If I would call a referendum, let's say, a kine resources contested,
with a vampire who has presence, would I be able to play a bewitching
oration or tap my ventrue headquarters to gain votes before I call the
terms of the vote? (In this case, allocate points to various
methuselahs)
Thanks in advance,
-Bram Vink
The Lasombra wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2003 12:30:31 -0800, jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote:>>If I would call a referendum, let's say, a kine resources contested,
>>with a vampire who has presence, would I be able to play a bewitching
>>oration or tap my ventrue headquarters to gain votes before I call the
>>terms of the vote? (In this case, allocate points to various
>>methuselahs)>
>
>
> Yes.
>
> You may gain votes before or after the terms are set.
> You cannot cast the votes until the terms are set.
Correct.
I'm not sure what is to be gained by doing so, however.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E91687C...@white-wolf.com...
> The Lasombra wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2003 12:30:31 -0800, jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote:
> >>If I would call a referendum, let's say, a kine resources contested,
> >>with a vampire who has presence, would I be able to play a bewitching
> >>oration or tap my ventrue headquarters to gain votes before I call the
> >>terms of the vote? (In this case, allocate points to various
> >>methuselahs)
>
> > Yes.
> >
> > You may gain votes before or after the terms are set.
> > You cannot cast the votes until the terms are set.
>
> Correct.
> I'm not sure what is to be gained by doing so, however.
If you call Parity Shift, and then gain votes with Oxford U.
England by burning pool before naming terms, you may be able
to name your prey even though you weren't able to before.
You do have to have been able to call the Parity Shift before
burning the pool - ie you can't go to call the vote if you have
the most pool of any Methuselah - but you can change the people
who would be legal targets by doing this. I think.
Josh
clever innit?
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message>>The Lasombra wrote:>>>On 5 Apr 2003 12:30:31 -0800, jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote:>>>>If I would call a referendum, let's say, a kine resources contested,
>>>>with a vampire who has presence, would I be able to play a bewitching
>>>>oration or tap my ventrue headquarters to gain votes before I call the
>>>>terms of the vote?>>>Yes.>>Correct.
>>I'm not sure what is to be gained by doing so, however.>
> If you call Parity Shift, and then gain votes with Oxford U.
> England by burning pool before naming terms, you may be able
> to name your prey even though you weren't able to before.
Yes, but
"I'm not sure what is to be gained by [playing Bewitching Oration
or tapping my Ventrue HQ to gain votes before setting terms]."
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E92DE98...@white-wolf.com...
> Yes, but
> "I'm not sure what is to be gained by [playing Bewitching Oration
> or tapping my Ventrue HQ to gain votes before setting terms]."
Aha, right. Yes, that's a good question, I'm not sure what could
be gained with those methods either.
Josh
force the DI earlier, maybe?
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b6um6t$93ibo$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Even worse! Code of Milan suspended now is officially 100% useless!
Call Code, person burns edge before terms are set, always fizzles!
wheee :)
Maybe change to 'no gaining votes until terms are set'? Makes more
sense to me.. I'd say it's more intiutive as well :)
-Bram Vink
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote > "LSJ"
<vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > Yes, but
> > "I'm not sure what is to be gained by [playing Bewitching Oration
> > or tapping my Ventrue HQ to gain votes before setting terms]."
>
> Aha, right. Yes, that's a good question, I'm not sure what could
> be gained with those methods either.
Well, you could use those votes to make deals/threats/promises before
the terms are set. For example...
Player 1 calls Conservative Agitation and isn't blocked.
Player 1: "Hey, player 2, I'm gonna put 3 points of this on you
unless you promise to stop contesting Basil with me."
Player 2: "Ha, you lack the table votes to back that up!"
Player 1 plays Bewitching Oration.
Player 2: "Curses, now your threat is legitimate! I am forced to
reconsider...."
Now Player 1 is able to set the terms in accordance to Player 2's
acceptance or rejection of the proposed deal.
-Matt,
who once lost a game partly due to prolonged Basil contestation...
On 8 Apr 2003, Mongrel Matt Hirsch wrote:
> -Matt,
> who once lost a game partly due to prolonged Basil contestation...
Heh. Our nickname for Duck is "Inner Circle Member".
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
david.che...@duke.edu
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote > "LSJ"
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote>>> Yes, but
>>> "I'm not sure what is to be gained by [playing Bewitching Oration
>>> or tapping my Ventrue HQ to gain votes before setting terms].">>
>> Aha, right. Yes, that's a good question, I'm not sure what could
>> be gained with those methods either.>
> Well, you could use those votes to make deals/threats/promises before
> the terms are set. For example...
