Alvaro, The Scion of Angelica

An interesting question popped up during Monday night Jyhad at Joe's. Does Alvaro gain 2 blood for abstaining from a political action while in torpor? A preliminary ruling would yield a yes. Since he can't take part in a political action while in torpor, he must abstain by definition. Joe C. V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

"Joe C." wrote: > > An interesting question popped up during Monday night Jyhad at Joe's. > > Does Alvaro gain 2 blood for abstaining from a political action while > in torpor? > > A preliminary ruling would yield a yes. Since he can't take part in a > political action while in torpor, he must abstain by definition. Yes. If Alavaro abstains (because he has votes and chooses not to cast them, or because he has no votes, or because his votes were cancelled, or because he is in torpor and cannot cast his votes even if he wanted to), he gains two blood. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

In article <87pbc9$jpd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joe C. <tzimi...@my-deja.com> wrote: > An interesting question popped up during Monday night Jyhad at Joe's. > > Does Alvaro gain 2 blood for abstaining from a political action while > in torpor? > > A preliminary ruling would yield a yes. Since he can't take part in a > political action while in torpor, he must abstain by definition. > > Joe C. > V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC I can't remember if Alvaro has a title or not but if he became a pricus would it be possible that he gain two blood from abstaining from the pricus subvote and the vote itself thereby gaining 4 blood? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <881bk2$cv8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > In article <87pbc9$jpd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Joe C. <tzimi...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > An interesting question popped up during Monday night Jyhad at > > Joe's. > > > > Does Alvaro gain 2 blood for abstaining from a political action > > while in torpor? > > > > A preliminary ruling would yield a yes. Since he can't take part > > in a political action while in torpor, he must abstain by > > definition. > > > > Joe C. > > V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC > > I can't remember if Alvaro has a title or not but if he became a > pricus would it be possible that he gain two blood from abstaining > from the pricus subvote and the vote itself thereby gaining 4 blood? Alvaro is the Archbishop of Pittsburgh. I don't recall the pricus subvote as being considered a political action. So I'd say no to gaining any blood if he abstained from the priscus vote. Joe V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > In article <87pbc9$jpd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Joe C. <tzimi...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > An interesting question popped up during Monday night Jyhad at Joe's. > > > > Does Alvaro gain 2 blood for abstaining from a political action while > > in torpor? > > > > A preliminary ruling would yield a yes. Since he can't take part in a > > political action while in torpor, he must abstain by definition. > > > > Joe C. > > V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC > > I can't remember if Alvaro has a title or not but if he became a pricus > would it be possible that he gain two blood from abstaining from the > pricus subvote and the vote itself thereby gaining 4 blood? No. He either abstains or he doesn't. If he casts any votes (in the main referendum or in the Priscus sub-referendum), he is not abstaining. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I can't remember if Alvaro has a title or not but if he became a pricus >> would it be possible that he gain two blood from abstaining from the >> pricus subvote and the vote itself thereby gaining 4 blood? > >No. He either abstains or he doesn't. If he casts any votes (in the >main referendum or in the Priscus sub-referendum), he is not >abstaining. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that all Prisci vote along with the block of 3 votes, no matter what they voted (or did not vote) in the subvote. For example, if a KRC is called. During the Prisci subvote, Alvaro (now a Priscus) "abstains" (he doesn't really care about this). But unfortunately, Gratiano votes for it (meaning 1 + 1 = 2 votes for it, with his special ability). Genevieve then votes her vote against it. Thus the Prisci subvote is in favor 2 to 1 so the vote block of 3 is in favor of KRC. All of the Prisci are then considered to have voted for it (including Genevieve and Alvaro). So in this case, Alvaro wouldn't get his 2 blood because he's part of the voting group of Prisci. Right? (Or wrong?) Halcyan 2

On 12 Feb 2000, Halcyan 2 wrote: > >No. He either abstains or he doesn't. If he casts any votes (in the > >main referendum or in the Priscus sub-referendum), he is not > >abstaining. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that all Prisci vote along with > the block of 3 votes, no matter what they voted (or did not vote) in > the subvote. I think LSJ was limiting his comments to the case where Priscus-Alvaro is the only priscus on the board, but I believe you're right about this. Also remember that if the subvote ties, all prisci are considered to have abstained, which means that in your example, if Priscus-Alvaro votes against the referendum, he abstains! Wacky! > For example, if a KRC is called. During the Prisci subvote, Alvaro > (now a Priscus) "abstains" (he doesn't really care about this). But > unfortunately, Gratiano votes for it (meaning 1 + 1 = 2 votes for it, > with his special ability). Genevieve then votes her vote against it. > Thus the Prisci subvote is in favor 2 to 1 so the vote block of 3 is > in favor of KRC. All of the Prisci are then considered to have voted > for it (including Genevieve and Alvaro). Indeed, and in this referendum, it would seem that Genevieve is both in favor and opposed, since her extra vote is in opposition, but her priscus vote is in favor. Crazy! -d!

