Political Delays and New Referendums

We were confronted with a situation concerning Delaying Tactics. A political deck passed a vote and then played Cryptic Rider to allow the next vote called to pass automatically. It was a Praxis Seizure: Houston. Another player tossed out Delaying Tactics to halt it's passage. The political player then wanted to play Praxis Seizure: Dublin. We did not allow the card due to it being a Praxis Seizure and appeared to follow under the "may not take the same political action this turn" aspect of Delaying Tactics. It looks like it could either way. The new political card was a Praxis Seizure for a different city and so was not the "same" political action, but it was another Praxis Seizure. What is the call? Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8kou8t$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- deja.com> writes >We were confronted with a situation concerning Delaying Tactics. A >political deck passed a vote and then played Cryptic Rider to allow the >next vote called to pass automatically. It was a Praxis Seizure: >Houston. Another player tossed out Delaying Tactics to halt it's >passage. Something is bugging me about this, and I cannot recall if Delaying Tactics would be valid during a Cryptic Rider-ed vote (I can't recall if it has to be played in the "gain votes" section, which is skipped, or if it can be played during, say, set terms (which are already known for this vote, but happens anyway)). LSJ can rule on that later, since it's not really relevant here. >The political player then wanted to play Praxis Seizure: >Dublin. We did not allow the card due to it being a Praxis Seizure and >appeared to follow under the "may not take the same political action >this turn" aspect of Delaying Tactics. > >It looks like it could either way. The new political card was a Praxis >Seizure for a different city and so was not the "same" political >action, but it was another Praxis Seizure. Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not the same vote as Praxis Seizure: Anywhere Else. There is no such type of political action as a "Praxis Seizure political action". Each Praxis Seizure: Wherever is an entirely separate type of political action. -- James Coupe

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >In article <8kou8t$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- >deja.com> writes >>appeared to follow under the "may not take the same political action >>this turn" aspect of Delaying Tactics. >> >>It looks like it could either way. The new political card was a Praxis >>Seizure for a different city and so was not the "same" political >>action, but it was another Praxis Seizure. > >Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not the same vote as Praxis Seizure: Anywhere >Else. There is no such type of political action as a "Praxis Seizure >political action". Each Praxis Seizure: Wherever is an entirely >separate type of political action. Got to agree with this. The rules contain no provisions to determine whether two differently named political actions match or don't match for these purposes. They either have the exact same name and do the the exact same thing or they don't. You can't award the domain of Dublin this turn. Other domains are just fine. Fred

In article <8kpnc8$k4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] I am inclined to agree with this as the implications of Delaying a Praxis Seizure as a whole would turn decks like the Weenie Political deck completely off. "Opps, my Praxis Seizure is Delayed. I guess I have to wait until next turn to try and get a domain on one of my four minions." However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the same political action. To say that I have a small argument over this is an understatement. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <qX3pN8Ae...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8kou8t$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- > deja.com> writes > >We were confronted with a situation concerning Delaying Tactics. A > >political deck passed a vote and then played Cryptic Rider to allow the > >next vote called to pass automatically. It was a Praxis Seizure: > >Houston. Another player tossed out Delaying Tactics to halt it's > >passage. > > Something is bugging me about this, and I cannot recall if Delaying > Tactics would be valid during a Cryptic Rider-ed vote (I can't recall if > it has to be played in the "gain votes" section, which is skipped, or if > it can be played during, say, set terms (which are already known for > this vote, but happens anyway)). LSJ can rule on that later, since it's > not really relevant here. > We looked at the card and errata and were unable to find anything that would prevent the Delaying Tactics from working on a Cryptic Rider vote. Especially based upon the fact that if you can Intercept a Cryptic Rider vote, then you should also be able to delay one as well (thereby hosing the Cryptic Rider). LSJ? <snip> [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8kpnc8$k4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> The rules contain no provisions to determine whether two differently >> named political actions match or don't match for these purposes. They >> either have the exact same name and do the the exact same thing or >> they don't. You can't award the domain of Dublin this turn. Other >> domains are just fine. > >I am inclined to agree with this as the implications of Delaying a >Praxis Seizure as a whole would turn decks like the Weenie Political >deck completely off. "Opps, my Praxis Seizure is Delayed. I guess I >have to wait until next turn to try and get a domain on one of my four >minions." Well, yea, but that's a play-balance