[LSJ] Rules question re: Orlando Oriundus' ability

I have some questions regarding Orlando Oriundus' ability. Sabbat bishop: During a referendum, if Orlando is ready, your vampires' votes are doubled when votes are tallied, and other multipliers may not be played on your vampires. The questions are as follows: - Say I control Orlando and another vampire who is a priscus. Is that vampire's votes in the priscus sub-referendum doubled? - Sticking to the above example, let's assume my priscus vampire wins the priscus sub-referendum (e.g. by being the only priscus on the table); is his/her priscus vote then worth 6 (3 doubled) in the actual referendum? - If there are effects in play that result in vampires votes counting for one more or less, in what order are those effects applied? E.g. I have Orlando and an archbishop in play. A pesky Independent vampire plays a Free States Rant, in which titles count for one less vote. Does my archbishop have 3 (2 doubled to 4 minus 1 = 3) votes or 2 (2 minus 1 doubled to 2) votes? thankyou

In message <1165308297.2...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> writes: >I have some questions regarding Orlando Oriundus' ability. > >Sabbat bishop: >During a referendum, if Orlando is ready, your vampires' votes are >doubled when votes are tallied, and other multipliers may not be played >on your vampires. > >The questions are as follows: > >- Say I control Orlando and another vampire who is a priscus. Is that >vampire's votes in the priscus sub-referendum doubled? No. <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a0f11d 5c60103ef1> >- Sticking to the above example, let's assume my priscus vampire wins >the priscus sub-referendum (e.g. by being the only priscus on the >table); is his/her priscus vote then worth 6 (3 doubled) in the actual >referendum? No. The Priscus block vote doesn't come from a vampire. The sub- referendum decides it, and then it just exists for or against the vote. >- If there are effects in play that result in vampires votes counting >for one more or less, in what order are those effects applied? E.g. I >have Orlando and an archbishop in play. A pesky Independent vampire >plays a Free States Rant, in which titles count for one less vote. Does >my archbishop have 3 (2 doubled to 4 minus 1 = 3) votes or 2 (2 minus 1 >doubled to 2) votes? Work out how many votes the vampire is casting without the multiplier. Then double it. This goes for Hall of Hades Court too: <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4c7867 94dc08ca0d> ***** > I'd say it doubles all the vampire's votes in the general referendum, > including titles and from other sources, but not votes in the Prisci > sub-referendum. Correct. ****** The "and from other sources" bit is important. So a Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a superior Bewitching Oration (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando casts 12 votes. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1165308297.2...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, > Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> writes: >> I have some questions regarding Orlando Oriundus' ability. >> >> Sabbat bishop: >> During a referendum, if Orlando is ready, your vampires' votes are >> doubled when votes are tallied, and other multipliers may not be played >> on your vampires. >> >> The questions are as follows: >> >> - Say I control Orlando and another vampire who is a priscus. Is that >> vampire's votes in the priscus sub-referendum doubled? > > No. > > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a0f11d > 5c60103ef1> Correct. >> - Sticking to the above example, let's assume my priscus vampire wins >> the priscus sub-referendum (e.g. by being the only priscus on the >> table); is his/her priscus vote then worth 6 (3 doubled) in the actual >> referendum? > > No. The Priscus block vote doesn't come from a vampire. The sub- > referendum decides it, and then it just exists for or against the vote. Correct. >> - If there are effects in play that result in vampires votes counting >> for one more or less, in what order are those effects applied? E.g. I >> have Orlando and an archbishop in play. A pesky Independent vampire >> plays a Free States Rant, in which titles count for one less vote. Does >> my archbishop have 3 (2 doubled to 4 minus 1 = 3) votes or 2 (2 minus 1 >> doubled to 2) votes? > > Work out how many votes the vampire is casting without the multiplier. > Then double it. This goes for Hall of Hades Court too: > > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4c7867 > 94dc08ca0d> > ***** >> I'd say it doubles all the vampire's votes in the general referendum, >> including titles and from other sources, but not votes in the Prisci >> sub-referendum. > > Correct. > ****** > > The "and from other sources" bit is important. > > So a Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a > superior Bewitching Oration (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando > casts 12 votes. Correct.

James Coupe wrote: > So a Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a > superior Bewitching Oration (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando > casts 12 votes. > Justicars can't call Free States Rant, so your example should be: Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a superior *Dread Gaze* (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando casts 12 votes.

In message <Aagdh.251$Za7...@read3.inet.fi>, a-e <antero.elektro@substan ssi.net> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> So a Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a >> superior Bewitching Oration (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando >> casts 12 votes. >> > >Justicars can't call Free States Rant, Sure they can! Clan Impersonate Mata Hari to a clan, give her the Justicar title. Now she calls Free States Rant as an Independent vampire. And you've already given her superior Presence, obviously, because who wouldn't? Err, umm.... >so your example should be: > >Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a >superior *Dread Gaze* (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando >casts 12 votes. Thanks for the catch. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > So a Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a > > superior Bewitching Oration (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando > > casts 12 votes. > > Correct. I can't understand this last part. Doesn't Orlando card say: "others multipliers may not be played on your vampires"? I thought this apllied to cards like Bewitching oration, Dread gaze, etc. Can someone clarify please? Garou

