LSJ Quick question

My vamp intercepts pred's vamp, strikes aggro, sends opponent to torpor, plays Amaranth. Opponent calls blood hunt, I play Delaying Tactics.... what happens next after blood hunt vote is cancelled? Is the blood hunt vote gone forever now, or is it called the next turn? (I think it is gone forever, just making sure).

In article <3654C1AA...@arcticdata.nt.ca>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I don't believe you can use Action Modifiers or Reactions during a blood hunt, as it's called by the Methuselah, and is explicitly not an action. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <3654C1AA...@arcticdata.nt.ca>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@arcticdata.nt.ca> writes >My vamp intercepts pred's vamp, strikes aggro, sends opponent to torpor, >plays Amaranth. Opponent calls blood hunt, I play Delaying Tactics.... >what happens next after blood hunt vote is cancelled? > >Is the blood hunt vote gone forever now, or is it called the next turn? A blood hunt is not a political action. You cannot react to it with Delaying Tactics nor, indeed, any other reaction. So your question is moot. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <3654C1AA...@arcticdata.nt.ca>, jay...@compusmart.ab.ca wrote: > My vamp intercepts pred's vamp, strikes aggro, sends opponent to torpor, > plays Amaranth. Opponent calls blood hunt, I play Delaying Tactics.... > what happens next after blood hunt vote is cancelled? Can't play reaction cards, as the bloodhunt vote isn't an action. > Is the blood hunt vote gone forever now, or is it called the next turn? Bloodhunt vote isn't cancelled...same reason you can't play Bewitching Oration or Dread Gaze for a Bloodhunt. For simplicity's sake, my playgroup for a long time played it as "only votes on the table count", i.e. titled vamps, and locations like Ventrue HQ, and the edge... though (I think) you can vote-push, if it's allowed in your group... Xian "You can just ignore it...and let hand jam sort them out." --Jasper Phillips -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <732p8v$m7a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> wrote: [snip] >Bloodhunt vote isn't cancelled...same reason you can't play Bewitching >Oration or Dread Gaze for a Bloodhunt. For simplicity's sake, my playgroup >for a long time played it as "only votes on the table count", i.e. titled >vamps, and locations like Ventrue HQ, and the edge... though (I think) you >can vote-push, if it's allowed in your group... Yes, another good reason to not allow vote pushing. As I understand it you can still toss one PA on a Bloodhunt with the current rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3654C1AA...@arcticdata.nt.ca>, jay...@compusmart.ab.ca wrote: > My vamp intercepts pred's vamp, strikes aggro, sends opponent to torpor, > plays Amaranth. Opponent calls blood hunt, I play Delaying Tactics.... > what happens next after blood hunt vote is cancelled? You can't cancel the Blood Hunt with Delaying Tactics because it is not a political action. You can only cancel it with Absolution of the Diabolist and Gangrel Conspiracy Noal McDonald Archbishop of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In article <3654C1AA...@arcticdata.nt.ca>, Jaysen Knight > <jay...@arcticdata.nt.ca> writes > >My vamp intercepts pred's vamp, strikes aggro, sends opponent to torpor, > >plays Amaranth. Opponent calls blood hunt, I play Delaying Tactics.... > >what happens next after blood hunt vote is cancelled? > > > >Is the blood hunt vote gone forever now, or is it called the next turn? > > A blood hunt is not a political action. You cannot react to it with > Delaying Tactics nor, indeed, any other reaction. Correct. By the same token, action modifiers cannot be played on a blood hunt vote, since there is no action to modify. [6.5.6] -- L. Scott Johnson (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