argument that may or may not be relevent, depending on how important you think it is that "Weenie Political decks" using multiple Praxis Seizures to establish their voting power not get constrained from passing one by the play of a single Delay card. I'm not sure I agree. But it's not an issue I'd likely have a lot of passion for either way. >However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a >political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the >Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the >same political action. I think the point that James and I and some others are making here is that the statement that various Praxis Seizures of different cites in fact "do the exact same thing" as one another. They do not. One makes a vampire prince of city X, one makes a vampire prince of city Y. As such, that's difference enough to make them different political actions as far as the rules are concerned. Or show me the rule that states that two PAs are equivalent if they grant the same title in a different city, as opposed to (for instance) two PAs which both grant titles but are different ranks. Why not say that a Justicar PA is "the same political action" as a Praxis Seizure because both grant titles, even though they're different titles? Same logic, as near as I can see. >To say that I have a small argument over this is an understatement. I didn't really understand this statement. Fred

In article <8ku9sk$nda$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> writes: > > >In article <8kpnc8$k4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> > >> The rules contain no provisions to determine whether two differently > >> named political actions match or don't match for these purposes. They > >> either have the exact same name and do the the exact same thing or > >> they don't. You can't award the domain of Dublin this turn. Other > >> domains are just fine. > > > >I am inclined to agree with this as the implications of Delaying a > >Praxis Seizure as a whole would turn decks like the Weenie Political > >deck completely off. "Opps, my Praxis Seizure is Delayed. I guess I > >have to wait until next turn to try and get a domain on one of my four > >minions." > > Well, yea, but that's a play-balance argument that may or may not > be relevent, depending on how important you think it is that "Weenie > Political decks" using multiple Praxis Seizures to establish their > voting power not get constrained from passing one by the play of a > single Delay card. I'm not sure I agree. But it's not an issue I'd likely > have a lot of passion for either way. > I agree with you. While I have played a couple of Weenie Political decks in the past, they are not the type of decks I enjoy playing. The fact that if the Delaying Tactics does hose all PA's, then it would affect more than just a Weenie Political deck. Or at least that is the way I see it. > >However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a > >political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the > >Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the > >same political action. > > I think the point that James and I and some others are making here is that > the statement that various Praxis Seizures of different cites in fact > "do the exact same thing" as one another. They do not. One makes a vampire > prince of city X, one makes a vampire prince of city Y. As such, that's > difference enough to make them different political actions as far as the > rules are concerned. Or show me the rule that states that two PAs are > equivalent if they grant the same title in a different city, as opposed > to (for instance) two PAs which both grant titles but are different ranks. > Why not say that a Justicar PA is "the same political action" as a Praxis > Seizure because both grant titles, even though they're different titles? > Same logic, as near as I can see. > This is the area that I am leaning toward as well. I tend to see one PA being different from another PA so long as they are for different cities. Only a couple of people within my group have started to play political decks, so this type of activity could occur again. Thus, when the answer does come out, I hope that it will be constructed so I can allow the players to read it and then see if they want to try and take it apart. To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal, under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as well. As for the differences between votes for a Prince-title and a Justicar- title, I can readily see (as can everyone else in my group) that Praxis Seizure: (whatever) is different than (Clan type)Justicar. > >To say that I have a small argument over this is an understatement. > > I didn't really understand this statement. This issue has caused tempers to flare. And I am sure that whichever way LSJ rules on this, it will leave many of the people in my group unhappy while the others go dancing in the streets. > > Fred [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ku7cf$3s7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- deja.com> writes >Especially based upon the fact that if you can Intercept a >Cryptic Rider vote, then you should also be able to delay one as well >(thereby hosing the Cryptic Rider). LSJ? Intercept works at a different stage to cards played during a political action. I am still unsure, however, as to whether you can Delaying Tactics a Cryptic Rider-ed vote. I can see arguments both ways. -- James Coupe

In article <8ku73j$3pj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- deja.com> writes >However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a >political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the >Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the >same political action. No, PS: Dublin awards the title "Prince of Dublin". PS Chicago awards the title "Prince of Chicago". There is no such title as "Prince" without a domain. -- James Coupe

In article <8kuqed$h23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- deja.com> writes >To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am >hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than >once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a >Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal, >under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is >granting a vampire the title of Prince. The No Repeat Actions rule and the Delaying Tactics text are very different. NRA doesn't allow *any* other Political Actions. DT doesn't allow a specific political action. You could have the same argument over whether DT-ing a Kine Resources Contested with 4 players in the game prevented you from using a Conservative Agitation. The answer is, no, it does not. Delaying Tactics only cares about one named Political Action. Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not called by the same name as Praxis Seizure: Rome, so they are different actions, so far as Delaying Tactics is concerned. -- James Coupe

In article <RsAXzBBD...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8ku7cf$3s7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- > deja.com> writes > >Especially based upon the fact that if you can Intercept a > >Cryptic Rider vote, then you should also be able to delay one as well > >(thereby hosing the Cryptic Rider). LSJ? > > Intercept works at a different stage to cards played during a political > action. > > I am still unsure, however, as to whether you can Delaying Tactics a > Cryptic Rider-ed vote. I can see arguments both ways. > > -- > > James Coupe > The only reason why we allowed the Delay is due to how both Delaying Tactics and Cryptic Rider are written. Especially the Cryptic Rider - "Requires a ready vampire. Only usable after a successful vote. The next vote you successfully call this turn passes automatically." The vote is an action and therefore blockable, but Delaying Tactics can be played at anytime during the voting process, either at the beginning or right up to the very end when all votes are already tallied. Thus, we saw no reason to deny it's usage here. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <aM8V7aBx...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8kuqed$h23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- > deja.com> writes [ quoted text not captured ] James, I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin altogether. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein > -- > > James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

>In article <8ku9sk$nda$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> writes: > >> >However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a >> >political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the >> >Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as >> >the same political action. >> >> I think the point that James and I and some others are making here is >> that the statement that various Praxis Seizures of different cites in fact >> "do the exact same thing" as one another. They do not. One makes a >> vampire prince of city X, one makes a vampire prince of city Y. As such, >> that's difference enough to make them different political actions as far as >> the rules are concerned. Or show me the rule that states that two PAs are >> equivalent if they grant the same title in a different city, as opposed >> to (for instance) two PAs which both grant titles but are different >> ranks. Why not say that a Justicar PA is "the same political action" as a >> Praxis Seizure because both grant titles, even though they're different >> titles? Same logic, as near as I can see. > >To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am >hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than >once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a >Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal, >under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is >granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't >matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with >a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as >well. Perhaps, but what has the No Repeat Action rule, which is a V:EKN tournament rule, have to do with the group action types under Delaying Tactics? No Repeat Actions defines for itself which sorts of things are considered the "same type" and which do not. The definition applies to no other V:EKN or general V:tES rules in creation. Comparing how the two work to make arguments about Delaying Tactics is not valid. By the way, No Repeat Actions defines _all_ political actions, whether they be Praxis Seizures, Justicars, KRCs, or First Traditions as being the same type of action. They're just grouped as "Political Actions" just as all the bleed action cards are "Bleed Actions". Obviously, this type of classification makes no sense for Delaying Tactics which states that the minion "cannot take the same political action this turn". If it wanted to use the NRA distinction, it would state that the minion "cannot take _another_ political action this turn". So these are completely different things. The basis of my point of view is simply that (once again), given that Delaying Tactics does not give any sort of guide for stating which political action cards are "the same political actions" as which other cards, the only criteria that I can see is the name of the card. The concept that multiple Praxis Seizures are the same but any two other PAs are not is an arbitrary human construction which lacks justification in any rule or card text I am aware of. Or demonstrate to me how one determines whether one named PA card is "the same" as a differently named card but not "the same" as another one - and justify the conclusion from rules or card text. "Readily seeing" this is not an argument. Fred

