Gratiano the Primogen + FSR (LSJ)

LSJ, I believe I am correct on this, although I think it's kind of stupid. If Gratiano gets the title of Archbishop, and calls Free States Rant, he will have -2 votes from the FSR, and his total votes is 1, correct? That is, with the FSR card, you now would have 2 votes. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > If Gratiano gets the title of Archbishop, and calls Free States Rant, He cannot. FSR can only be called by an independent vampire. Assuming someone else calls it (or he got a Baron title instead)... > he will have -2 votes from the FSR, and his total votes is 1, correct? He has only -1 vote from the FSR. Making his total votes: One in the main referendum (Archbishop title 2 -1 for FSR = 1) One in the Prisci subreferedum (not from a title, so unaffected by FSR). > That is, with the FSR card, you now would have 2 votes. Plus a vote in the prisci sub-referendum.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's a trick question. Archbishops can't call Free States Rant. But if Gratiano became an Archbishop, and someone _else_ called FSR, he would have 1 normal vote *and* 1 priscus vote (potentially counting for 4 total). His 'extra priscus vote' is not a title.

LSJ wrote: > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > If Gratiano gets the title of Archbishop, and calls Free States Rant, > > He cannot. FSR can only be called by an independent vampire. > Assuming someone else calls it (or he got a Baron title instead)... OK, he's a Baron. > > he will have -2 votes from the FSR, and his total votes is 1, correct? > > He has only -1 vote from the FSR. Making his total votes: > > One in the main referendum (Archbishop title 2 -1 for FSR = 1) > One in the Prisci subreferedum (not from a title, so unaffected by > FSR). Right, it doesn't reduce the number of votes his special is worth. But isn't his Baron title worth one less priscus vote? Which he then has to make up for when casting votes? I remember from our long Rastacourere thread that Rastacourere makes a title worth 1 less main-referendum vote, and that if the title was only worth sub-referendum votes, then the affected vampire would have to make up that deficiency to get to positive main votes, for example superior Bewitching Oration for a total of 3 main, 1 sub, right? I guess I need to know, does FSR make titles worth -1 main referendum AND -1 sub-referendum vote, or does it make them worth 1 less vote total? And if it's total, who chooses which vote is reduced? I don't see a precedent here for choosing how something is reduced, except for hand size, which the controller chooses. Since it seems absurd that you can choose to reduce an affected prince's votes by one sub-referendum vote, I assumed that it had to give -1 to reg and sub votes. Awaiting your response. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > Right, it doesn't reduce the number of votes his special is worth. But > isn't his Baron title worth one less priscus vote? Which he then has > to make up for when casting votes? His Baron title is never worth *any* Priscus votes. His extra Priscus vote is a Special Ability, that has nothing to do with any titles he has. It is completely unaffected by Free States Rant.

In message <1147824657.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, firstco...@aol.com writes: <Gratiano as a Baron> >Right, it doesn't reduce the number of votes his special is worth. But >isn't his Baron title worth one less priscus vote? Baron titles don't have anything to do with Priscus votes, so a reduction to the Baron title makes it worth one main-referendum vote. >Since it seems absurd that you can choose to reduce an affected >prince's votes by one sub-referendum vote, I assumed that it had to >give -1 to reg and sub votes. Card-text of FSR: "In this referendum, titles are worth 1 fewer vote each (even in the prisci sub-referendum)" It's not your votes, it's your title. So Gratiano's Baron title goes down by one vote. Since Baron is worth 2 votes in the main referendum, it is now worth 1 vote in the main referendum. Since it doesn't have anything to do with the Prisci sub- referendum, it doesn't do anything to that. Also, Gratiano's special gives him one vote in the sub-referendum, but that's not a title. Similarly, Genevieve is a Priscus, but who has a vote in the main referendum. Free States Rant will look at her Priscus title, which is worth 1 vote in the sub-referendum, and make it worth zero votes in the sub-referendum. Then she can cast her special vote in the main referendum. Now, if there were a title that had votes in both the main and sub- referendums, there'd be a question to answer. But there aren't any titles like that. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > Right, it doesn't reduce the number of votes his special is worth. But > isn't his Baron title worth one less priscus vote? Which he then has > to make up for when casting votes? No. It only makes the Baron title worth one fewer vote in the main referendum. > I remember from our long Rastacourere thread that Rastacourere makes a > title worth 1 less main-referendum vote, and that if the title was only > worth sub-referendum votes, then the affected vampire would have to > make up that deficiency to get to positive main votes, for example > superior Bewitching Oration for a total of 3 main, 1 sub, right? Right. > I guess I need to know, does FSR make titles worth -1 main referendum > AND -1 sub-referendum vote, or does it make them worth 1 less vote > total? And if it's total, who chooses which vote is reduced? I don't > see a precedent here for choosing how something is reduced, except for > hand size, which the controller chooses. > > Since it seems absurd that you can choose to reduce an affected > prince's votes by one sub-referendum vote, I assumed that it had to > give -1 to reg and sub votes. Ah. Clever. If it made it worth one fewer vote in the main referendum (which it does) AND one fewer vote in the sub-referendum (which it doesn't), that would be a total of two fewer votes, in contradiction to the card text. It only reduces the referendum in which the title has any sway in the first place. If there were a title that provided votes in both the main referendum and the sub-referendum, then I guess there'd have to be a ruling for who got to choose which vote was removed. But there's not currently, so I'll save that ruling for later.