In message <1165395604.0...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, ga...@virgilio.it writes: > >> > >> > So a Justicar (3 votes) in Free States Rant (-1, so 2 votes) playing a >> > superior Bewitching Oration (+4, so 6 votes) being affected by Orlando >> > casts 12 votes. >> >> Correct. > >Doesn't Orlando card say: "others multipliers may not be played on your >vampires"? Right. >I thought this apllied to cards like Bewitching oration, Dread gaze, >etc. No, they're not multipliers. What on their card text identifies them as a multiplier? Nothing at all. So they're not multipliers. >Can someone clarify please? It bans cards and effects identified as multipliers, such as Hall of Hades' Court, at TEM: [TEM] [ACTION MODIFIER][REACTION] Multiplier. Only usable by a ready untapped vampire other than the acting vampire. The acting vampire's votes are doubled when the votes are tallied. Only one multiplier can be played on a vampire each action. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It does not apply to those cards, because "multiplier" is not on their card text. There are only one or two "multiplier" cards in the game at present. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > I can't understand this last part. > > Doesn't Orlando card say: "others multipliers may not be played on your > > vampires"? > > I thought this apllied to cards like Bewitching oration, Dread gaze, > > etc. > > It does not apply to those cards, because "multiplier" is not on their > card text. There are only one or two "multiplier" cards in the game at > present. > This wouldn't be the first time we've seen a new term apply to old cards I'm sure, but simple maths might help provide a good clarification. The term "Multiplier" means you multiply the number of votes, but since Bewitching Oration etc adds a fixed number of votes instead of multiplying existing votes they are not "multipliers"; they are "additionals". HTH, Ed.

In message <1165482016....@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, RocketEddy <eddy...@aol.com> writes: >This wouldn't be the first time we've seen a new term apply to old >cards I'm sure, Habitually, when a new term is added to old cards, the first instance of such cards mentions the old ones - like when Electrical equipment was invented, or when allies were classified as Werewolves, and similar. Also, the online card texts are then updated to include the new identifiers. Which isn't the case here. <snip - the rest of your post, and its valid points> [ quoted text not captured ]

RocketEddy <eddy...@aol.com> wrote: > The term "Multiplier" means you multiply the number of > votes, but since Bewitching Oration etc adds a fixed number of votes > instead of multiplying existing votes they are not "multipliers"; they > are "additionals". Currently yes, but that's not necessarily true. There could be a new card: Bewitching Flotation Only usable during a referendum. Multiplier. Only one multiplier can be played on a vampire each action. [pre] This vampire gains 2 votes. [PRE] This vampire gains 4 votes. And this card would still be a Multiplier, because it has the keyword.

[ quoted text not captured ] Only pedantically. The terms are used to provide clarity, not to play mind games. So the term "multiplier" will only ever be found on cards whose effects are multiplier effects. The terms provide clarity to avoid arguments as to whether this-or-that effect could be construed as a multiplier, not to shoe-horn an effect that is obviously not a multiplier in to the set of multipliers. That is, there wouldn't ever be a card: Josh's Fingernail Clippers Equipment Weapon. Gun. Strike: 1 damage.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The terms provide clarity to avoid arguments as to whether this-or-that effect > could be construed as a multiplier, not to shoe-horn an effect that is obviously > not a multiplier in to the set of multipliers. > That is, there wouldn't ever be a card: > Josh's Fingernail Clippers > Equipment > Weapon. Gun. > Strike: 1 damage. I was just trying to point out the keyword-dependency of the game, and the fact that you can not always trust a keyword to make sense. For a simple example, let's talk about Melee Weapons. * "Chainsaw" is not a melee weapon. "Talbot's Chainsaw" is not a melee weapon. But "Gas-powered Chainsaw" is a melee weapon. This is solely a function of keywords. * Gas-powered Chainsaw and Rowan Ring are designated "melee weapons" by keyword, but violate the general rule of melee weapons (strength-based close-range weapons). * Kerrie violates the general definition of "melee weapon" in another way, allowing you to use effects like Undead Strength at long range because of that keyword. In practice, maybe irrelevant to the original question, but I just wanted to point out that you should never take a keyword for granted by its obvious definition alone. P.S. Please print Josh's Fingernail Clippers!

Jozxyqk wrote: > I was just trying to point out the keyword-dependency of the game, and the > fact that you can not always trust a keyword to make sense. > > For a simple example, let's talk about Melee Weapons. > > * "Chainsaw" is not a melee weapon. "Talbot's Chainsaw" is not a melee > weapon. But "Gas-powered Chainsaw" is a melee weapon. > This is solely a function of keywords. > > * Gas-powered Chainsaw and Rowan Ring are designated "melee weapons" by > keyword, but violate the general rule of melee weapons (strength-based > close-range weapons). > > * Kerrie violates the general definition of "melee weapon" in another way, > allowing you to use effects like Undead Strength at long range because of > that keyword. With the general definition of "strength-based weapon", Kerrie is fine. The exceptions are from long ago, when the world was still hot and volatile, before the Great Cooling and subsequent emergence templates as the dominant text form and the domestication of keywords. > In practice, maybe irrelevant to the original question, but I just wanted > to point out that you should never take a keyword for granted by its > obvious definition alone. True that. > P.S. Please print Josh's Fingernail Clippers! No.

LSJ wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: >> P.S. Please print Josh's Fingernail Clippers! > > No. but I wanna play 'em with Dragon's Breath Rounds! *clip*......*clip*......*clip*......*KA-BOOM* "Dude, I _told_ you to trim them more regularly..." -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)