[LSJ] Removing multiple Anarch Revolts

Not sure on this one and found no-thing in the archives/rulings: 2 anarch revolts are in play by a methuselah and vampire A controlled by another methuselah calls a vote to burn one. Somone plays a delaying tactics. During the same turn: Can another vampire (B) take a vote to burn THE OTHER anarch revolt or is this considered the same vote? THX Alf Behrends Prince of Braunschweig - Germany

Sam wrote: > > Not sure on this one and found no-thing in the > archives/rulings: > > 2 anarch revolts are in play by a methuselah > and vampire A controlled by another methuselah > calls a vote to burn one. > Somone plays a delaying tactics. > > During the same turn: Can another vampire (B) > take a vote to burn THE OTHER anarch > revolt or is this considered the same vote? The former. It is a different vote. -- 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/

> > During the same turn: Can another vampire (B) > > take a vote to burn THE OTHER anarch > > revolt or is this considered the same vote? > > The former. > It is a different vote. Does this imply that, should I have two KRCs in my hand, and the first one is Delayed, can I call the second one with another minion?

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Actions provided by a card in play are distinct by instance of card. Actions provided by card played (from hand) are distinct by card name. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Actions provided by a card in play are distinct by instance of card. > Actions provided by card played (from hand) are distinct by card name. Out of curiosity, why is this distinction made for one and not the other. Both cards in play say "Anarch Revolt". They are the same card. What is the underlying reasoning for this? Sorrow --- "Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress." - Malcolm

Sorrow wrote: > > > Actions provided by a card in play are distinct by instance of card. > > Actions provided by card played (from hand) are distinct by card name. > > Out of curiosity, why is this distinction made for one and not the other. > Both cards in play say "Anarch Revolt". They are the same card. What > is the underlying reasoning for this? Card from hand would work the same way, except that there's no mechanism for tracking it when it's not in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C5ADEA4...@white-wolf.com... > Sorrow wrote: > > > > Out of curiosity, why is this distinction made for one and not the other. > > Both cards in play say "Anarch Revolt". They are the same card. What > > is the underlying reasoning for this? > > Card from hand would work the same way, except that there's no mechanism > for tracking it when it's not in play. > Also, there is no "Anarch Revolt" action. The action provided by the Anarch Revolt is simply a cardless action that is granted by a card in play. Each such action granted is thus a separate action, and a different action type if it's not of a defined type (i.e. political action, which the Anarch Revolt removal action is).

Hm. Does this mean that if three vampires on the table have a Haven Uncovered played on them, I can attack one with Basilia, Freak Drive, attack the second with Basilia, Freak Drive, and attack the third?

In message <6143fc7b.02020...@posting.google.com>, Hannigan [ quoted text not captured ] No Repeat Actions leads to this, yes. "Enter combat with..." is not a defined action type, like bleed, so it doesn't matter under that point of No Repeat Actions. There is no action card being used (like Corruption) so it is not a type. Since each is provided by a distinct card in play, you can use all three separately. (The original question involved "same action" from Delaying Tactics.) -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti