Gratiano Priscus problem

I've been rather troubled lately by the discovery of a ruling that would allow Gratiano to vote in the prisci sub-ref even if he has lost his Priscus title, allegedly because of this 'additional vote in the prisci ref' ability he has. The problem is, if hes not a priscus, he doesnt get to vote in the prisci sub-ref at all. So his additional vote should be moot. If this ruling were to stand, can I now strike with Jacko's additional even if he were not allowed to strike (skin trap)? Can I do damage with Reverend B's additional thaum strike damage ability with a ranged non-damage thaum strike? Logic to me would dictate that you cant use 'additional' anythings if you are unable to participate or do the same damage in the first place. The rules are clear, you cannot vote in the sub-ref if you are not a priscus. The ruling seems to flat out ignore this. T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c148696.10421853@news... > I've been rather troubled lately by the discovery of a ruling that > would allow Gratiano to vote in the prisci sub-ref even if he has lost > his Priscus title, allegedly because of this 'additional vote in the > prisci ref' ability he has. you discover things very late. > The problem is, if hes not a priscus, he doesnt get to vote in the > prisci sub-ref at all. So his additional vote should be moot. The problem is, even if he is not a priscus, his special allows him to cast one vote in the prisci sub referendum. > If this ruling were to stand, can I now strike with Jacko's additional > even if he were not allowed to strike (skin trap)? This has nothing to do with additional strikes. (and don't tell me you're not going to burn a blood to use jacko's mighty punch anyway) (great lure for blood of acid by the way...) > Can I do damage with Reverend B's additional thaum strike damage > ability with a ranged non-damage thaum strike? No. No damage is no damage. You do damage, you add 1. You do no damage, you add nothing. > Logic to me would dictate that you cant use 'additional' anythings if > you are unable to participate or do the same damage in the first > place. The rules are clear, you cannot vote in the sub-ref if you are > not a priscus. The ruling seems to flat out ignore this. Your logic is your logic.The rules are different from your logic. If your special states that you have the right to vote in the prisci sub referendum, you have the right to do it. You can still abstain if it suits you. We know that LSJ 's ruling are not always perfect, but quick and logical decisions are to be made. Else eveyrone will interpret cards in his own way (own benefit ?). You have the right to feel that it's "not cool" or "incorrect for background story reason". But please don't post here each time you want to change the rules the way you'd like them to be. reyda reyda

>===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com ===== >I've been rather troubled lately by the discovery of a ruling that >would allow Gratiano to vote in the prisci sub-ref even if he has lost >his Priscus title, allegedly because of this 'additional vote in the >prisci ref' ability he has. Card text. Gotta love it. >The problem is, if hes not a priscus, he doesnt get to vote in the >prisci sub-ref at all. So his additional vote should be moot. Wrong. 6.3.3 deals with the Prisci sub-referendum, there is no restriction on who may cast votes during that sub-referendum, just a restriction against gaining other votes (burning a political action, Bewitching Oration). The only vampires that have votes to cast during that referendum are the Prisci and those with explicit card text. >If this ruling were to stand, can I now strike with Jacko's additional >even if he were not allowed to strike (skin trap)? No. You are putting the cart before the horse here. The general rule, each minion gets a strike each round of combat, is changed(altered / superceded) by Skin Trap's card text. By the Golden Rule for Cards [1.4], card text can and will change the rules for the duration of the cards effect. This will also restrict Jacko and every minion with special strike text. >Can I do damage with Reverend B's additional thaum strike damage >ability with a ranged non-damage thaum strike? No. "Adding damage to strikes which are not damage dealing strikes will not deal damage. [RTR 19960221]" >Logic to me would dictate that you cant use 'additional' anythings if >you are unable to participate or do the same damage in the first >place. This is correct. > The rules are clear, you cannot vote in the sub-ref if you are > not a priscus. The ruling seems to flat out ignore this. No, the current rules do not prohibit non-Prisci from voting in the sub-referendum, they only specify that usually only Prisci will have votes to affect the sub-referendum. Please read the current version of the Rulebook, included in all of the Sabbat War and Final Nights starters. You may also find it online, here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

In message <9uu5fn$2n0$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes: >> The problem is, if hes not a priscus, he doesnt get to vote in the >> prisci sub-ref at all. So his additional vote should be moot. > >The problem is, even if he is not a priscus, his special allows him to cast >one vote in the prisci sub referendum. The ruling that you could not cast votes unless you controlled a Priscus was over-turned an extremely long time ago. The rules currently state: "Each ready priscus provides one vote for this sub-referendum, and no other votes may be used in this sub-referendum." And, of course, Gratiano's special breaks this rule (as standard). Thus, he has a vote which he can cast in the Prisci sub-referendum. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near 668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I've been rather troubled lately by the discovery of a ruling that > would allow Gratiano to vote in the prisci sub-ref even if he has lost > his Priscus title, allegedly because of this 'additional vote in the > prisci ref' ability he has. > > The problem is, if hes not a priscus, he doesnt get to vote in the > prisci sub-ref at all. So his additional vote should be moot. His card text overrides the idea that non-priscus get no votes in the Priscus referendum (if he's non-Priscus). > If this ruling were to stand, can I now strike with Jacko's additional > even if he were not allowed to strike (skin trap)? No. You can gain an additional strike. But you still cannot strike. For instance, you can play a Blur on the first round as the victim of a Hidden Lurker attack even though you cannot strike. > Can I do damage with Reverend B's additional thaum strike damage > ability with a ranged non-damage thaum strike? No. Adding damage to a non-damage-dealing strike has no effect. Like Having +1 bleed (Ozmo) and hunting - your prey doesn't lose a pool when you hunt. > Logic to me would dictate that you cant use 'additional' anythings if > you are unable to participate or do the same damage in the first > place. The rules are clear, you cannot vote in the sub-ref if you are > not a priscus. Please quote the text from the rulebook that says you cannot vote in the sub-referendum if you aren't a Priscus (bearing in mind that the same text, coupled with 1.4, must obviously allow Gratiano to cast two votes when he *is* a Priscus). > The ruling seems to flat out ignore this. The ruling follows card text and 1.4 -- 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 Sat, 08 Dec 2001 20:46:39 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >Please quote the text from the rulebook that says you cannot vote >in the sub-referendum if you aren't a Priscus (bearing in mind that >the same text, coupled with 1.4, must obviously allow Gratiano to >cast two votes when he *is* a Priscus). > My apologies, there has been a subtle change in the Prisci block vote rules in the FN rulebook that differs from my old Sabaat rules pamphlet. (formerly, only players with Prisci could participate in the sub-ref, this distinction has been dropped) The current rules would allow this ruling to stand as is. Not that I like it, but it certainly makes Gratiano even better than I thought he was. T

