[DECK] Damn those shifty Oxonians

General Idea: Use Oxford University before calling terms on parity shift to lower your pool to the level you need it to be. The deck isn't tuned yet, or adjusted to metagame, and still needs a lot of work. The basic principle seems to work pretty good though. I dropped the Al's Army Apparatus-Concealed Guns Idea, threw some combat together, could be improved a lot. Crypt: -------------------------------------------------- 3x Anson 1x Tatiana Romanova 1x Victoria Ash 2x Rake 1x Kallista, Master Sculptor 2x Volker, The Puppet Prince 1x Brachah 1x Felicia Mostrom -------------------------------------------------- Library: Masters: (16) 3x Oxford University, England 4x Minion Tap 1x Presence 1x Antediluvian Awakening 4x Anarch Revolt 1x Art Museum 2x Blood Doll Combat: (22) 8x Aura Reading 5x Staredown 3x Flash 6x Preternatural Evasion Political Actions: (14) 7x Parity Shift 5x Kine Resources Contested 1x Brujah Justicar 1x Toreador Justicar Action Modifiers: (11) 7x Voter Captivation 4x Bewitching Oration Reactions: (13) 4x Second Tradition: Domain 5x Enhanced Senses 4x Forced Awakening Total: (76) Any comments are appreciated, -Bram Vink

"Darky" <jja....@hccnet.nl> escribió en el mensaje news:93148a54.03040...@posting.google.com... > General Idea: Use Oxford University before calling terms on parity > shift to lower your pool to the level you need it to be. > > The deck isn't tuned yet, or adjusted to metagame, and still needs a > lot of work. The basic principle seems to work pretty good though. > I dropped the Al's Army Apparatus-Concealed Guns Idea, threw some > combat together, could be improved a lot. a few Delaying tactics will blow your pool to oblivion... [ quoted text not captured ]

You know, i had an idea like this... With menele... During my untap, 2 blood to an uncontrolled vampire... Gird minion blood to fill him up and get below your prey's pool... Awe all the blood off him to make the parity shift work, voter cap it to get him health again and gain 2 pool... Plus you get free transfers. Since your crypt would be all 9 caps save menele, you'll be low on pool anyhow... >Crypt: >-------------------------------------------------- >3x Anson >1x Tatiana Romanova >1x Victoria Ash >2x Rake >1x Kallista, Master Sculptor >2x Volker, The Puppet Prince >1x Brachah >1x Felicia Mostrom >-------------------------------------------------- You know, i had an idea like this... With menele... During my untap, 2 blood to an uncontrolled vampire... Gird minion blood to fill him up and get below your prey's pool... Awe all the blood off him to make the parity shift work, voter cap it to get him health again and gain 2 pool... Plus you get 2 free transfers. Since your crypt would be all 9 caps save menele, you'll be low on pool anyhow... (Only if I had more Awes) >Library: > >Masters: (16) > >3x Oxford University, England >4x Minion Tap >1x Presence >1x Antediluvian Awakening >4x Anarch Revolt >1x Art Museum >2x Blood Doll No protected resources? your gonna have to keep you pool low to get the parity shift working, so a heavy bleeder would kill yah... I'll add a information highway just so you can transfer pool to vampires to keep yourself low... >Combat: (22) > >8x Aura Reading >5x Staredown >3x Flash >6x Preternatural Evasion >Political Actions: (14) > >7x Parity Shift >5x Kine Resources Contested >1x Brujah Justicar >1x Toreador Justicar I think you need a few Dramatic Upheaval, so you can sit next to a player with 1 pool... =D More votes... =D >Action Modifiers: (11) > >7x Voter Captivation >4x Bewitching Oration More of these when you add more votes... =D [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Any comments are appreciated, > >-Bram Vink Hi there, Just a thought: I might be mistaking, but if I'm right: you have to have a legal target for your Parity Shift *before* you call the referendum. In other words, if you're at 20 pool,and everybody else at the table is at less than 20, you can't call the Shift, even if you can lower your pool via the Oxford University. Need someone to confirm this though.. Jo

>Hi there, >Just a thought: >I might be mistaking, but if I'm right: you have to have a legal >target for your Parity Shift *before* you call the referendum. In >other words, if you're at 20 pool,and everybody else at the table is >at less than 20, you can't call the Shift, even if you can lower your >pool via the Oxford University. > >Need someone to confirm this though.. That is correct. I suppose you can call a different vote before the Parity Shift in order to lower your pool to the right level, though it's a bit more unwieldy. Halcyan 2

jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote in message news:<93148a54.03040...@posting.google.com>... > General Idea: Use Oxford University before calling terms on parity > shift to lower your pool to the level you need it to be. It's Oxfordians. Not Oxonians. Oxonians are people that like a meat stock product that comes in cubes. Fact. > The deck isn't tuned yet, or adjusted to metagame, and still needs a > lot of work. The basic principle seems to work pretty good though. > I dropped the Al's Army Apparatus-Concealed Guns Idea, threw some > combat together, could be improved a lot. > > Crypt: > -------------------------------------------------- > 3x Anson > 1x Tatiana Romanova > 1x Victoria Ash > 2x Rake > 1x Kallista, Master Sculptor > 2x Volker, The Puppet Prince > 1x Brachah > 1x Felicia Mostrom > -------------------------------------------------- A bit messy. Sure, Anson for the Masters (which, incidentally, you don't need at 16 cards), but I'm not convinced that Brujah / Toreador is the way to go. Try Ventrue / Brujah for the mid cap Group 1 princes. Hey, there's even a couple of mid cap Ventrue with Potence! Gideon Fontaine would be great in this deck. As would Sweaty Nash, Emmerson Bridges, Jan Pieterzoon, Tim Crowley... etc etc etc. > Library: > > Masters: (16) > > 3x Oxford University, England > 4x Minion Tap > 1x Presence > 1x Antediluvian Awakening > 4x Anarch Revolt > 1x Art Museum > 2x Blood Doll Ditch the Antideluvian Awakening. Ditch the Anarch Revolts. For a deck that needs to control it's pool tightly, having these bad boys in to eat your pool, in a manner out of your control, is surely bad. If you do go Ventrue, Ventrue HQ is a must. If not, Toreador Grand Ball x2 is a good idea. Suddens are actually important in this kind of deck to neuter pool gain to your prey, so consider 2 - 4 of them depending on play environment. Other faves at the moment: Pentex Subversion, Legendary Vampire, and Hunting Grounds. If you go Ventrue, add a Hostile Takeover and a ToGP. Worth every penny, as they are MADE for Parity Shifts. > Combat: (22) > > 8x Aura Reading > 5x Staredown > 3x Flash > 6x Preternatural Evasion 8x Aura Reading is way too much. 4x tops. 5x Staredown is cool. I'd change 3x Flash to 6x Fake Out if you want the Ventrue angle, if only to get out of a grapple. 6x Preternatual Evasions to become Majesties. > Political Actions: (14) > > 7x Parity Shift > 5x Kine Resources Contested > 1x Brujah Justicar > 1x Toreador Justicar For this, I'd add 2x Disputed Territory and 2x Kindred Restructure. I'd up the Parity Shifts to 8 and KRCs to 8 too. 14 votes is not enough to clear 5 players. > Action Modifiers: (11) > > 7x Voter Captivation > 4x Bewitching Oration Add 2x Bribes and 2x Cryptic Riders. Bribes to get your pool back straight away! The BOs are a bit overkill as static votes alone should win your Voter Caps. > Reactions: (13) > > 4x Second Tradition: Domain > 5x Enhanced Senses > 4x Forced Awakening Skip to 6x 2nds 2x Wake and 5x Telepathic Midirection if staying Toreador or 5x Deflection if going Ventrue. DH

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030407044648...@mb-fc.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] There are no specific rulings on the vtes site saying this. And the only specific example i could find is this one: http://groups.google.nl/groups?hl=nl&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8qd792%24sa5%241%40nnrp1.deja.com Which dates back to 2000. And all examples I could find other then parity shift have since been errata'ed or ruled to specifically state they need or don't need a target. I'm not 100% sure on this.. One could argue that the target has to be specified only when the terms are to be called/target to be chosen, and that the action is therefore legal, since there is a timeframe between choosing the target and playing the action. If not, my deck idea is crap :P Thanks for the note, -Bram Vink Hasn't seen a delaying tactics played here in Holland.. Ever.

