[LSJ] Free States Rant

I think we've covered this before, but I need verification for a game that was played yesterday... Here's the situation: 1) Free States Rant is called by me. The Edge is uncontrolled. 2) The only titled vampire on the table is a Priscus (Korah), who votes against it. 3) No other votes are played for or against. My interpretation is that the vote will pass. From my perspective, since the 'title' of Priscus allows one vote in the Prisci sub-referendum rather than for the block of three, the Priscus cannot actually influence the Free States Rant because the card text for FSR reduces his vote by one [even in the Prisci sub-referendum]. Therefore, the only Priscus who could actually sway the Priscus block for or against FSR (by title alone) would be Gratiano. Does this sound correct? To my mind, this is analagous to two competing Prisci trying to sway a vote but disagreeing on which way to go. If one's vote counters the other, (ie. 1-1) it effectively means that the Prisci do *not* vote as an entity. Similarly, in the FSR situation above, the Prisci do not reach consensus/quorum/whatever because the one Priscus does not have the vote necessary to push the sub-referendum to 1-0. Thanks in advance. Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<9icdp...@enews4.newsguy.com>... > I think we've covered this before, but I need verification for a game that > was played yesterday... Yes. In a thread with the exact same subject line (meaning that Google thinks it was this same thread), as it happens. It may be faster to search google than to ask the newsgroup. > Here's the situation: > > 1) Free States Rant is called by me. The Edge is uncontrolled. > 2) The only titled vampire on the table is a Priscus (Korah), who votes > against it. > 3) No other votes are played for or against. > > My interpretation is that the vote will pass. If you cast your PA-based vote in favor, yes. > From my perspective, since the 'title' of Priscus allows one vote in the > Prisci sub-referendum rather than for the block of three, the Priscus cannot > actually influence the Free States Rant because the card text for FSR > reduces his vote by one [even in the Prisci sub-referendum]. Correct. > Therefore, the only Priscus who could actually sway the Priscus block for or > against FSR (by title alone) would be Gratiano. Correct. > Does this sound correct? Yes. > To my mind, this is analagous to two competing Prisci trying to sway a vote > but disagreeing on which way to go. If one's vote counters the other, (ie. > 1-1) it effectively means that the Prisci do *not* vote as an entity. Correct. > Similarly, in the FSR situation above, the Prisci do not reach > consensus/quorum/whatever because the one Priscus does not have the vote > necessary to push the sub-referendum to 1-0. Exactly correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> If you cast your PA-based vote in favor, yes. When you call a vote, can the vampire performing the action vote *against* it (with the card's vote etc)? I was under the impression that calling a vote inherently meant that the acting vampire was voting in favor.

[ quoted text not captured ] Some times you call a vote you wish to fail, simple to cycle cards. Raille

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<B6n27.547$gu4....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>... > > If you cast your PA-based vote in favor, yes. > > > When you call a vote, can the vampire performing the action vote > *against* it (with the card's vote etc)? You (the Methuselah) can vote against it with the PA card's vote. The acting vampire can vote against it with any votes he happens to have (which, by the way, does not include the PA card's vote). > I was under the impression that calling a vote inherently meant > that the acting vampire was voting in favor. No. [ quoted text not captured ]