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmm. Right. [RTR 30-JUN-1997]. This gets really crazy when you mix in effects (like Pulling Strings) which force a vampire to abstain (or to vote a certain way). So Alavaro, who is forced to abstain by Pulling Strings, still doesn't get the 2 blood for abstaining if some other Priscus votes in favor (causing the Prisci block vote to be cast). Meaning that he has violated the card text/instruction on Pulling Strings - so Pulling Strings on a Priscus must cause the Priscus Block to be "abstain"ed. Very unintuitive. I'll put that back on the RT list for correction. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, LSJ wrote: > Hmm. Right. [RTR 30-JUN-1997]. This gets really crazy when you mix in > effects (like Pulling Strings) which force a vampire to abstain (or to > vote a certain way). So Alavaro, who is forced to abstain by Pulling > Strings, still doesn't get the 2 blood for abstaining if some other > Priscus votes in favor (causing the Prisci block vote to be cast). > Meaning that he has violated the card text/instruction on Pulling > Strings - so Pulling Strings on a Priscus must cause the Priscus > Block to be "abstain"ed. Very unintuitive. Surely, though, this is just a case of a later effect over-riding a previous one? If a superior Kindred-Coercion was played and then a second vampire played an inferior one (targetting, for ease, the same, 1 only, vampire), the later card would over-ride the former, right? So the vampire would abstain? I would also note: "If the Prisci sub-referendum is in favor of the main referendum, then every Priscus is considered to have voted in favor. If the Prisci sub-referendum is against the main referendum, then every Priscus is considered to have voted against. It doesn't matter whether any given Priscus voted for or against in the sub-referendum, or abstained. [RTR 19970630] " This clearly seems to state the abstaining effect of Kindred Co-ercion is irrelevant. -- James Coupe

[ quoted text not captured ] Probably true. Good point. I still see no reason not to handle it "intuitively" - that is: classify each Priscus as voting for or against (or abstaining) based on whether he or she voted for or against (or abstained) in the first place. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38A8152D...@wizards.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] My feeble brain couldn't follow those massive contortions of logic above. So you will have to forgive me if I am a little confused. What was the answer to the unlikely possibility of Alvaro abstaining from a Pricus vote (in cases where he is the only pricus, where the pricus vote block abstains and where both happens at the same time). I need a drink, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <88ae11$i1u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] P.S. would you be so kind as to number you answers 1,2,and 3 each responding to 1. Alvaro alone abstains 2. Alvaro votes in the Pricus subvote but the vote ties so the Pricus subblock abstsins. 3. Alvaro asbstains, but other Prici vote, then end up tying resulting in the Pricus abstaining. Now that's good Scotch, [ quoted text not captured ]

<snipped> >P.S. would you be so kind as to number you answers 1,2,and 3 each >responding to >1. Alvaro alone abstains >2. Alvaro votes in the Pricus subvote but the vote ties so the Pricus >subblock abstsins. >3. Alvaro asbstains, but other Prici vote, then end up tying resulting >in the Pricus abstaining. For future reference, don't forget to "snip," to avoid extraneous text. To be honest, I only have #1 down. #1. If Alvaro alone abstains, then the Prisci block abstains. Either way, Alvaro has not voted so Alvaro will indeed gain the 2 blood. It's #2 and #3 that we were just discussing. An important recent point by LSJ and James Coupe is that it is the end result that should be considered. I had previously brought up the case if the referendum vote and the end result vote were different. The rules are a bit unclear but right now, it seems we're leaning towards focusing simply on how the Prisci block votes in the end. I'll let James and LSJ explain it more clearly (if needed), and provide the "official" explanation. Halcyan 2

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > My feeble brain couldn't follow those massive contortions of logic > above. So you will have to forgive me if I am a little confused. What > was the answer to the unlikely possibility of Alvaro abstaining from a > Pricus vote (in cases where he is the only pricus, where the pricus > vote block abstains and where both happens at the same time). > > P.S. would you be so kind as to number you answers 1,2,and 3 each > responding to > 1. Alvaro alone abstains > 2. Alvaro votes in the Pricus subvote but the vote ties so the Pricus > subblock abstsins. > 3. Alvaro asbstains, but other Prici vote, then end up tying resulting > in the Pricus abstaining. Assuming Alvaro has become a Priscus (and has therefore relenquished his former title). If the Prisci sub-referndum ties then the Prisci block vote is not cast (abstains), so all the Prisci are considered to have abstained (assuming they do not cast other votes in the main referendum, of course). 1. Alvaro alone (i.e., is the sole Ready Priscus) abstains from sub-referendum. -> Prisci block abstains -> Alvaro abstains -> Alvaro gains two blood. 2. Alvaro votes in sub-referendum (but not in main referendum). Other Prisci cast votes so as to cause the sub-referendum to tie. -> Prisci block abstains -> Alvaro abstains -> Alvaro gains two blood. 3. Alvaro abstains from sub-referendum (and from main referendum). Other Prisci cast votes so as to cause the Prisci sub-referendum to tie. -> Prisci block abstains -> Alvaro abstains -> Alvaro gains two blood. If, however, the Prisci sub-referendum falls "for" or "against", then all of the Prisci are considered to have voted likewise (regardless of whether they have actually cast any of their personal votes or not). Note that the way the rule currently reads, even Prisci in torpor will be considered to have voted with the Prisci block. (Certainly an oversight, but...) 4. Alvaro abstains (or votes, it doesn't matter) in the sub-referendum. Other Prisci cast votes so as to cause the Prisci sub-referendum to fall "for" the main referendum. -> Prisci block votes 3 "yea" -> Alvaro votes in favor -> Alvaro doesn't gain two blood. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for the clairification. Time to can the Alvaro-pricus vote abstaining blood gain deck. [ quoted text not captured ]