ee. > > > This is the area that I am leaning toward as well. I tend to see one > PA being different from another PA so long as they are for different > cities. Only a couple of people within my group have started to play > political decks, so this type of activity could occur again. Thus, > when the answer does come out, I hope that it will be constructed so I > can allow the players to read it and then see if they want to try and > take it apart. > > To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am > hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than > once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a > Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal, > under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is > granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't > matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with > a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as > well. Michael, I have been following this thread, and I have a question. Is it the same vampire that was calling the praxis seizure: Dublin that was calling the second praxis seizure or was it another vampire that called the praxis seisure? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:14:29 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no >purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought >forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting >LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin >altogether. Yeah, but you might want to steal some of the arguments in James' post there, especially the ones about DT'ing a KRC and then having the minion call a Cons. Ag instead - because the way the coin is going to come down is that Praxis Seizures are unique, and DT'ing one Praxis doesn't mean you can't play another for a different city. Just a suggestion to help prevent your players from standing up on their hind legs and shrieking in horror - people are always a bit easier to deal with when you can toss a reason or two and a logical analogy. And the KRC/Con Ag comparison seems most likely to calm them down a bit. Or just use card text on DT. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:02:16 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >The only reason why we allowed the Delay is due to how both Delaying >Tactics and Cryptic Rider are written. Especially the Cryptic Rider - >"Requires a ready vampire. Only usable after a successful vote. The >next vote you successfully call this turn passes automatically." The >vote is an action and therefore blockable, but Delaying Tactics can be >played at anytime during the voting process, either at the beginning or >right up to the very end when all votes are already tallied. Thus, we >saw no reason to deny it's usage here. I suspect that DT can only actually be played during the referendum. So you wait for the thing to not be blocked, then you drop DT at the start of the referendum, and poof, it goes away without any fuss or ado. Best, of course, is to hang on and wait to see if it fails on its own, let the guy burn bunches of vote gainers, and them splatter the whole referendum into oblivion. But I digress. (no!) The question comes down to, then, whether Cryptic Rider's effect produces either no referendum at ALL, or a referendum in which the only thing that happens is the vote passing. A prior ruling states that you can't play BO, Voter Cap, or Dread Gaze on a Cryptic Rider vote, leading me to believe that there is probably no referendum at all, and therefore you can't DT a Cryptic Rider vote. Of course, if you can play DT outside the referendum, then you CAN. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8kv35g$nge$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Hello Norm, I was the actual player to whom the actions occurred. I wanted to test an off-the-cuff Presence Political deck with minions going no higher than 5 capacity. I had 5 minions up, 2 were already "Prince'd" and I was working toward the 3rd when the card play occurred. I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform the second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis Seizure and had it Delayed. I happened to have another Praxis in my hand and tried using that with Violette. That is when we had to stop and figure out what was what. We decided for game flow (time) and tempers to just perform a completely different vote, which was Autarkis Persecution. Now as to Khalil being able to perform another Political Action after the Delaying Tactics, I am somewhat fuzzy on that. He didn't. He went out and bled my prey, Robert, just to take it away from him. I am fairly sure that he would not be able to perform another political action, though. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein By the way, great photo shots at the Con in Atlanta. -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <485CF5CE4AE87EC2.18B5EED4...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Hello Derek, From the text of the Delaying Tactics, " Only usable during a political action", I think I see where you are going on this. I can see where BO, VC and DG can not be played on a Cryptic Rider vote as it has already passed by the very fact that it reaches the referendum state. But as DT is useable only during political actions, we have taken that to mean it can be played not only after all votes are tallied, but also at the onset of the action itself. What is really interesting is if DT can be used against a CR vote, then everyone has access to a hell of a utility that can help neutralize a CR without intercept. You just require the DT in hand and a minion who can use it. What really surprises me is after all this time that this situation has never been discussed before. Heck, Cryptic Rider and Delaying Tactics are from the original set. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein [ quoted text not captured ]

> Hello Norm, > > I was the actual player to whom the actions occurred. I wanted to test > an off-the-cuff Presence Political deck with minions going no higher > than 5 capacity. I had 5 minions up, 2 were already "Prince'd" and I > was working toward the 3rd when the card play occurred. > > I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform the > second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis Seizure and > had it Delayed. I happened to have another Praxis in my hand and tried > using that with Violette. That is when we had to stop and figure out > what was what. We decided for game flow (time) and tempers to just > perform a completely different vote, which was Autarkis Persecution. > > Now as to Khalil being able to perform another Political Action after > the Delaying Tactics, I am somewhat fuzzy on that. He didn't. He went > out and bled my prey, Robert, just to take it away from him. I am > fairly sure that he would not be able to perform another political > action, though. You are correct in your assumption that you would not be able to perform another political action by Khalil under golden tenets NRA. I believe that another Praxis Seizure (other than Dublin) called by a vampire other than Khalil would be legal. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp P.S. Ethan got my good side. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> The No Repeat Actions rule and the Delaying Tactics text >> are very different. >> >> NRA doesn't allow *any* other Political Actions. DT >> doesn't allow a specific political action. >> >> Delaying Tactics only cares about one named Political Action. >> Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not called by the same name as Praxis >> Seizure: Rome, so they are different actions, so far as Delaying >> Tactics is concerned. > James, > > I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no > purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought > forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting > LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin > altogether. Well, Michael, you don't have to argue. You just can take James at his word since he is correct. *grin* LSJ was at Origins all weekend (as was I) and had no net access to answer your question. Here's a point to consider. Say I was controlling both the Prince of Dublin and the Prince of Rome in a DOM/CEL/POT deck. The Praxis Seizure he calls determines the vampire who's title he contests. There's certainly an obvious difference. But in your case....let's say the acting player controls vampire A & vampire B and vampire C is controlled by someone else. Let's say vampire A calls Praxis Seizure: Dublin and vampire C plays Delaying Tactics. Vampire A may not call any vote (by NRA) and vampire B may not call Praxis Seizure: Dublin, but may call _any_ other vote, including other Praxis Seizure votes. regards, Noal McDonald -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:30:23 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >From the text of the Delaying Tactics, " Only usable during a political >action", I think I see where you are going on this. I can see where >BO, VC and DG can not be played on a Cryptic Rider vote as it has >already passed by the very fact that it reaches the referendum state. All the other vote modifiers/vote reactors state "Only usable during a political action" also. I believe you cannot play BO outside of the referendum either - hence my idea DT. =) I remember asking LSJ about this some time ago. I also remember forgetting his response =/ >But as DT is useable only during political actions, we have taken that >to mean it can be played not only after all votes are tallied, but also >at the onset of the action itself. What is really interesting is if DT >can be used against a CR vote, then everyone has access to a hell of a >utility that can help neutralize a CR without intercept. You just >require the DT in hand and a minion who can use it. Rather making Cryptic Rider even weaker than it currently is, IMO. =) >What really surprises me is after all this time that this situation has >never been discussed before. Heck, Cryptic Rider and Delaying Tactics >are from the original set. DT is mostly played in the way I described previously - to let a vote come through, draw out all the vote modifiers, and then slap it down if it's not going your way *AND* penalize the guy even more by using up some of his precious vote-passer cards. I imagine that's why it hasn't come up until now. Cryptic Rider... well... there are multiple ways to play it. One way is to save yourself having to include tons of BO in your deck - call a vote, slap BO on it, Cryptic Rider it, and the next guy doesn't need superior Presence or BO, the vote just happens. Usually the second vote is a Praxis vote, so you need fewer CR's in future. Of course, it's easier in practice to BO everything, since if you don't get the vote to the table that same turn, CR is history, and if you don't have a second vote card in hand, CR is very risky - but you MUST play it on that action and hope to draw up, or your next vote might not go. Another way is to play a "Gotcha!" deck that calls universally happy things like Autarkis Persecution, Rumors of Gehenna, etc, and drops Cryptic Riders on them, which are then used to pass, you guessed it, Praxis Seizures until it no longer needs the CRs. This deck normally fails miserably since it requires other players' cooperation to help you gain vote lock, and that's not likely to happen. A crafty variation on it would be to drop a couple CRs, get a couple Praxii until you're close enough to vote lock, THEN go beat up one of the potential opposing voters and shove through two Praxii quickly while you have temporary vote lock. =) Nossies/Anti-Nossies would be good for this, packing Potence and OBF in shedloads (OBF to be sure you get the auto-pass vote to the table!). Hm. An even craftier variation would be to use Archons for the CR, as well as Praxis Seizures, making it much easier to beat the crap out of opposing voters. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:33 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >P.S. Ethan got my good side. You mean the side where you can't see the beer in your hand? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <55D3BF1DCF29DA70.23BDEE45...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:33 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > >P.S. Ethan got my good side. > > You mean the side where you can't see the beer in your hand? =) At least I had my pants on. ;) Hanging Out, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am > hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than > once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a > Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal, > under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is > granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't > matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with > a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as > well. Actually, as far as that comparison goes, it should be: "The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is *calling a referendum*. In-line with a Bleed is a Bleed ad naseum." And, for the NRA, the result is the same: the vampire who called the first Praxis Seizure cannot take another political action this turn - not to seize the same praxis, not to seize a different praxis and not to call any other referendum. Delaying Tactics, however, has nothing to do with action *types* - it has only to do with specific actions. When playing without the V:EKN "No Repeat Actions" Floor Rule, a vampire could bleed with Computer Hacking get blocked and be subjected to inferior Obedience and untap. Obedience prevents him from attempting the same action again this turn, but he would be free to bleed with Govern the Unaligned or without a card at all - he is merely prohibited from attempting another Computer Hacking. [DTR 23-SEP-1994] Likewise Delaying Tactics prohibits the vampire (and all the other vampires controlled by the same Methuselah) from taking the same political action this turn. The means they cannot play the same action card (by name) or, if the action comes from an in-play source (burning the Anarch Revolt, for example), they cannot call the referendum to burn the same Anarch Revolt. The card name, in the case of the praxes seizures, includes the city. So seizing a different city would be allowable. [DTR 09-MAY-1995] The result of the combination of NRA and DelayingTactics' text is that the vampire who called the first referendum is unable to call any referendums for the remainder of the turn (NRA) and all other vamires controlled by the same Methuselah are unable to call that same referendum (by card name for political action cards in hand, or by instance of a card in play) for the remainder of the turn. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:02:32 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >In article ><55D3BF1DCF29DA70.23BDEE45...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:33 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >> >> >P.S. Ethan got my good side. >> >> You mean the side where you can't see the beer in your hand? =) > >At least I had my pants on. ;) Which reminds me, it was DAMNED COLD in that room! Sheesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > From the text of the Delaying Tactics, " Only usable during a political > action", I think I see where you are going on this. I can see where > BO, VC and DG can not be played on a Cryptic Rider vote as it has > already passed by the very fact that it reaches the referendum state. > But as DT is useable only during political actions, we have taken that > to mean it can be played not only after all votes are tallied, but also > at the onset of the action itself. DT is "only usable during a political action" and, as such, is only usable during the referendum part of the political action. [6.3.2] It cannot be played at the onset of the action itself (before block attempts, etc.) During an auto-pass vote, these effects (Bribes, DT, BO, etc.) cannot be used [LSJ 07-JAN-1998]. Voter Captivation, however, is not "during" a political action, but after. It can be played, but, since the referendum didn't pass by any specific amount, no blood (nor pool) is gained. [LSJ 07-JAN-1998] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3973571C...@white-wolf.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > Hello LSJ, Thank you for the answer. From the way the posts were leaning, I had already informed my group that it didn't look like they were correct with the Praxis Seizure issue. But I did inquiry why they felt that PS deserved special attention as opposed to other votes and here is what I got. All other votes are clearly defined with separate text and effects (exception Crusades). Both PS's and Crusade's identify an action that contains a subset of the original vote. This identifier is the ":" colon. The Praxis Seizure and Crusade both are actions containing a list. No other vote card possesses this characteristic. Therefore, they see the PS's and Crusade's as a master set action with the cities as a subset of the master set. Thus, all PS's and Crusade's do the same action the same exact way. They did inform me that if PS and Crusade did not have the colon then the cards would clearly identify different actions. Now I am NOT an English major, I am Logistician. So I decided to look up exactly what a colon is. Here it is according Webster (for all of you who follow Webster). Colon n. The section of the large intestine extending... opps, no need for that. Colon n. A punctuation mark (:) used after a word introducing a quotation, explanation, example, or series and after the salutation of a business letter. Now, what the hell does all that mean? Quick example would be this: You are in the market to rent an apartment. The apartment complex has a sign that states, No Pets Allowed: Dogs, Cats, Fish, Birds, etc. The "No Pets Allowed" is the Major set with the Dogs, Cats, Fish, Birds, etc., belonging in the subset. Just because an Iguana is not listed does not mean you can bring it in. It is also under the Major set of "No Pets Allowed". So they are trying to make this parallel with the Praxis Seizure and Crusade vote cards. Are there any English Majors out there who play this game and can clear this issue up grammatically? Thoughts, any? Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Likewise Delaying Tactics prohibits the vampire (and all the other > vampires > > controlled by the same Methuselah) from taking the same political > action > > this turn. The means they cannot play the same action card (by name) > or, > > if the action comes from an in-play source (burning the Anarch Revolt, > > for example), they cannot call the referendum to burn the same Anarch > > Revolt. The card name, in the case of the praxes seizures, includes > the > > city. So seizing a different city would be allowable. [DTR 09-MAY- > 1995] > > [My group says] Both PS's and Crusade's identify an action that > contains a subset of the original vote. This identifier is the ":" > colon. The Praxis Seizure and Crusade both are actions containing a > list. No other vote card possesses this characteristic. > > They did inform me that if PS and Crusade did not have the colon then > the cards would clearly identify different actions. The colon doesn't separate the name of the card from some secondary descriptor. Examples: The Elysium: The Arboretum won't contest The Elysium: The Palace of Versaille. The various Powerbases do not contest each other. A Cardinal can play both Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission and Cardinal Sin: Insubordination in the same action (the former upon blocking, the latter after the resulting combat). A Prince could play Judgment: Camarilla Segregation, Freak Drive, and Judgment: Death to the Brujah! even under the V:EKN No Repeat Action rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote in message <8l0skh$37v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... snip >Hello LSJ, > >Thank you for the answer. From the way the posts were leaning, I had >already informed my group that it didn't look like they were correct >with the Praxis Seizure issue. But I did inquiry why they felt that PS >deserved special attention as opposed to other votes and here is what I >got. > >All other votes are clearly defined with separate text and effects >(exception Crusades). Both PS's and Crusade's identify an action that >contains a subset of the original vote. This identifier is the ":" >colon. The Praxis Seizure and Crusade both are actions containing a >list. No other vote card possesses this characteristic. Therefore, >they see the PS's and Crusade's as a master set action with the cities >as a subset of the master set. Thus, all PS's and Crusade's do the >same action the same exact way. > >They did inform me that if PS and Crusade did not have the colon then >the cards would clearly identify different actions. > >Now I am NOT an English major, I am Logistician. So I decided to look >up exactly what a colon is. Here it is according Webster (for all of >you who follow Webster). > >Colon n. The section of the large intestine extending... opps, no need >for that. > >Colon n. A punctuation mark (:) used after a word introducing a >quotation, explanation, example, or series and after the salutation of >a business letter. > >Now, what the hell does all that mean? > >Quick example would be this: >You are in the market to rent an apartment. The apartment complex has >a sign that states, No Pets Allowed: Dogs, Cats, Fish, Birds, etc. >The "No Pets Allowed" is the Major set with the Dogs, Cats, Fish, >Birds, etc., belonging in the subset. Just because an Iguana is not >listed does not mean you can bring it in. It is also under the Major >set of "No Pets Allowed". > >So they are trying to make this parallel with the Praxis Seizure and >Crusade vote cards. > >Are there any English Majors out there who play this game and can clear >this issue up grammatically? > >Thoughts, any? > Sorry to interject, but this may help you in your arguments/understanding of this issue. Card titles do not imply any function or subset or power, whatsoever, except for their unique identification from other cards. Regardless of grammar, lexicon, etc. the only consideration is whether the text adds up to something different than any other card, for these considerations. Consider, I create an unique promo vampire for the Charlotte group named as follows "Scoombs, the Confused. Ancient Antediluvain Malkavian with 14 Capacity and All Disciplines at Superior" With the following stats 2 capacity, obf Flavor text: "The Confused... because the Hungry, the Weak, the Ignored, and the Repugnant were all taken." The title makes no difference to the function of the vampire other than to differentiate it from other vampires for the purposes of contestation, etc. It is similarly so for library cards. As such, you don't need to worry about standard written English. It wasn't used or intended to be used in such a manner for CCG's... Hope this helps :-) Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