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030407044648...@mb-fc.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Also note that if even one player has less pool than you, you can call the Parity shift, then lower your pool with Oxford prior to setting the terms, and pick any of the newly-valid targets (like your prey) to lose pool, not just the one person who was valid when you announced the action. But as Halcyan noted, it has been explicitly ruled that you cannot take actions to call votes that do not have valid targets when the action is announced (Parity shifts when you have the most pool, Disputed Territory when no locations are in play, and so on.) > Halcyan 2 -John Flournoy

Darky wrote: > halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030407044648...@mb-fc.aol.com>... >>>I might be mistaking, but if I'm right: you have to have a legal >>>target for your Parity Shift *before* you call the referendum. In >>>other words, if you're at 20 pool,and everybody else at the table is >>>at less than 20, you can't call the Shift, even if you can lower your >>>pool via the Oxford University. >>That is correct. Correct. [...] > And all examples I could find other then parity shift have since been > errata'ed or ruled to specifically state they need or don't need a > target. Citations, please? General ruling (from the online list of rulings): Playing Cards If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. [RTR 19980928] > I'm not 100% sure on this.. One could argue that the target has to be > specified only when the terms are to be called/target to be chosen, > and that the action is therefore legal, since there is a timeframe > between choosing the target and playing the action. There must be a legal target when the card is played. If the set of legal targets changes by the time the terms are set, then any of the new legal targets are fair game. If there are no longer any legal targets at that time, then the action fizzles. -- 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/

dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.0304...@posting.google.com>... > jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote in message news:<93148a54.03040...@posting.google.com>... > > General Idea: Use Oxford University before calling terms on parity > > shift to lower your pool to the level you need it to be. > > It's Oxfordians. Not Oxonians. > > Oxonians are people that like a meat stock product that comes in > cubes. Fact. Ox·o·ni·an noun. A native or inhabitant of Oxford. A person who studies or has studied at Oxford University. http://www.dictionary.com > > The deck isn't tuned yet, or adjusted to metagame, and still needs a > > lot of work. The basic principle seems to work pretty good though. > > I dropped the Al's Army Apparatus-Concealed Guns Idea, threw some > > combat together, could be improved a lot. > > > > Crypt: > > -------------------------------------------------- > > 3x Anson > > 1x Tatiana Romanova > > 1x Victoria Ash > > 2x Rake > > 1x Kallista, Master Sculptor > > 2x Volker, The Puppet Prince > > 1x Brachah > > 1x Felicia Mostrom > > -------------------------------------------------- > > A bit messy. Sure, Anson for the Masters (which, incidentally, you > don't need at 16 cards), but I'm not convinced that Brujah / Toreador > is the way to go. Try Ventrue / Brujah for the mid cap Group 1 > princes. Hey, there's even a couple of mid cap Ventrue with Potence! > > Gideon Fontaine would be great in this deck. As would Sweaty Nash, > Emmerson Bridges, Jan Pieterzoon, Tim Crowley... etc etc etc. I prefer going for Cel Pre Aus, as Rake fits in nicely there, and volker only has CEL. 16 masters in 76 cards is high, comparable to 19 masters in a 20 card deck. This crypt is still made for the concealed guns thingy though, so I'm going to swap Felicia and Kallista for Marianna Gilbert and Ramiel Dupre. > > Library: > > > > Masters: (16) > > > > 3x Oxford University, England > > 4x Minion Tap > > 1x Presence > > 1x Antediluvian Awakening > > 4x Anarch Revolt > > 1x Art Museum > > 2x Blood Doll > > Ditch the Antideluvian Awakening. Ditch the Anarch Revolts. For a deck > that needs to control it's pool tightly, having these bad boys in to > eat your pool, in a manner out of your control, is surely bad. I put em in as a way to just universally lower the pool of the table, making ousting possible with this few cards, also it's a nice way to kill people on low pool when you're not willing to lower yours to shift em. I'll swap the antediluvian with another anarch revolt though. The presence master will become a Protected Resources. > If you do go Ventrue, Ventrue HQ is a must. If not, Toreador Grand > Ball x2 is a good idea. Suddens are actually important in this kind of > deck to neuter pool gain to your prey, so consider 2 - 4 of them > depending on play environment. I'll add 2 balls. I don't really mind my prey gaining pool that much with 7 shifts. > Other faves at the moment: Pentex Subversion, Legendary Vampire, and > Hunting Grounds. > > If you go Ventrue, add a Hostile Takeover and a ToGP. Worth every > penny, as they are MADE for Parity Shifts. > > > Combat: (22) > > > > 8x Aura Reading > > 5x Staredown > > 3x Flash > > 6x Preternatural Evasion > > 8x Aura Reading is way too much. 4x tops. > 5x Staredown is cool. > I'd change 3x Flash to 6x Fake Out if you want the Ventrue angle, if > only to get out of a grapple. > 6x Preternatual Evasions to become Majesties. I should probably remove 2 Aura readings for Flashes, Aura Reading is underrated. 1 Preternatural will become a Staredown. > > Political Actions: (14) > > > > 7x Parity Shift > > 5x Kine Resources Contested > > 1x Brujah Justicar > > 1x Toreador Justicar > > For this, I'd add 2x Disputed Territory and 2x Kindred Restructure. > I'd up the Parity Shifts to 8 and KRCs to 8 too. 14 votes is not > enough to clear 5 players. Disputed Territory is overrated I think. I'm not playing Kindred Restructure in a friendly game, 12 Damaging votes with 5 revolts should do the trick, no? I'll add 2x Rumors of Gehenna and 1x Reinforcements. > > Action Modifiers: (11) > > > > 7x Voter Captivation > > 4x Bewitching Oration > > Add 2x Bribes and 2x Cryptic Riders. Bribes to get your pool back > straight away! > The BOs are a bit overkill as static votes alone should win your Voter > Caps. I'll cut the BO's, Bribes+Parity shift makes the Parity Shift legal-target question interesting. > > Reactions: (13) > > > > 4x Second Tradition: Domain > > 5x Enhanced Senses > > 4x Forced Awakening > > Skip to 6x 2nds 2x Wake and 5x Telepathic Midirection if staying > Toreador or 5x Deflection if going Ventrue. > > DH With only 1 vamp with superior auspex I don't think it's worth putting in Misdirections. Maybe ill go for 4x 2nd, 5 various 1 intercept auspex cards, 4x forced. I don't own any more 2nds. Thanks for the feedback, -Bram Vink

