LSJ: Vote card question

A question came up at a tournament a while ago. I wasn’t satisfied with the judge’s answer so I would like to get a definite ruling. Say I have a vampire who plays a political action via a vote card I have in my hand, e.g. Domain Challenge. When counting the votes in the referendum, can I declare the 1 vote I get from playing the vote card itself to be *against* the referendum, rather than in favour of it? (I might for example be playing the vote card to cycle into something better, but intending for the referendum to fail due to current circumstances, i.e. the domain challenge might kill my grandprey or something). A judge ruled that you cannot, it must be cast for the vote not against it, without any particular justification. I can’t see why that is the case. There is nothing on the card text (it just says "worth 1 vote") or in the rulebook that says you must cast a vote from a vote card one way or the other. Or have I missed something?

In message <a44fef05-ac09-49cf...@l28g2000prd.googlegroup s.com>, Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> writes: >Say I have a vampire who plays a political action via a vote card I >have in my hand, e.g. Domain Challenge. When counting the votes in the >referendum, can I declare the 1 vote I get from playing the vote card >itself to be *against* the referendum, rather than in favour of it? You get the vote, to cast how you want. It's cast by you, not the minion. You can cast it for the referendum, against the referendum, or not cast it at all. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/12619d8f0c9caebd It's a fairly common confusion, though. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> writes: >> Say I have a vampire who plays a political action via a vote card I >> have in my hand, e.g. Domain Challenge. When counting the votes in the >> referendum, can I declare the 1 vote I get from playing the vote card >> itself to be *against* the referendum, rather than in favour of it? > > You get the vote, to cast how you want. It's cast by you, not the > minion. You can cast it for the referendum, against the referendum, or > not cast it at all. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/12619d8f0c9caebd Correct.

James wrote: > You get the vote, to cast how you want. It's cast by you, not the > minion. You can cast it for the referendum, against the referendum, or > not cast it at all. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1261... > > It's a fairly common confusion, though. Is it? I've certainly never run into it. You'd think that the circumstances under which this could possibly even come up are rare enough that the confusion could hardly be considered common.

[ quoted text not captured ] The situation comes up often enough. Maybe "common" is slightly overstated, but have you never called a vote, intending to pass it, but then the situation or your understanding of it changes, and you want to fail your own vote? Malkavian Rider Clause is _made_ to change the mind of the acting methuselah. Do you want to pass the Disputed Territory and get my Hunting Ground, when my Rider Clause threatens an oust of my prey on my next turn? Do you want to pass it to take my prey's KRCG, once they explain that it's the only thing that will keep them from being ousted and gaining your prey 6 more pool and a vp? Wouldn't you rather fail a 2-2 Kine Resources Contested that you are calling, when your predator promises you to work upstream with his attack deck for 2 full turns if you don't take him down to 3 pool, even though he waited until you stealthed it through so the referendum would be called? You might. I might, anyway. just some thoughts> john

[ quoted text not captured ] Nah it was someone else. I was at the table though and I suspected the judge's call was malarkey.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yep for sure. Also you might be in a situation where someone will offer you vote support, but only if you engineer the vote so that it passes by a minimum amount, since they know you are going to voter cap and don't want you to gain much blood / pool. So depending on your distribution of titles, they could offer to pass your vote if you reduce the margin of it passing by 1, by say using the vote card to vote against it or whatever. I wouldn't say often, but yeah it does sometimes happen. I think in this case someone plonked down something serious like an Ancient Influence or Political Stranglehold on the table, this resulted in furious threats, deals, alliances and negotiations, and after about 10 minutes of this the person playing it decided he didn't want it to go ahead at all (I think because an alliance against him and formed, and the card was going to strengthen one of the members of the allianec) and he tried to vote it down.