Pulling strings...

If you pplay pulling strings during a vote, can it cancel the initial 1 vote value of the main vote card?

In article <3ks16i$m...@NNTP.MsState.Edu>, Charles Richard Robb <cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote: >If you pplay pulling strings during a vote, can it cancel the initial 1 >vote value of the main vote card? No, the vote card always counts as a vote for itself. While the vampire calling it performed the action, votes directly from political actions are not considered to be from a particualr vampire. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >If you pplay pulling strings during a vote, can it cancel the initial 1 >vote value of the main vote card? Yes. That vote DID come from the pulled vampire, so it is cancelled.

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >If you play pulling strings during a vote, can it cancel the initial 1 >vote value of the main vote card? Pulling Strings cancel's a vampire's vote, but the political card gives a vote to the Methuseleh (not the minion). So, no. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >>If you pplay pulling strings during a vote, can it cancel the initial 1 >>vote value of the main vote card? >Yes. That vote DID come from the pulled vampire, so it is cancelled. I write: >Pulling Strings cancels a vampire's vote, but the political card gives a >vote to the Methuseleh (not the minion). So, no. Uhoh, we have a disputation! My source is the original rules. Yours? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Tom Wylie: When a vampire plays a card that grants a vote, the vote is considered to have come from both the vampire and the Methuselah (answer to a question on the card that taps vampires who vote vs. the card that forces Methuselahs with dissenting votes to pay pool). The PA that called the vote counts as a vote from the vamp, so it will be cancelled. Any PA cards burned for additional votes do not come from a vamp, so would not be cancelled.

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3kuiga$l...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Rulebook: The card used to call a vote provides one vote for the Meth. >>Obvious (?) effect: That vote comes from the acting vampire as well. >> >>Rulebook: The Edge and PA cards may be burned for one vote each. >>Obvious Effect: Since no vampire was involved with playing the card/gaining >> the vote, then the vote comes from the Methuselah only. > One more data point. Rulebook: A political card always provides >one vote for the Methuselah playing it. >Later in that section: In addition to the vote provided by the card >played, you get the following extra votes for vampires under your >control. > Both of these would seem to indicate that the vote comes >straight from the card. The rulebook also seems to indicate that votes gained from titled vamps come from the control of the vamp, not the vamp itself. But this is (also) not the case. Rulebook: Controlling a Prince provides 2 vote for the Methuselah. Rulebook: Playing a PA card to call a Referendum provide a vote for the Meth. Design Team: The vote comes from both the vampire and the Methuselah. Simplicity (always the way to go): If you need a Minion to get the vote, then the vote comes from that minion. This includes: titled votes, action mods, reactions, and the initial PA. This does not include: subsequent PAs nor the Edge. Is there a simple rule-of-thumb which explains why the PA played by a vampire would not count as being played by that vampire? (while allowing the remainder of the votes to be played as explained by DT). I can't think of one.

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3kth5r$h...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Tom Wylie: When a vampire plays a card that grants a vote, the vote is >>considered to have come from both the vampire and the Methuselah >>(answer to a question on the card that taps vampires who vote vs. the >>card that forces Methuselahs with dissenting votes to pay pool). > Right, that applies to action mods and reactions. That was what >Tom specifically referred to. The question then becomes do actions fall >under that ruling? > My initial reaction is to say that they do not. Tom "specifically" referred to nothing except votes gained from titled vampires, actually. (And that only because that was the example used). Action Mods and Reactions are obvious extensions (since they require a Minion to play). The initial PA is also an obvious (IMO) extension, since it requires a vamp to play. -------------------------------- BTW, this is the full extent of my argument, so rather than create another what time did WotC impose a card limit on MtG :-), I will content myself to simply reading your (and anybody else's) followups. I understand the points you have made, and I agree that the Design Team has left this one (minor) point unclarified. I would have no problem playing it the way you suggest, but I do beleive that it is not the proper way to interpret it, neither in terms of game mechanics nor in terms of game concept.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >I think the proper fix would have been a clarification that votes casts by >a Methuseleh's minions also count as votes cast by the Methuseleh. That was the intent, I believe. Th DT simply executed the fix clumsily (Hard to believe, I know :-). If it was not the original intent, I'm for adopting it as the new standard. L. Scott