You wanna voter cap, and you've played a Disarming Presence... Playing
bewitching before the terms are called would make sure nobody votes
against it... (Because they can't win, and why tap your vampires when
you don't need too?)
> Player 1 calls Conservative Agitation and isn't blocked.
>
> Player 1: "Hey, player 2, I'm gonna put 3 points of this on you
> unless you promise to stop contesting Basil with me."
>
> Player 2: "Ha, you lack the table votes to back that up!"
>
> Player 1 plays Bewitching Oration.
Could just say you have it in your hand... Could even be a bluff!
> Player 2: "Curses, now your threat is legitimate! I am forced to
> reconsider...."
Curses? Legitimate? Who talks like that? I would have gotten away with
it too... If it wasn't for you meddling kids... And your dog too...
(Scooby dooby doo!)
> Now Player 1 is able to set the terms in accordance to Player 2's
> acceptance or rejection of the proposed deal.
>
> -Matt,
> who once lost a game partly due to prolonged Basil contestation...
Ever played a game when you had both Raven(With a blood doll) and
Camille(With a raven spy) contested with your prey? =(
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.comhttp://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<b6um6t$93ibo$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:3E91687C...@white-wolf.com...>>> The Lasombra wrote:>>>> On 5 Apr 2003 12:30:31 -0800, jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote:>>>>>If I would call a referendum, let's say, a kine
>>>>> resources contested,
>>>>>with a vampire who has presence, would I be able to
>>>>> play a bewitching
>>>>>oration or tap my ventrue headquarters to gain votes
>>>>> before I call the
>>>>>terms of the vote? (In this case, allocate points to various
>>>>>methuselahs)>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> You may gain votes before or after the terms are set.
>>>> You cannot cast the votes until the terms are set.>>>
>>> Correct.
>>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by doing so, however.>>
>> If you call Parity Shift, and then gain votes with Oxford U.
>> England by burning pool before naming terms, you may be able
>> to name your prey even though you weren't able to before.
>>
>> You do have to have been able to call the Parity Shift before
>> burning the pool - ie you can't go to call the vote if you have
>> the most pool of any Methuselah - but you can change the people> etc..>
> Even worse! Code of Milan suspended now is officially 100% useless!
> Call Code, person burns edge before terms are set, always fizzles!
> wheee :)
> Maybe change to 'no gaining votes until terms are set'? Makes more
> sense to me.. I'd say it's more intiutive as well :)
>
> -Bram Vink
Err, from what I understand is... You choose the target, the target
doesn't change even if he loses the edge during the referendum...
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> Even worse! Code of Milan suspended now is officially 100% useless!
>> Call Code, person burns edge before terms are set, always fizzles!
>> wheee :)
>> Maybe change to 'no gaining votes until terms are set'? Makes more
>> sense to me.. I'd say it's more intiutive as well :)
>>
>> -Bram Vink>
>Err, from what I understand is... You choose the target, the target
>doesn't change even if he loses the edge during the referendum...
But what Bram is saying is that the other player should be able to burn the
Edge for a vote *before* the target is chosen. Thus there will never be a legal
target unless he or she allows it.
Halcyan 2
"Mongrel Matt Hirsch" <mon...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:683c6519.03040...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Now Player 1 is able to set the terms in accordance to Player 2's
> acceptance or rejection of the proposed deal.
Hmm, yeah, I guess that could happen. Not totally inconceivable.
> -Matt,
> who once lost a game partly due to prolonged Basil contestation...
Well, you know, Basil is the key to ultimate victory. :-)
Josh
although he lacks superior Dimplestry
Kulaid wrote:
> But Code of Milan has no terms to set... There's never more then 1
> target...
And choosing that target *is* setting the terms.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E954D25...@white-wolf.com...
> Kulaid wrote:
> > But Code of Milan has no terms to set... There's never more then 1
> > target...
>
> And choosing that target *is* setting the terms.
Even for a vote that really doesn't have terms to set (eg Peace
Treaty), there still exists the "1. Choose the terms" step in
the referendum phase, doesn't there? It's at least implied in
the CE rulebook by "Cards that are used "during a political
action" but "before votes are cast" are used at this time. So
I'd expect that even in votes like that, you could burn the
Edge, play Bewitching Oration, etc, during that step. Right?
Josh
gentlemen, start your referenda!
