Legacy of Pander question

So I was inspired to look at Legacy of Pander by James Coupe's description of the recent Portsmouth tournament. And I see that there is indeed a ruling that Legacy of Pander is cumulative. What I'm wondering is, why is it cumulative? The card text is "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth If this vote is successful, put this card in play. Each non-titled Pander has one vote. This card may be burned by a vote called by any Sabbat vampire as a (D) action." This wording seems to me more analogous to Rumors of Gehenna (which 'resets' your number of master phase actions to 2) or Torn Signpost (which 'resets' your strength to 2/3) than to Legendary Vampire or [Clan] Justicar (which give 'additional' or 'extra' votes). I can see how it might be interpreted either way, as you could think of each copy as granting a vote to each Pander. But it seems to me that all the other vote-adding cards that are intended to work with vote-having vampires use the 'additional' or 'extra' phrasing (Elysium, the Palace of Versailles; Power Structure; Ventrue Directorate Assembly for example). Josh --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > [...] I see that there is indeed a ruling that Legacy of > Pander is cumulative. What I'm wondering is, why is > it cumulative? > > The card text is > > "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote > Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth > If this vote is successful, put this card in play. Each > non-titled Pander has one vote. This card may be burned by > a vote called by any Sabbat vampire as a (D) action." The WotC spoiler list is incorrect. The actual printed card text is: If this vote is successful, put this card in play. Each non-titled Pander has one additional vote. This card may be burned by a vote called by any Sabbat vampire as a +1 stealth action. That card text, clearly, provides a cumulative effect. The "ruling" is actually just a clarification. The ruling given on the Rulemonger site cites the following article as its reference (URL converted to the plain-text article to preserve formatting): http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=290526395&fmt=text -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ih58v$uea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > [...] I see that there is indeed a ruling that Legacy of > > Pander is cumulative. What I'm wondering is, why is > > it cumulative? > > > > The card text is > > > > "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote > > Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth > > If this vote is successful, put this card in play. Each > > non-titled Pander has one vote. This card may be burned by > > a vote called by any Sabbat vampire as a (D) action." > > The WotC spoiler list is incorrect. > The actual printed card text is: > If this vote is successful, put this card in play. Each non-titled > Pander has one additional vote. This card may be burned by a vote > called by any Sabbat vampire as a +1 stealth action. > > That card text, clearly, provides a cumulative effect. > The "ruling" is actually just a clarification. The ruling given > on the Rulemonger site cites the following article as its > reference (URL converted to the plain-text article to preserve > formatting): > > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=290526395&fmt=text Doh! Bitten by the inaccurate spoiler list again. Thanks for the clarification, Josh bad information on the web, how annoying... undermines the whole purpose of the thing... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7iguh6$p78$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> writes >The card text is > >"Political Card-Worth 1 Vote >Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth > If this vote is successful, put this card in play. Each >non-titled Pander has one vote. This card may be burned by >a vote called by any Sabbat vampire as a (D) action." This is the card text from the card text file. It is incorrect. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk