g. an ally that can play protean as a campire, can "wear" a shadow of
> the beast. Using the maneuver of the
> shadow of the beast, is a lingering effect or an effect from a card in
> play ? i would say the later, correct ?

Correct: "The vampire with this card gets one optional maneuver each
combat."
The effect of the card being played is: put this card on the acting
vampire.
It has no other effect (other than performing the action itself).
The effect of the card being in play is the rest.

> in a few words, lingering effects are effects gained from cards that
> are played and the effect is the result of playing
> the card and not puting it into play, like shadow of the beast,
> concordance, e.t.c. correct ? So, if an ally than can play POT as a
> vampire, plays mighty grapple sup to strike for str+1, then will he be
> able to use the press in the press step ? According to the current
> rules, i would say no. correct ?

He would be able to press. The press is not a lingering effect
(although it is a delayed effect -- another point of complication that
would be eliminated by the change).

> According to the proposed change, if Herald of Topeth was able to play
> cards that require DAI as a vampire, then he wouldn't be able to
> benefit by a concordance (effect granted by card in play that doesnot
> "see" herald as a vampire, after the action resolves, correct ?) but

Correct.

> would be able to benefit from a sup Ignore the Searing Flames (burn 1
> blood and prevent all aggravated damage this round, lingering effect,
> correct ?)

Correct.

> So, if i understand the terms correctly, i believe that a change like
> the one proposed, would be nice and wouldn't cause any trouble to the
> game.
>
> 1 vote for it
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Sten During wrote:
> LSJ skrev:
>
> >
> > That last bit, "nor for any lingering effects of the card", means that,
> > for example, a Torn Signpost will give no benefit to an ally who plays
> > it as a vampire.
> >
> > The option being considered is to remove that last bit (so that a Torn
> > Signpost will function for an ally who can play it as a vampire, for
> > example), while leaving the "not for any effects the card produces for
> > being in play" bit.
> >
>
> How long is lingering?
>
> Assuming an ally is printed that can play cards as a vampire from a
> specific clan: Concert Tour.

Lingering means: NOT based on a card in play (that is "continuous
effect from card in play"), but continually in effect for some duration
based on a card that was played earlier (but is not in play now).

> Basically, there are some cards that burn "later" and either bestows
> an effect until burned or gives an effect when burned. If such an
> effect requires a vampire, is this still considered to be a "lingering"
> effect rather than an effect from putting a card in play?

No.

> One could
> argue that Torn Signpost is a card that is burned "later" and bestows
> a "vampire" with + 1/2 strength until the burning of the card (end
> of combat).

Not really. It's a card that's played and burned now, that has an
effect that lingers for the remainder of combat. It's never put into
play.

> Ok, most cards have a "put in play" or "put this card on
> this vampire" -clause. The former is clear, but the latter? Is it simply
> implicitly assumed to be put in play?

All of these cards are in play. None of them are lingering effects.

> What about the production of princes/archbishops? Ok, no allies can
> currently pretend to be Camarilla/Sabbat, but those card are never
> put in play, so the effect definitely goes into the "lingering"
> departement.

No longer true. See the most recent card text. All title votes are now
title cards which are put into play and thus no longer a lingering
effect. However, they *used* to be lingering effects, and could have
caused serious issues had that still been the case.

Witness1
-ItE
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

I put this on the Mata Hari thread but it works here better...
I would say its all semantics but that is way too obvious (all laws are

semantics after all) but should there be a consideration of intent? Is
the idea with Mata Hari that she be able to perform all clan based
actions and use all clan based equipment? You can apply the same point
to any ally that can take actions as a vampire.
Likewise you can apply the same test to say the Sword of Judgement.
Does the fact that Mata Hari can use the Sword of Judgement break a
principle of the game (currently she can't as the text is pretty
clear)?
I don't feel it does. I can envisage a role play situation where Mata
Hari wields the Sword of Judgement.
Once you have decided if there is a principle involved then you have to

think about game in terms of balance and simplicity. The Game balance
question has been looked at and no one has come up with a devastating
combo that really breaks anything.

>From a simplicity perspective if Mata Hari can play a card she should


be able to use it. Any other option adds complexity.
If there is no principle at stake and this doesn't create any broken
combos, or indeed if it resolves possible exploitative combos (Mata
Hari and Toreador Grand Ball...), then that should be the rule, KISS.
If there are possible broken combos then you need to decide if its
easier to 'fix' them or 'fix' the underlying rule. You don't need to
worry about future cards as you can write them with any new rule in
mind.
So is the complexity of differeniating between playing a card as x and
the lingering effects of a card played as x, or indeed the complexity
of playing a permanent and then not being able to actually use it
worthwhile?
I say not. Allow them to use through the lingering effect (and I would
be tempted to tamper with the effect of permanents as well and allow
Mata Hari to use permananets too ... ) .
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Sten During wrote:
> witness1 skrev:
>
> > No longer true. See the most recent card text. All title votes are now
> > title cards which are put into play and thus no longer a lingering
> > effect. However, they *used* to be lingering effects, and could have
> > caused serious issues had that still been the case.
> >
>
> Ok. Charming Lobby presents a problem (provided you manage to untap
> the ally who played Charming Lobby as a vampire).

Or block every vote until your next turn (since NRA wouldn't allow him
to call another vote even if he untapped). Which is not really a
problem, except in bookkeeping.

> So would Camarilla Exemplary (provided of course that an ally
> could pretend to be Camarilla). This card, and its Sabbat counterpart
> would present a bookkeeping problem with Mata Hari today given a
> change of the rules according to the topic of this thread.

Actually, I would think Cam Exemplary would already work on Mata Hari.
"Successful referendum means that for the remainder of the game, any
vampire attempting to block that vampire burns 1 blood".The lingering
effect places no restriction on remaining Camarilla, only on being a
vampire.

At any rate, the bookkeeping this presents seems to be no more
difficult than the bookkeeping already presented by Camarilla exemplary
(i.e., you need to remember which minion is the exemplary, and that the
exemplary effect is actually in effect so blocking vamps must burn one
blood).

You don't really need to remember that Exemplary "sees" some ally as a
vampire, only that an Exemplary effect is on that ally. You only need
to go that far if you're trying to remember/explain *why* the Exemplary
effect works on that minion.

> Kindred Segregation is an example of a minor problem. An ally
> calls it throuh Charming Lobby and should be excempt from the
> paying/burning clause given the new rules suggestion.

Very minor/temporary bookkeeping, but yes. It could be an issue.

> Mark of the Damned is another (yes, yes, cornercase) bookkeeping
> problem. I call it with an ally. I call it again later in the
> game. How "lingering" was my vampire status when calling the
> vote with my, now burned, ally?

Mark of the Damned sets up no lingering effect. If it did, only *that*
copy of Mark of the Damned would see the ally as a vampire, not any
future copy.
No effect that was not played "as an X" by minion Y ever sees minion Y
as an X unless that minion actually IS an X.

> Still, all in all, removing the "lingering" clause should present
> no major balance-problems, even though it may still present a
> number of problems concerning explaining and convincing to players
> during any one given game.

Sure, but it shouldn't be any harder to explain than the current
situation, and several people have stated in the other thread that this
move would make more sense to them.

Witness1
-ItE
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

In message <1146591782.570849.302470 RemoveThis @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Damnans <damnansvtes RemoveThis @ono.com> writes:
>tzimisce_dragon wrote:
>[...]
>> According to the proposed change, if Herald of Topeth was able to play
>> cards that require DAI as a vampire, then he wouldn't be able to
>> benefit by a concordance (effect granted by card in play that doesnot
>> "see" herald as a vampire, after the action resolves, correct ?) but
>> would be able to benefit from a sup Ignore the Searing Flames (burn 1
>> blood and prevent all aggravated damage this round, lingering effect,
>> correct ?)
>
>Heralds of Topheth cannot and could not play Concordance anyway, since
>it requires an INFERNAL vampire to play

I have highlighted the important term in the card text below.

Concordance could then be played by him, I think. Not that it would be
that useful.


Barbaro Lucchese [Promo-20041015]
Barbaro may place a taint counter on a MINION as a +1 stealth (D)
^^^^^^
action. If a minion has 2 taint counters, burn those counters to make
the minion infernal. Barbaro may change his clan to Tremere antitribu as
+1 stealth action. Infernal.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Sten During wrote:

Thanks for the examinations. Comments and queries below:

> Ok. Charming Lobby presents a problem (provided you manage to untap
> the ally who played Charming Lobby as a vampire).

Which problem?
I don't see any related to untapped the ally.

> So would Camarilla Exemplary (provided of course that an ally
> could pretend to be Camarilla). This card, and its Sabbat counterpart
> would present a bookkeeping problem with Mata Hari today given a
> change of the rules according to the topic of this thread.

You mean if Mata called it and named someone else, that there'd be
extra bookkeeping in remembering which CamEx and SabPriest remembered
her sect? No. Those two don't care about sect once in play, so there'd
be no extra bookkeeping there.

You mean if an ally were able to call it and named someone else, then
there'd be extra bookkeeping in remembering which ally was to be
treated as a vampire by which CamEx/SabPr? Perhaps. But so cornercase
as to not exist at the moment and easily enough to fix as the titles
were fixed -- by rewording those two effects to be cards in play (like
they are in practice).

> Kindred Segregation is an example of a minor problem. An ally
> calls it throuh Charming Lobby and should be excempt from the
> paying/burning clause given the new rules suggestion.

That's not new -- it's already true. The resolution of the referendum
is not a lingering effect.

> Mark of the Damned is another (yes, yes, cornercase) bookkeeping
> problem. I call it with an ally. I call it again later in the
> game. How "lingering" was my vampire status when calling the
> vote with my, now burned, ally?

No problem at all. Ashed cards are wiped clean, including of any
ally-as-vampire-for-lingering-effect stripes. He's pure ally in the ash
heap.

> Still, all in all, removing the "lingering" clause should present
> no major balance-problems, even though it may still present a
> number of problems concerning explaining and convincing to players
> during any one given game.

Surely fewer problems than the current.
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with
changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about
with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar)
and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons
and use it as a gargoyle?

Of course, the obvious reason is that the rules say differently, but
the problem many players might have with this is "why?" If you're
going to chage the interaction of lingering effects involving ally as
vampire, you should also change the lingering effects of vampire as
clan/sect for the sake of consistency. I'm not sure that doing so is a
very good idea in terms of balance problems that could come about, but
that is just idle speculation.

Also, a problem could come about with Ian Forestal if for some reason a
card were ever printed with a lingering effect that said "this vampire
with [disc]". I can't see a reason why this should ever be the case
though.
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Damnans wrote:
>
> Heralds of Topheth cannot and could not play Concordance anyway, since
> it requires an INFERNAL vampire to play
>

lol.... i just wanted to understand what lingering effects are, it was
never in my
intentions to give herald sup DAI or a concordance....
yeah, concordance requires an infernal minion, so shoot me...
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

CthuluKitty wrote:
> As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with
> changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about
> with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar)
> and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons
> and use it as a gargoyle?
>
irrelevant.

> Of course, the obvious reason is that the rules say differently, but
> the problem many players might have with this is "why?"

so, what ? Some players asked why smite doesnot burn vehicles, even
when
vehicles have some electronic devices built into them... i consider
these whys
ridiculus... A person can always ask "whys"... that must not keep one
from
fixing a rule.


> If you're
> going to chage the interaction of lingering effects involving ally as
> vampire, you should also change the lingering effects of vampire as
> clan/sect for the sake of consistency.

you mean for the shake of you, who wants to play raking talons with
Mata Hari ???
well, i say, no! no real need to change this... Anyway...
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Sten During wrote:
> Another one concerning political actions and cards supporting
> those:
> Echo of Harmonies at superior (which currently no allies can
> play it at). For how long is this ally considered to be "this
> vampire" concerning the ability to later play the retrieved
> PA-card?

Built-in "bookkeeping" (via the PA card), so that doesn't seem
problematic.

> Siren's lure will change in as much as the ally will have to
> take the resulting combat.

Yeah, that doesn't look problematic, though.

> Toerador's Bane raises a question. Is the acting ally considered
> a vampire for continuing the action?

No.

> Ie, would the new rule
> kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick?

No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a
Rampage.
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

CthuluKitty wrote:
> As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with
> changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about
> with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar)
> and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons
> and use it as a gargoyle?

She would be able to. The change would be applied to everything which
uses the base rule as a precedent. Mata, Kemintiri, etc.

> Also, a problem could come about with Ian Forestal if for some reason a
> card were ever printed with a lingering effect that said "this vampire
> with [disc]". I can't see a reason why this should ever be the case
> though.

Still wouldn't be a problem, since he'd follow the precedent.
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesrep RemoveThis @white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:1146656567.759893.24110@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > Sten During wrote:
>
> >> Toerador's Bane raises a question. Is the acting ally considered
> >> a vampire for continuing the action?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> Ie, would the new rule
> >> kind of translate into a reversed The Grandest Trick?
> >
> > No. He'd still be an ally, just like if Ghouled Street Thug attempts a
> > Rampage.
>
> Well, of course he would still be an ally, but I don't see why the
> Toreador's Bane itself would not apply its action-continues effect, since
> the ally would have played it as a vampire.

That wasn't the question, nor did the answer given above say that he
wouldn't get the action--continues effect.

He does indeed continue the action.
The question was "is he transmorgrified into a vampire while doing so?"
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires 

Joshua Duffin wrote:
>>
> "[mel] Strike: combat ends, and if this vampire was blocked while performing
> an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as
> if unblocked."
>

my best judgement is that the action should not continue, as the minion
when he was blocked, was not a vampire, but an ally... But that's just
my opinion...
 >> Stay informed about: Request for Constructive Input: Allies as vampires