LSJ wrote: > If it made it worth one fewer vote in the main referendum (which it > does) AND one fewer vote in the sub-referendum (which it doesn't), that > would be a total of two fewer votes, in contradiction to the card text. > > It only reduces the referendum in which the title has any sway in the > first place. If there were a title that provided votes in both the main > referendum and the sub-referendum, then I guess there'd have to be a > ruling for who got to choose which vote was removed. But there's not > currently, so I'll save that ruling for later. In a similar situation, how would Condemnation: Mute work with a Cardinal Gratiano during a regular referendum, can his controller choose which vote he uses?

[ quoted text not captured ] No one chooses which referendum Condemnation: Mute affects. Without card text allowing it to affect the prisci-subreferendum, it can only affect main referendum votes. Witness1 -ItE

witness1 wrote: > Robert Scythe wrote: > > In a similar situation, how would Condemnation: Mute work with a > > Cardinal Gratiano during a regular referendum, can his controller > > choose which vote he uses? > > No one chooses which referendum Condemnation: Mute affects. Without > card text allowing it to affect the prisci-subreferendum, it can only > affect main referendum votes. Correct

> If it made it worth one fewer vote in the main referendum (which it > does) AND one fewer vote in the sub-referendum (which it doesn't), that > would be a total of two fewer votes, in contradiction to the card text. That's one thing I was worried about--glad it's not so. > It only reduces the referendum in which the title has any sway in the > first place. If there were a title that provided votes in both the main > referendum and the sub-referendum, then I guess there'd have to be a > ruling for who got to choose which vote was removed. But there's not > currently, so I'll save that ruling for later. OK, so recap: Genevieve, when her title is worth 1 less vote *via FSR* has "Priscus" reduced by one sub-referendum vote, since her title only has sway in that referendum. However, Genevieve, when her title is worth 1 less vote *via Rastacourere* has "Priscus" reduced by 1 MAIN-referendum vote, despite her title not having sway in that, just to counteract votes she gets later, like via her special. Short form, in the first case, she would have 1 vote, but no sub-ref votes; in the second case, she has 1 sub-ref vote, but no regular votes. Any chance that "reducing a title's votes" could be given an overhaul by the rules team, to work like FSR all the time? I feel that only reducing votes you actually have makes sense--more sense than negative main-referendum votes on a Priscus would. -- Brian

<firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1147888976.2...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > OK, so recap: Genevieve, when her title is worth 1 less vote *via FSR* > has "Priscus" reduced by one sub-referendum vote, since her title only > has sway in that referendum. However, Genevieve, when her title is > worth 1 less vote *via Rastacourere* has "Priscus" reduced by 1 > MAIN-referendum vote, despite her title not having sway in that, just > to counteract votes she gets later, like via her special. Correct. Because Free States Rant has card text saying that it specifically affects the Priscus title in the sub-referendum, while Rastacourere does not. > Short form, in the first case, she would have 1 vote, but no sub-ref > votes; in the second case, she has 1 sub-ref vote, but no regular > votes. > > Any chance that "reducing a title's votes" could be given an overhaul > by the rules team, to work like FSR all the time? I feel that only > reducing votes you actually have makes sense--more sense than negative > main-referendum votes on a Priscus would. You're right that it's kind of inconsistent, in that cards that work directly on titles do *not* work on the priscus title by default (e.g. Rastacourere), but cards that affect "voting" without reference to titles (e.g. Telepathic Vote Counting, Scalpel Tongue) *do* work on the priscus title by default. Josh likes condemnation: mute better than rastacourere