In message <3c1427f8.83255584@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >My apologies, there has been a subtle change in the Prisci block vote >rules in the FN rulebook that differs from my old Sabaat rules >pamphlet. This has been the case for quite some time, prior to the current rulesbook printing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:29:14 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c1427f8.83255584@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>My apologies, there has been a subtle change in the Prisci block vote >>rules in the FN rulebook that differs from my old Sabaat rules >>pamphlet. > >This has been the case for quite some time, prior to the current >rulesbook printing. > Perhaps, I tend to use the Sabaat booklet as a quick reference for Sabaat questions, and I didnt expect that little line to change or be deleted. T

In message <3c152429.147826077@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >Perhaps, I tend to use the Sabaat booklet as a quick reference for >Sabaat questions It's fairly poor, especially in the current situation. The current rules-book is much clearer. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:<3C16...@MailAndNews.com>... > >===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com ===== > >I've been rather troubled lately by the discovery of a ruling that > >would allow Gratiano to vote in the prisci sub-ref even if he has lost > >his Priscus title, allegedly because of this 'additional vote in the > >prisci ref' ability he has. > > Card text. Gotta love it. > > >The problem is, if hes not a priscus, he doesnt get to vote in the > >prisci sub-ref at all. So his additional vote should be moot. What about Genevieve? Genevieve, 10, ANI aus dom FOR PRO, Gangrel Antitribu, Priscus Sabbat Priscus: Genevieve gets one additional vote during each political action. Does this include an extra vote in the Prisci sub-ref? Or does she have 1 Vote outside the Prisci sub-ref? or both (extra in the Prisci sub-ref, and an extra outside the Prisci sub-ref?) Thanks!

"Yoritomo Jiriki" <yoritom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:965ce195.0112...@posting.google.com... > What about Genevieve? What about her? > Genevieve, 10, ANI aus dom FOR PRO, Gangrel Antitribu, Priscus > Sabbat Priscus: Genevieve gets one additional vote during each > political action. During the political action, not during the sub-referendum. If she ceases to be a Priscus, she will cease to have any effect on the Prisci sub-referendum. > Does this include an extra vote in the Prisci sub-ref? No. > Or does she have 1 Vote outside the Prisci sub-ref? She has one vote outside of the sub-referendum. > or both (extra in the Prisci sub-ref, and an extra outside > the Prisci sub-ref?) No. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted from att-98-60-253.atl.mediaone.net [24.98.60.253] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<e222d0f659ca26f5682...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > "Yoritomo Jiriki" <yoritom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:965ce195.0112...@posting.google.com... > > During the political action, not during the sub-referendum. > If she ceases to be a Priscus, she will cease to have any > effect on the Prisci sub-referendum. > > > Does this include an extra vote in the Prisci sub-ref? > > No. > > > Or does she have 1 Vote outside the Prisci sub-ref? > > She has one vote outside of the sub-referendum. > > > or both (extra in the Prisci sub-ref, and an extra outside > > the Prisci sub-ref?) > > No. > While she is priscus, she has to give her additional vote to whatever the prisci choose during the sub-referendum (because all the prisci vote together)? And if she loses her title can she still vote (with the additional vote) or because she has no title to give her votes, she can not (as with Rev.B/W no damaging strike equals no additional damage)?

Uriel wrote: > While she is priscus, she has to give her additional vote to whatever > the prisci choose during the sub-referendum (because all the prisci > vote together)? No. How the Prisci block of 3 is cast has no bearing on how any member of the Prisci votes in the sub-referendum or the main. > And if she loses her title can she still vote (with the additional > vote) or because she has no title to give her votes, she can not (as > with Rev.B/W no damaging strike equals no additional damage)? The former. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Uriel wrote: > > While she is priscus, she has to give her additional vote to whatever > > the prisci choose during the sub-referendum (because all the prisci > > vote together)? > > No. How the Prisci block of 3 is cast has no bearing on how any > member of the Prisci votes in the sub-referendum or the main. > > > And if she loses her title can she still vote (with the additional > > vote) or because she has no title to give her votes, she can not (as > > with Rev.B/W no damaging strike equals no additional damage)? > > The former. > In a Free States Rant, would she lose both her vote in the Prisci Sub - referendum and her 1 vote in the Political Action, or just one of them (assuming she is a Priscus when the vote is called)? Andy Brown Setite Ruler of Cambridge VEKN Prince -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

Andy Brown wrote: > In a Free States Rant, would she lose both her vote in the Prisci > Sub - referendum and her 1 vote in the Political Action, or just one > of them (assuming she is a Priscus when the vote is called)? FSR makes titles worth one less. (card text) It doesn't affect special ability votes. [ quoted text not captured ]