LSJ wrote: > > DT is "only usable during a political action" and, as such, is only usable > during the referendum part of the political action. [6.3.2] > It cannot be played at the onset of the action itself (before block > attempts, etc.) LSJ, another quick question: Since Delaying Tactics puts the vote card (if any) back into the player's hand, they have to discard back down to their hand size, correct? I think I saw someone put the card they drew off of the vote action back on top of their deck, but I wasn't sure. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "And the tide rushes by where we stand / And the earth underneath turns to sand" -- Sheryl Crow

In article <8kv845$rg0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Michael Eichler, Prince of Ramstein <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: > I was the actual player to whom the actions occurred. I wanted to > test an off-the-cuff Presence Political deck with minions going no > higher than 5 capacity. I had 5 minions up, 2 were already > "Prince'd" and I was working toward the 3rd when the card play > occurred. > > I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform the > second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis Seizure and > had it Delayed. Just stop right there. Khalil Anvari, I assume? The Follower of Set, Non-Camarilla vampire, who cannot even call a Praxis Seizure vote nor be a prince without a Writ of Acceptance or the passing of an Invitation Accepted vote? From the online Rulebook (http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html): 10. Vampire Sects "A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. Only Camarilla vampires can become Primogen, Princes, Justicars, or Inner Circle members. Likewise, only Sabbat vampires can become Bishops, Archbishops, Prisci, or Cardinals. Additionally, clan Justicar titles can only be given to a vampire of the appropriate clan." > I happened to have another Praxis in my hand and tried > using that with Violette. That is when we had to stop and figure out > what was what. We decided for game flow (time) and tempers to just > perform a completely different vote, which was Autarkis Persecution. > > Now as to Khalil being able to perform another Political Action after > the Delaying Tactics, I am somewhat fuzzy on that. He didn't. He > went out and bled my prey, Robert, just to take it away from him. > I am fairly sure that he would not be able to perform another > political action, though. Under the No Repeat Actions rule (NRA), he would not be able to call another vote that turn. He had successfully completed the action to call the vote and the cannot attempt to call another one that turn. He could call a different vote per Delaying Tactics, but not per NRA. Remember that NRA is a tournament/DCI/VEKN rule only, it is not a part of the basic set of VTES rules at this time. If you usually play with VEKN tournament rules, then he could not call any other vote that turn. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform >> the second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis >> Seizure and had it Delayed. > > Just stop right there. > > Khalil Anvari, I assume? > > The Follower of Set, Non-Camarilla vampire, who cannot even call > a Praxis Seizure vote nor be a prince without a Writ of Acceptance > or the passing of an Invitation Accepted vote? Yes, that was probably done. (Notice the reference to Violette Prentiss) I really should have played my Setite Vote deck at Origins (not that it would have done any better on Sunday with at least half the decks being politcal decks) so this idea wouldn't strike people as odd as they do. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > Since Delaying Tactics puts the vote card (if any) back into the > player's hand, they have to discard back down to their hand size, > correct? I think I saw someone put the card they drew off of the vote > action back on top of their deck, but I wasn't sure. Right. The discarded card can even be the vote card in question, and it goes to the ash heap (not the library) whatever it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > I think I saw someone put the card they drew off of the > vote action back on top of their deck, but I wasn't sure. Yeah, you really have to watch people when you play cards that require them to put cards back into their hand or reduce their hand size. More than once, I've caught people trying to put the cards back into their hand that they were supposed to discard because of reduced hand size due to multiple Raptors in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8kv0r6$llq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my- deja.com> writes >I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no >purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought >forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting >LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin >altogether. If you only want an official answer, e-mailing LSJ directly would probably be simpler for you. Posting to a newsgroup will inevitably lead to other people discussing the idea. -- James Coupe