Joshua Duffin wrote: > <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1147888976.2...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > OK, so recap: Genevieve, when her title is worth 1 less vote *via FSR* > > has "Priscus" reduced by one sub-referendum vote, since her title only > > has sway in that referendum. However, Genevieve, when her title is > > worth 1 less vote *via Rastacourere* has "Priscus" reduced by 1 > > MAIN-referendum vote, despite her title not having sway in that, just > > to counteract votes she gets later, like via her special. > > Correct. Because Free States Rant has card text saying that it specifically > affects the Priscus title in the sub-referendum, while Rastacourere does > not. Correct. > > Short form, in the first case, she would have 1 vote, but no sub-ref > > votes; in the second case, she has 1 sub-ref vote, but no regular > > votes. > > > > Any chance that "reducing a title's votes" could be given an overhaul > > by the rules team, to work like FSR all the time? I feel that only > > reducing votes you actually have makes sense--more sense than negative > > main-referendum votes on a Priscus would. > > You're right that it's kind of inconsistent, in that cards that work > directly on titles do *not* work on the priscus title by default (e.g. > Rastacourere), but cards that affect "voting" without reference to titles > (e.g. Telepathic Vote Counting, Scalpel Tongue) *do* work on the priscus > title by default. It is consistent, actually -- cards that affect "votes" in a referendum affect votes in the main referendum (only) by default, while cards that affect the alignment of a vampire (for, against, or abstaining) affect that vampire's alignment (and, since all votes, main and sub- referendum alike, must be cast in agreement with that alignment, ...)

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1147888976.2...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > OK, so recap: Genevieve, when her title is worth 1 less vote *via FSR* > > > has "Priscus" reduced by one sub-referendum vote, since her title only > > > has sway in that referendum. However, Genevieve, when her title is > > > worth 1 less vote *via Rastacourere* has "Priscus" reduced by 1 > > > MAIN-referendum vote, despite her title not having sway in that, just > > > to counteract votes she gets later, like via her special. > > > > Correct. Because Free States Rant has card text saying that it specifically > > affects the Priscus title in the sub-referendum, while Rastacourere does > > not. > > Correct. Not only does it have text that specifies that titles are worth one less in Priscus sub-referenda, but it is also implied that FSR is expected to discover which votes are possible from the affected title(s) and modify votes accordingly--a distinction Rastacourere is not expected to make. THAT'S what I'd like to change. > > > Short form, in the first case, she would have 1 vote, but no sub-ref > > > votes; in the second case, she has 1 sub-ref vote, but no regular > > > votes. > > > > > > Any chance that "reducing a title's votes" could be given an overhaul > > > by the rules team, to work like FSR all the time? I feel that only > > > reducing votes you actually have makes sense--more sense than negative > > > main-referendum votes on a Priscus would. > > > > You're right that it's kind of inconsistent, in that cards that work > > directly on titles do *not* work on the priscus title by default (e.g. It works on the Priscus title; it makes it worth (-1, 1) votes. Which I'm sure isn't the simplest or the best way to handle it. I'd rather all reductions in the game applied to qualities which were present. > > Rastacourere), but cards that affect "voting" without reference to titles > > (e.g. Telepathic Vote Counting, Scalpel Tongue) *do* work on the priscus > > title by default. That's not my concern. I'm concerned that Rastacourere reduces something which isn't there to a negative, while leaving the quality most sensibly affected alone. I think it's bad for new players, it's not the intuitive way to handle a "title reduction". I examined both cards which do that--Rastacourere in a previous thread, where the reasoning was explained (well) by LSJ; and FSR here, where I explained my thoughts and possible problems with its mechanics earlier. > It is consistent, actually -- cards that affect "votes" in a referendum > affect votes in the main referendum (only) by default, while cards that > affect the alignment of a vampire (for, against, or abstaining) affect > that vampire's alignment (and, since all votes, main and sub- > referendum alike, must be cast in agreement with that alignment, ...) Personally, I think you could avoid all this by saying that Prisci have 1 NORMAL vote, for all purposes except for tallying votes. When it comes time to tally votes, Priscus votes do their own thing (as described presently) and then you get rid of "can I use action modifiers which are only usable in a referendum during a sub-referendum", "which votes/how many votes are counted for [various]", etc. Priscus = 1 vote, plus tallied differently. But that's not what I proposed. I figured that if Rastacourere reduces main-referendum votes of a priscus, that FSR must do the same. And if FSR reduces main votes of a Priscus, it must reduce sub-ref votes of a non-priscus. But that would contradict "worth ONE less vote" card text. But if it IS only 1 vote, you have to choose which one...which is ridiculous, so it has to reduce each, which means... that LSJ rules that FSR knows which kind of votes you have and reduces that kind. Which means that cards can do that. Which means, I propose that Rastacourere should do that. Which I thought it already did, when I first saw it. Which I assume most new players encountering the card will think it does. (-1, 1) votes is not something most people would think of unless they were introduced to the idea by LSJ. Anyway, there's my proposal, that cards which reduce things can know what's present and then reduce that first. If there's nothing present to reduce, then make it reduce whatever the default is. I think it's sound. What would be required for it to be implemented? -- Brian