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Even for a vote that really doesn't have terms to set (eg Peace
> Treaty), there still exists the "1. Choose the terms" step in
> the referendum phase, doesn't there? It's at least implied in
> the CE rulebook by "Cards that are used "during a political
> action" but "before votes are cast" are used at this time. So
> I'd expect that even in votes like that, you could burn the
> Edge, play Bewitching Oration, etc, during that step. Right?
Right.
The referendum consists of three steps: setting the terms,
polling, and resolving the referendum. [6.3.2]
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E954D25...@white-wolf.com>...
> Kulaid wrote:
> > But Code of Milan has no terms to set... There's never more then 1
> > target...
>
> And choosing that target *is* setting the terms.
But doesn't the acting minion get to decide in what order stuff
happens? In this example, the acting minion says "All right.... I'm
going to bewitchingly orate, play a disarming presence, and select my
target. Repsonses?"
I know that casting votes happens in no particular order, but I don't
believe that the same holds true for gaining them.
-Legendre
>But doesn't the acting minion get to decide in what order stuff
>happens? In this example, the acting minion says "All right.... I'm
>going to bewitchingly orate, play a disarming presence, and select my
>target. Repsonses?"
The acting minion does generally get to choose the order of things however this
does not mean that they can simply "fast-forward" past a phase so that others
cannot do anything. Similarly, you can't decide to take an action before other
players have a chance to use effects such as Heidelberg. If you're the acting
player, you can't play all of your pre-range stuff and then move to manuevers
without giving the other player a chance to play cards before range. And
similarly, you can gain votes before terms are set but you can't fast-forward
to setting the terms until the other players have an opportunity to do so as
well.
Halcyan 2
Legendre wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E954D25...@white-wolf.com>...
>>>Kulaid wrote:
>>>>>But Code of Milan has no terms to set... There's never more then 1
>>>target...>>
>>And choosing that target *is* setting the terms.>
>
> But doesn't the acting minion get to decide in what order stuff
> happens? In this example, the acting minion says "All right.... I'm
> going to bewitchingly orate, play a disarming presence, and select my
> target. Repsonses?"
Ah. Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>>But doesn't the acting minion get to decide in what order stuff
>>happens? In this example, the acting minion says "All right.... I'm
>>going to bewitchingly orate, play a disarming presence, and select my
>>target. Repsonses?">
>
>
> The acting minion does generally get to choose the order of things however this
> does not mean that they can simply "fast-forward" past a phase so that others
> cannot do anything.
But in this case, all the events in question are "during the set terms"
phase - no phase is being rushed past.
[ quoted text not captured ]
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030409032647...@mb-fd.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Okay, clarification here - isn't throwing the edge "casting" a vote?
Playing modifiers or reaction cards that use the "gain x votes"
phrasing can be tossed prior to terms, but casting votes can't be done
until after terms are set, so shouldn't this prohibit the edge from
being thrown until after terms are set?
Volya42
Eric Simon wrote:
> Okay, clarification here - isn't throwing the edge "casting" a vote?
> Playing modifiers or reaction cards that use the "gain x votes"
> phrasing can be tossed prior to terms, but casting votes can't be done
> until after terms are set, so shouldn't this prohibit the edge from
> being thrown until after terms are set?
You burn the edge to gain a vote, similar to the way you play Bewitching
Oration to gain some votes. [6.3.3]
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E95A5C3...@white-wolf.com...
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
[Legendre wrote]
> >>But doesn't the acting minion get to decide in what order stuff
> >>happens? In this example, the acting minion says "All right.... I'm
> >>going to bewitchingly orate, play a disarming presence, and select my
> >>target. Repsonses?"
>
> > The acting minion does generally get to choose the order of things however
this
> > does not mean that they can simply "fast-forward" past a phase so that
others
> > cannot do anything.
>
> But in this case, all the events in question are "during the set terms"
> phase - no phase is being rushed past.
But the "before range" frame of combat isn't a step either. How
is this different from an active Methuselah saying, in combat, "I
play Carrion Crows before the Determine Range step, OK, let's go
to Determine Range now"?
I guess your answer might be that those "prerange" cards say on
them that they need to be played before range is determined,
thereby "creating" a timing window there that the active Meth
can't preclude non-active Meths from playing stuff in? But
still, the definitions of combat sequencing and referendum
sequencing seem very much parallel to me; if there's a timing
window available to the active Meth before actually setting
terms of the referendum in the "Choose the terms" step,
shouldn't that window also be available to non-active Meths?