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E91B5EB...@white-wolf.com>... > Darky wrote: > > halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030407044648...@mb-fc.aol.com>... > >>>I might be mistaking, but if I'm right: you have to have a legal > >>>target for your Parity Shift *before* you call the referendum. In > >>>other words, if you're at 20 pool,and everybody else at the table is > >>>at less than 20, you can't call the Shift, even if you can lower your > >>>pool via the Oxford University. > >>That is correct. > > Correct. > > [...] > > > And all examples I could find other then parity shift have since been > > errata'ed or ruled to specifically state they need or don't need a > > target. > > Citations, please? "Peace Treaty can be called even if there are no weapons in play." - RTR 2001 (Specifically states it doesn't need a target) "Kindred Segregation can be called even if there are no allies in play." - RTR 2001 (Specifically states it doesn't need a target) (NEW) Card text on P:Solomon "Only usable if at least one card is contested." (Specifically states it needs a target) (NEW) Card text on Disguised Weapon: Only usable before range is chosen if you have a weapon card in your hand. (Specifically states it needs a target.) Illusions of Kindred cannot be played when your crypt is empty. - RTR 2000(Specifically states it needs a target.) Charming Lobby "This vampire calls a referendum listed on a political action card in your hand" (Specifically states it needs a target) > General ruling (from the online list of rulings): > > Playing Cards > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. > [RTR 19980928] This general ruling doesn't apply to parity shift because methuselahs aren't usually referred to as 'cards'. All the other examples do target another card though. The only other example that would be alike and that I could think of would be someone ousting himself with buisness pressure on a lextalionis vote. > > I'm not 100% sure on this.. One could argue that the target has to be > > specified only when the terms are to be called/target to be chosen, > > and that the action is therefore legal, since there is a timeframe > > between choosing the target and playing the action. > > There must be a legal target when the card is played. As I see it, the card doesn't target anything when it's played though. The targetting occurs when you call the terms of the referendum, right? You don't have to target anyone before that... What I mean to say is that no targetting occurs before the terms are stated and therefore the I think term 'legal target' would be irrelevant. And since neither Lexatalionis nor Parity shift states it needs a legal target when it's played, and there are no relevant rulings on this, is this a new ruling or am I just retarded? :P [snip] -Bram Vink

In article <93148a54.03040...@posting.google.com>, jja....@hccnet.nl says... > > Citations, please? > "Peace Treaty can be called even if there are no weapons in play." - > RTR 2001 (Specifically states it doesn't need a target) > > "Kindred Segregation can be called even if there are no allies in > play." - RTR 2001 (Specifically states it doesn't need a target) Last I checked, both of these cards say "all X are burnt". It's a blanket effect and thus has no specific target. -- -Snapcase

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030407044648...@mb-fc.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] He can always vote the anarchs to stay in play.... =D And you can always give your prey pool so he's higher then you... (Just by 1, that is)

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. Peace Treaty doesn't "burn a weapon" (which isn't possible if there are no weapons), it "burns all weapons" (which is possible even if there are no weapons). Likewise Kindred Segregation. [ quoted text not captured ]

Snapcase <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.18fc0c15a...@news.optonline.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yep, but if you had read the link i gave you, in the same post LSJ says parity shift needs a target, he also says these ones do, which was in 2000. It is irrelevant though, just gave these since LSJ wanted citations. -Bram Vink

<snip> What i'm meaning to say: I can't find a logical explanation in the current rules to support parity shift needing a legal target at the moment of being played. Can you give me one? If not, are you making a ruling on parity shift needing a legal target or are you just gonna let it slide and allow parity shift and to be played without a legal target? Wrote that last post when I was too tired :P *Psst* the last option is best! ;) -Bram Vink

Darky wrote: > What i'm meaning to say: I can't find a logical explanation in the > current rules to support parity shift needing a legal target at the > moment of being played. Can you give me one? Card text: "Choose a Methuselah who has more pool than you do" Ruling: A card that targets (chooses, selects, etc.) some target can only be played if there is a legal target available. Result: If there is no Methuselah who has more pool than you do, you cannot play Parity Shift. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E9303F4...@white-wolf.com>... > Darky wrote: > > What i'm meaning to say: I can't find a logical explanation in the > > current rules to support parity shift needing a legal target at the > > moment of being played. Can you give me one? > > Card text: "Choose a Methuselah who has more pool than you do" > > Ruling: A card that targets (chooses, selects, etc.) some target can > only be played if there is a legal target available. > > Result: If there is no Methuselah who has more pool than you do, > you cannot play Parity Shift. As you said before, this ruling actually is this: If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. [RTR 19980928] Is it changed to be the one you said above? Thanks in advance, -Bram Vink

Darky wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E9303F4...@white-wolf.com>... >>Ruling: A card that targets (chooses, selects, etc.) some target can >>only be played if there is a legal target available. > > As you said before, this ruling actually is this: > > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is > available. [RTR 19980928] > > Is it changed to be the one you said above? The ruling you quoted doesn't preclude or contradict the ruling I gave. I'll amend the online rulings list for further clarity. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E937755...@white-wolf.com>... > Darky wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E9303F4...@white-wolf.com>... > >>Ruling: A card that targets (chooses, selects, etc.) some target can > >>only be played if there is a legal target available. > > > > As you said before, this ruling actually is this: > > > > If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > > then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is > > available. [RTR 19980928] > > > > Is it changed to be the one you said above? > > The ruling you quoted doesn't preclude or contradict the ruling I gave. > > I'll amend the online rulings list for further clarity. thanks for the trouble, appreciate it -Bram Vink

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E91B5EB...@white-wolf.com>... > There must be a legal target when the card is played. > > If the set of legal targets changes by the time the terms are set, then > any of the new legal targets are fair game. If there are no longer any > legal targets at that time, then the action fizzles. So if someone calls Code of Milan Suspended (lord knows why, but just humor me), and the player who currently has the edge burns it for 1 vote before the terms are set, the action fizzles? -Snapcase

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E945829...@white-wolf.com... > Snapcase wrote: > > So if someone calls Code of Milan Suspended (lord knows why, but just > > humor me), and the player who currently has the edge burns it for 1 > > vote before the terms are set, the action fizzles? > > Right. So, the utility of the Sabbat War text migration has been lost with current rulebook/rulings? This is tragic! :-) Josh so much for milan...

Joshua Duffin wrote: > So, the utility of the Sabbat War text migration has been lost > with current rulebook/rulings? This is tragic! :-) > > so much for milan... It's still a +1 stealth burn the edge undirected action, though. If it's a matter of the Methuselah burning a pool and then gaining a pool during her untap or burning the edge now and not gaining the pool, well... Before SW, though, the Methuselah had the "luxury" of waiting to see if the referendum would pass before sloughing off the edge to avoid the burn. So the utility of the SW migration is not totally lost. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E9462A...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > So, the utility of the Sabbat War text migration has been lost > > with current rulebook/rulings? This is tragic! :-) > > > > so much for milan... > > It's still a +1 stealth burn the edge undirected action, though. > If it's a matter of the Methuselah burning a pool and then gaining > a pool during her untap or burning the edge now and not gaining > the pool, well... I never thought I would write these words, but Regaining the Upper Hand is probably better in almost all cases. :-) Of course, it was probably generally better even when it wasn't possible to burn the Edge before being named by Code of Milan Suspended. Since as you say, the Edge-holder might have still gained a pool for keeping the Edge after losing one to Milan. Josh not that it's likely, but just in case - I am absolutely not requesting errata, or even cardtext change, to make Code of Milan Suspended more playable. Some wallpaper just can't be saved. ;-)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3E9462A...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > Before SW, though, the Methuselah had the "luxury" of waiting to > see if the referendum would pass before sloughing off the edge > to avoid the burn. So the utility of the SW migration is not > totally lost. :-) how so? RTR 1998/06/23 : Code of Milan Suspended: The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the referendum. Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the vote, if successful. at any rate, is that RTR ruling out of date? Stone

[ quoted text not captured ] The Methuselah burns the edge before the terms are set. > > at any rate, is that RTR ruling out of date? No. It still applies. You choose a Methsuelah who has the edge. IF the referendum passes, the chosen Methuselah (who may or may not still have the edge) burns 1 poool. [ quoted text not captured ]

>No. >It still applies. >You choose a Methsuelah who has the edge. >IF the referendum passes, the chosen Methuselah (who may or may not still >have the edge) burns 1 poool. Also, please note that Code of Milan still isn't completely useless. There very well might be some reasons why a player might keep the Edge. If they plan to use the Edge for something during their turn (Victoria's special, Sarrasine's special, or to give blood during your untap phase to Heather, Lucina, or Lucinde). Also, it may be important in case the distribution of votes is close and they really want to keep the Edge vote if they need it. Thus a player won't necessarily discard the Edge just to avoid the Milan pool loss. Halcyan 2