On a related issue. Independent Vampires with Votes are considered to have titles ergo their votes stem from these titles. In a FSR are these votes reduced ? If not why not? It can't be that these votes are simply inherent or they wouldn't be affected by a vamp going sabbat and becoming a Bishop for example. That the votes relate to a title is implicit in how they are handled elsewhere. Also as an idea I think that it would be good to give these titled independent vamps titles, Lord of the Domain of Swindon, Master of the Ten Keys of Slough that kind of thing so that it was obvious that they have a title as in the little space designated for titles there was a title.

jibbajibba wrote: > On a related issue. Independent Vampires with Votes are considered to > have titles ergo their votes stem from these titles. > In a FSR are these votes reduced ? If not why not? They are reduced, because as you say, they are titles. > Also as an idea I think that it would be good to give these titled > independent vamps titles, Lord of the Domain of Swindon, Master of the > Ten Keys of Slough that kind of thing so that it was obvious that they > have a title as in the little space designated for titles there was a > title. The new printings of vamps have text along the lines of: 2 votes (titled) doesn't sound as fancy, but saves on text space. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

jibbajibba wrote: > On a related issue. Independent Vampires with Votes are considered to > have titles ergo their votes stem from these titles. > In a FSR are these votes reduced ? Yes, they are. This hole tread is, like, SO 5 years ago. > > Also as an idea I think that it would be good to give these titled > independent vamps titles, Lord of the Domain of Swindon, Master of the > Ten Keys of Slough that kind of thing so that it was obvious that they > have a title as in the little space designated for titles there was a > title. Nice: Melinda Melons Toreador [6] PRE cel mel Lord of the Domain of Swindon (1 Vote). Melinda can take a D action to take control of an untapped male vampire controlled by another player. Unless they must hunt, this vampire must take an action to search your library for either Giant Growth, Immense Size, Poker, Grasp the Python or Beast Meld and put it in your hand. Habib Blood Brother [7] SAN for pre qui Non unique. Windsor and Eton Circle. Master of the Ten Keys of Slough (Habibs have a number of votes equal to the number of Habibs in play). Any minion using a bomb to burn a location you control does so at +2 stealth and their bomb does not burn. Matt Green

mgreen02 wrote: > Nice: > > Melinda Melons > Toreador [6] > PRE cel mel > > Lord of the Domain of Swindon (1 Vote). Melinda can take a D action to > take control of an untapped male vampire controlled by another player. > Unless they must hunt, this vampire must take an action to search your > library for either Giant Growth, Immense Size, Poker, Grasp the Python > or Beast Meld and put it in your hand. > > > Matt Green Goddamit man, you made me choke on my drink ... of course some might want to add Incriminating Videotape to that list. Goodone, though. : )