The blood hunt vote is the one thing that I have *never* been clear on. The vote itself I get (I understand the not an action thing) but how *exactly* is the vote called. I bet since I started playing I have played it 8 different ways. First we played that a person (ie. meth) just says "I call a blood hunt", then we take a vote among ourselves. Then we played the same way to call it but used the vampire titles to vote. At some point we said someone had to tap to call it (although anyone could do it). This meant that if you didn't have anyone untapped you couldn't call the BH vote. What is the "real" way it is supposed to be done. Could someone tell me - and please be VERY specific. I have been playing this game a long time, I understand the rules very well BUT, I just don't get the blood hunt. Please help, Kevin PS. out current interpretation is that someone has to tap a vampire to call the vote. Jasper Phillips wrote: > > In article <3654C1AA...@arcticdata.nt.ca>, > Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: > >My vamp intercepts pred's vamp, strikes aggro, sends opponent to torpor, > >plays Amaranth. Opponent calls blood hunt, I play Delaying Tactics.... > >what happens next after blood hunt vote is cancelled? > > > >Is the blood hunt vote gone forever now, or is it called the next turn? > > > >(I think it is gone forever, just making sure). > > Actually, I don't believe you can use Action Modifiers or Reactions > during a blood hunt, as it's called by the Methuselah, and is > explicitly not an action. > [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin Kelly <kke...@activecom.net> wrote: >The blood hunt vote is the one thing that I have *never* been clear on. >The vote itself I get (I understand the not an action thing) but how >*exactly* is the vote called. I bet since I started playing I have >played it 8 different ways. First we played that a person (ie. meth) >just says "I call a blood hunt", then we take a vote among ourselves. >Then we played the same way to call it but used the vampire titles to >vote. At some point we said someone had to tap to call it (although >anyone could do it). This meant that if you didn't have anyone untapped >you couldn't call the BH vote. >What is the "real" way it is supposed to be done. Could someone tell me >- and please be VERY specific. I have been playing this game a long >time, I understand the rules very well BUT, I just don't get the blood >hunt. > Please help, > Kevin >PS. out current interpretation is that someone has to tap a vampire to >call the vote. Step 1: Diablerie. A Vampire Diablerizes another. The diabolist gets its victims' blood and equipment (If diabolist is younger than victim, it gets a skill card from your hand, library, or ash heap.) Step 2: Call Blood Hunt. Any Methuselah (Player) may "call a blood hunt vote". This is _not_ an action, so it does not require the use of a minion. Also, because it is not an action, action modifiers and reaction cards may not be played in the impending referendum. Step 3: Referendum. This vote tallying step occurs as usual. No one needs to announce votes in any order, and votes are submitted or not until all players are satisfied (or at least out of votes). Applicable vote sources for a blood hunt vote include; all vampires who have votes, any permanent card in play that provides votes (Ventrue HQ, Alamut, etc.), the Edge, and each player may play _one_ political action card from their hand for its vote (under 7/7 vote push rules). Note: Sect affiliation (Camarilla/Sabbat/Independent) doesn't matter for the purposes of providing votes to the referendum (eg. The Prisci sub-vote happens, as normal, and the votes apply to blood hunts on Camarilla and Independent vampires. The reverse applies for Camarilla votes on Sabbat and Independent diabolists). Step 4: Results. Tied votes fail, as usual. If there are more votes in favor of burning than against, the diabolist is burned, and all cards on it are returned to their respective owners' graveyards. If the vote fails, the remainder of the turn progresses as normal. Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <734o3h$2mb$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, Richard D. Zopf <guenh...@mindspring.com> writes > any permanent card in play that provides votes >(Ventrue HQ, Alamut, etc.) Ventrue HQ = yes. It just says to tap to get votes. Alamut = no. It has its clause to get votes DURING A POLITICAL ACTION. The Bloodhunt Referendum does not come from a political action, so a lot of permanents which give votes during a political action do not apply. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hmmm... I think here we have another case where the new rules have caused a problem with some of the cards. Of course, if we follow the text on the card, James is perfectly right, but the term "political action" on almost all of these cards was used _before_ we had the better-defined difference between a "political action" and the resulting "referendum" (and the Bloodhunt vote qualifies for the latter, if I am not mistaken). Since the introduction of this new term has already made errata and explanations necessary for other cards (Antonio Delgado comes to my mind right now), perhaps cards like Alamut should be reworded, too, to give them back their original intention... Hardy Range (...so much for "LSJ _quick_ question" ;-) )