I suppose if you define setting the referendum terms as
"playing an effect" in [1.6.1.6]'s terminology, then you can
argue that the active Meth can play all of her effects,
including setting terms for the referendum, before anyone
else gets to play any. But it doesn't seem like an effect
to me.
Josh
cantankerous old coot
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message>>But in this case, all the events in question are "during the set terms"
>>phase - no phase is being rushed past.>
> But the "before range" frame of combat isn't a step either. How
Yes, it is.
If there were any effects that were "before terms are set", then
that would be a phase, but there aren't and it isn't.
> is this different from an active Methuselah saying, in combat, "I
> play Carrion Crows before the Determine Range step, OK, let's go
> to Determine Range now"?
That would be ending the pre-range step before all Methuselahs
were afforded the opportunity to play in it.
The Methuselah wishing to burn the edge in the "set terms" stage is
free to do so after the terms are set - the phase has not been
prematurely ended before she was afforded her chance to do so.
A proper comparison would be Drawing Out the Beast vs. Vial of
Garou Blood. If the blocker wants to use the vial but the
acting minion draws out his beast first, he cannot use the vial.
But no phase has been skipped.
> I guess your answer might be that those "prerange" cards say on
> them that they need to be played before range is determined,
> thereby "creating" a timing window there that the active Meth
> can't preclude non-active Meths from playing stuff in? But
> still, the definitions of combat sequencing and referendum
> sequencing seem very much parallel to me; if there's a timing
> window available to the active Meth before actually setting
> terms of the referendum in the "Choose the terms" step,
> shouldn't that window also be available to non-active Meths?
No. There is no timing window between the start of the
referendum and the "choose terms" step, merely some other
activities that can occur in that "choose terms" step.
As usual, the activities that share the same timing window
can be ordered.
> I suppose if you define setting the referendum terms as
> "playing an effect" in [1.6.1.6]'s terminology, then you can
> argue that the active Meth can play all of her effects,
> including setting terms for the referendum, before anyone
> else gets to play any. But it doesn't seem like an effect
> to me.
What is it then?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E95C959...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>But in this case, all the events in question are "during the set terms"
> >>phase - no phase is being rushed past.
> >
> > But the "before range" frame of combat isn't a step either. How
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> If there were any effects that were "before terms are set", then
> that would be a phase, but there aren't and it isn't.
That sounds like the existence of the "phase" is determined by the
existence of cards that say they should be played at that time.
(It's certainly not defined as a phase or "step" in the rulebook.)
Somehow it doesn't feel appropriate for the basic rules of the
game to be determined by what cards have been printed. But maybe
it's just me. :-)
> > is this different from an active Methuselah saying, in combat, "I
> > play Carrion Crows before the Determine Range step, OK, let's go
> > to Determine Range now"?
>
> That would be ending the pre-range step before all Methuselahs
> were afforded the opportunity to play in it.
>
> The Methuselah wishing to burn the edge in the "set terms" stage is
> free to do so after the terms are set - the phase has not been
> prematurely ended before she was afforded her chance to do so.
>
> A proper comparison would be Drawing Out the Beast vs. Vial of
> Garou Blood. If the blocker wants to use the vial but the
> acting minion draws out his beast first, he cannot use the vial.
> But no phase has been skipped.
OK, that makes sense, given the premises that I think I now see.
:-)
> > I suppose if you define setting the referendum terms as
> > "playing an effect" in [1.6.1.6]'s terminology, then you can
> > argue that the active Meth can play all of her effects,
> > including setting terms for the referendum, before anyone
> > else gets to play any. But it doesn't seem like an effect
> > to me.
>
> What is it then?
Well, I always thought of "effects" as meaning voluntary things
that can be done as a result of abilities of cards in play. I
would not have classified "setting terms of the referendum" as
"playing an effect" any more than I would have described "making
your prey burn 1 pool after acknowledging that your bleed has
succeeded" as "playing an effect." Likewise I wouldn't think
that applying Ambrosio Luis Moncada's ability "Actions directed
at Moncada cost an additional pool" was "playing" an effect.
I guess the "set terms of the referendum" part of calling a
vote doesn't seem to me like "playing" an effect; instead it
seems like something that happens as a result of a card/effect
that's already been played. If that makes sense?
But maybe I was wrong about this. Are you saying that anything
that happens in the game should be considered an effect that is
"played"?
Josh
overplayed
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> But maybe I was wrong about this. Are you saying that anything
> that happens in the game should be considered an effect that is
> "played"?
Try "activated" or "enacted" or "done" if "played" is bothersome.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E95ADDA...@white-wolf.com>...
> Eric Simon wrote:
> > Okay, clarification here - isn't throwing the edge "casting" a vote?
> > Playing modifiers or reaction cards that use the "gain x votes"
> > phrasing can be tossed prior to terms, but casting votes can't be done
> > until after terms are set, so shouldn't this prohibit the edge from
> > being thrown until after terms are set?
>
> You burn the edge to gain a vote, similar to the way you play Bewitching
> Oration to gain some votes. [6.3.3]
This raises another question I've had for a while. When a minion plays
a Bewitching Oration (or Madrigal, or whatever) to 'gain votes', do
these gained votes add to that vampire's total, or are they gaining
minionless votes for you? Because if they're added to the vampire's
total, they can be interfered with via vote-cancelling methods. And if
I'm not mistaken, a vote gained from spending the edge can't be
cancelled, because they're votes the Methuselah has, even if he has no
minions in play.
So, do votes gained through action modifiers/reactions apply to the
minion responsible, or to the Methuselah himself?
>This raises another question I've had for a while. When a minion plays
>a Bewitching Oration (or Madrigal, or whatever) to 'gain votes', do
>these gained votes add to that vampire's total, or are they gaining
>minionless votes for you? Because if they're added to the vampire's
>total, they can be interfered with via vote-cancelling methods. And if
>I'm not mistaken, a vote gained from spending the edge can't be
>cancelled, because they're votes the Methuselah has, even if he has no
>minions in play.
>
>So, do votes gained through action modifiers/reactions apply to the
>minion responsible, or to the Methuselah himself?
They apply to the minion playing the card. Only a few effects such as
discarding a vote card, burning the Edge, tapping Ventrue Headquarters, or
having City Gangrel Connections actually gives *you* the Methusaleh votes.
Halcyan 2
John Flournoy wrote:
> This raises another question I've had for a while. When a minion plays
> a Bewitching Oration (or Madrigal, or whatever) to 'gain votes', do
> these gained votes add to that vampire's total, or are they gaining
> minionless votes for you? Because if they're added to the vampire's
> total, they can be interfered with via vote-cancelling methods. And if
> I'm not mistaken, a vote gained from spending the edge can't be
> cancelled, because they're votes the Methuselah has, even if he has no
> minions in play.
Bewitching Oration card text:
[pre] This acting vampire gains 2 votes.
[PRE] This acting vampire gains 4 votes.
The vote from the Edge is the Methuselah's, not any minion's.
> So, do votes gained through action modifiers/reactions apply to the
> minion responsible, or to the Methuselah himself?
The vampire. See card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E96F0B8...@white-wolf.com>...
> John Flournoy wrote:
> > This raises another question I've had for a while. When a minion plays
> > a Bewitching Oration (or Madrigal, or whatever) to 'gain votes', do
> > these gained votes add to that vampire's total, or are they gaining
> > minionless votes for you? Because if they're added to the vampire's
> > total, they can be interfered with via vote-cancelling methods. And if
> > I'm not mistaken, a vote gained from spending the edge can't be
> > cancelled, because they're votes the Methuselah has, even if he has no
> > minions in play.
>
> Bewitching Oration card text:
> [pre] This acting vampire gains 2 votes.
> [PRE] This acting vampire gains 4 votes.
>
> The vote from the Edge is the Methuselah's, not any minion's.
>
> > So, do votes gained through action modifiers/reactions apply to the
> > minion responsible, or to the Methuselah himself?
>
> The vampire. See card text.
I ask again, because Madrigal's card text does not specify. (I hadn't
noticed the update to Bewitching Oration, but Madrigal's
inferior&outferior are still "Gain 2 votes." according to the
website.)
-John
John Flournoy wrote:
> I ask again, because Madrigal's card text does not specify. (I hadn't
> noticed the update to Bewitching Oration, but Madrigal's
> inferior&outferior are still "Gain 2 votes." according to the
> website.)
The vampire. The vampire gains the votes.
When the vampire plays a card to gain votes, the vampire gains the votes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
>>> I ask again, because Madrigal's card text does not specify. (I hadn't
>> noticed the update to Bewitching Oration, but Madrigal's
>> inferior&outferior are still "Gain 2 votes." according to the
>> website.)>
>
> The vampire. The vampire gains the votes.
> When the vampire plays a card to gain votes, the vampire gains the votes.
Except that the Methuselah gets the vote gained from a Political Action Card
played (by a vampire) to call a referendum, of course. :)
Flux