> Stone wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news: >> 3E9462A...@white-wolf.com... >> >>>Joshua Duffin wrote: >>>Before SW, though, the Methuselah had the "luxury" of waiting to >>>see if the referendum would pass before sloughing off the edge >>>to avoid the burn. So the utility of the SW migration is not >>>totally lost. :-) >> >> how so? RTR 1998/06/23 : >> Code of Milan Suspended: >> The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the >> referendum. >> Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change >> the effects of the >> vote, if successful. > > The Methuselah burns the edge before the terms are set. What terms? Can more then 1 methuselah have the edge? Same with Lextalionis... There aren't terms to set since there's only 1 choice... That's what I thought... >> at any rate, is that RTR ruling out of date? > > No. > It still applies. > You choose a Methsuelah who has the edge. > IF the referendum passes, the chosen Methuselah (who may > or may not still > have the edge) burns 1 poool. -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb: >Snapcase wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E91B5EB...@white-wolf.com>... >> >> >>>There must be a legal target when the card is played. >>> >>>If the set of legal targets changes by the time the terms are set, then >>>any of the new legal targets are fair game. If there are no longer any >>>legal targets at that time, then the action fizzles. >> >> >> So if someone calls Code of Milan Suspended (lord knows why, but just >> humor me), and the player who currently has the edge burns it for 1 >> vote before the terms are set, the action fizzles? > >Right. hi, excuse me here, but by my understanding of the rules, the edge can be burned onyl during the referendum to gain a vote, which is after the terms are set, and not during the action itself, or before the announcement of the terms, which would render the above moot. please give me/us the exact beginning of the timeframe during which a meth can burn the edge/burn a political card from his hand to gain (not cast) a vote. if it is possible to burn a political card from your hand to gain a vote before the referendum even starts, then it can be replaced as normal, as opposed to during the referendum when it cant't be replaced, which could very well make a difference (topdecking a Delaying Tactics for example) regards Chris.QJ VEKN Prince of Vienna

Kulaid wrote: > What terms? Can more then 1 methuselah have the edge? Same with Card text: Choose the Methuselah with the edge. Doing so is setting the terms. > Lextalionis... There aren't terms to set since there's only 1 choice... Same. Except that it could be the case that more than one Meth has gained a VP since your last turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris.QJ wrote: > please give me/us the exact beginning of the timeframe during which a > meth can burn the edge/burn a political card from his hand to gain > (not cast) a vote. During a referendum. > if it is possible to burn a political card from your hand to gain a > vote before the referendum even starts, then it can be replaced as > normal, as opposed to during the referendum when it cant't be > replaced, which could very well make a difference (topdecking a > Delaying Tactics for example) Not before it starts. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:b7264m$baq$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news: > 3E9462A...@white-wolf.com... > > Before SW, though, the Methuselah had the "luxury" of waiting to > > see if the referendum would pass before sloughing off the edge > > to avoid the burn. So the utility of the SW migration is not > > totally lost. :-) > > how so? RTR 1998/06/23 : > Code of Milan Suspended: > The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the > referendum. > Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the > vote, if successful. This errata was enshrined in card text when Sabbat War was printed. The original text of Code of Milan Suspended, in the Sabbat printing, (warning! this text no longer applies! ;-) was: "Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth If this vote is successful, the Methuselah with the Edge burns 1 pool." Under that text, *before* the Jun 23 1998 errata, if there is no Methuselah with the Edge when the referendum passes, no one burns a pool. After that ruling, LSJ's comment no longer applied. I think he was just following my "SW text migration" comment without bothering to consider that even before it was a text migration, it was in the errata list. > at any rate, is that RTR ruling out of date? In a sense. It's been supplanted by current Code of Milan Suspended printed cardtext, so it doesn't go in the E/R/C list, much like Tomb of Rameses III's new text. But its effects still exist. Josh all this for a nigh-pointless card... hehehe