James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <734o3h$2mb$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, Richard D. Zopf ><guenh...@mindspring.com> writes >> any permanent card in play that provides votes >>(Ventrue HQ, Alamut, etc.) >Ventrue HQ = yes. It just says to tap to get votes. >Alamut = no. It has its clause to get votes DURING A POLITICAL ACTION. (RDZ picks himself up, looking around for a banana peel...) Ahem, quite correct... This prompted me to look for any master providing votes besides the VHQ, and all the one I came across followed this card text patten, making them even more useless (Powerbase: Rome, The Mausoleum Venice, etc.)... Se la vie. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fTR52.737$7u3....@news1.cityweb.de>, Hardy Range <Hardy...@cityweb.de> writes >Since the introduction of >this new term has already made errata and explanations necessary for other >cards (Antonio Delgado comes to my mind right now), perhaps cards like >Alamut should be reworded, too, to give them back their original >intention... The vote called in the Bloodhutn is now referred to as a referendum. It was never referred to as a political action, made clear by the inability to play actions and reactions to it. The new piece of terminology has changed nothing, other than making it easier to communicate ideas about what's going on. All cards were created in an environment where the Bloodhunt was not a political action. Also, minimising errata where unnecessary is a concern. I do not believe changing these cards to be necessary. Also, if you wish to argue intent, feel free, but the rules on Bloodhunt votes now and then (about them not being a political action) have not changed. I do not believe that this was the original intent of the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hardy Range wrote: > > Hmmm... > > I think here we have another case where the new rules have caused a problem > with some of the cards. Of course, if we follow the text on the card, James > is perfectly right, but the term "political action" on almost all of these > cards was used _before_ we had the better-defined difference between a > "political action" and the resulting "referendum" (and the Bloodhunt vote > qualifies for the latter, if I am not mistaken). Since the introduction of > this new term has already made errata and explanations necessary for other > cards (Antonio Delgado comes to my mind right now), perhaps cards like > Alamut should be reworded, too, to give them back their original > intention... > Umm... I don't know what rules change you're talking about. A bloodhunt has never, ever been a political action, and thus action modifiers, reactions, and effects which say "during a political action" have never been allowed during a bloodhunt. This has been in effect since the first publication of Jyhad and is stated outright in the Jyhad rulebook. Thus, effects which are only usable "during a political action" could never be used in a bloodhunt, and were almost certainly never intended to be. -Chris

Chris Berger wrote: "Umm... I don't know what rules change you're talking about. A bloodhunt has never, ever been a political action, and thus action modifiers, reactions, and effects which say "during a political action" have never been allowed during a bloodhunt. This has been in effect since the first publication of Jyhad and is stated outright in the Jyhad rulebook. Thus, effects which are only usable "during a political action" could never be used in a bloodhunt, and were almost certainly never intended to be." This reply also addresses the post from James, who had the same opinion, but in different words... I absolutely agree with what you say about the Bloodhunt never being a political vote - but I did not want to argue that. In my opinion, the problem is hidden in the last sentence of your post: Yes, those cards were perhaps not intended to be used in a Bloodhunt, but I think this is not by intention, but because they just overlooked that possibility. And I did not want to limit my ideas to the Bloodhunt - I think the problem is with the other cards. The "rules change" (or call it clarification) I refer to is the better definition of the political action itself and the following referendum, making them two separate things (that, of course, are linked...). The ruling which set my thoughts in motion was the following one: "An action is successful if it is unblocked and uncancelled, even if it has no other effect. An unblocked bleed of zero or less is an unsuccessful bleed, but is a successful action. An unblocked political action is successful even if the referendum fails. The cost, if any, of an action is paid if the action is successful, regardless of these other factors. [RTR 980623] " I still think that all of those cards that say "gain votes during a poltical action" have been worded without this difference in mind (hence the changes for some cards I mentioned in my original post). If you interpret the rules in an extreme way, you just cannot use any vote-giving effect during a political action (the action to call a referendum)- votes are only allowed in the actual referendum, and that was why I had the feeling that those handful of cards are somewhat unclear (and _perhaps_ could be reworded. James, I totally agree with you that errata should only be issued when necessary - it is difficult enough for me to catch up with the newest rulings as it is, especially since I translate them to German for my friends and co-players, only to find that the day after I handed the new version out, the three web-pages have been revamped...sigh...). Hardy Range

> The "rules change" (or call it clarification) I refer to is the better > definition of the political action itself and the following referendum, > making them two separate things (that, of course, are linked...). The ruling > which set my thoughts in motion was the following one: > > "An action is successful if it is unblocked and uncancelled, even if it has > no other effect. An unblocked bleed of zero or less is an unsuccessful > bleed, but is a successful action. An unblocked political action is > successful even if the referendum fails. The cost, if any, of an action is > paid if the action is successful, regardless of these other factors. [RTR > 980623] " > Well, first off, clarifications are never rules changes, but simply an answer to someone's confusion. Usually the clarification is unnecessary, as the correct answer is obvious. In this case, the clarification was issued to overturn an early ruling that linked too strongly the referendum to the political action and the bleed amount to the acttion. The earlier clarification (or ruling, or whatever) said that a bleed of 0 or less was unsuccessful, and there was never any statement as to whether a vote had to pass to be a successful action. The only difference this makes is that when a political action is called, an action is considered to have been successful (where successful is synonomous with "unblocked"). This is necessary with cards like Freak Drive (the inferior requires a successful action, the superior a block... if an unblocked political action or bleed could be unsuccessful, there's kind of a contradiction). This didn't change the relationship between a political action and the referendum. Or between Bloodhunts and political actions. A political action is, and always has been a vote called as an action. A Bloodhunt has never been called as an action. The clarification that you quote has not changed this, and neither has any other clarification. -Chris