Igoli's Loyalty
Action modifier
Requires Ishtarri
Costs 1 blood
Only usable during a referendum, before
votes are cast.
Starting with your prey and going clockwise,
each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires
may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
votes in favor for 1 pool. Each time a
Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
to add 1 pool to that amount. Continue until a
Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
a blood. When the votes are tallied, each
campire voting against this referendum burnd
2 blood.
****
So, if I understand correctly, if an Ishtarri I control
calls a vote and plays Igoli's Loyalty, if someone accepts
I get all of his votes in favor, while if everybody refuses
the choice comes to me and I get as much pool as
many players there are in the game? COOL!!
Emiliano
[ quoted text not captured ]> ****[ quoted text not captured ]
..as much pool as many players *with titled vampires*
And votes can still be cast as normal after this card resolves, so votes
can be changed (with Michael Luther or whatever), or non-title votes can
be cast (like Ventrue HQ or Joseph O'Grady).. so you can still agree to
vote in favor, gain pool, and still make the vote fail (or Delay
Tactics)..
I have the idea of making an Ishtarri go Anarch, then calling Free
States Rant with this card. Anyone who votes against him burns 2 blood,
which may be a better effect than the FSR passing in the first place :)
Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> Igoli's Loyalty
>
> Action modifier
> Requires Ishtarri
> Costs 1 blood
>
> Only usable during a referendum, before
> votes are cast.
> Starting with your prey and going clockwise,
> each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires
> may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
> votes in favor for 1 pool. Each time a
> Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
> to add 1 pool to that amount. Continue until a
> Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> a blood. When the votes are tallied, each
> campire voting against this referendum burnd
> 2 blood.
>
I'm not clear on the text; are people with no title vampires considered
to be "declining" or are they simply skipped over?
> ****
>
> So, if I understand correctly, if an Ishtarri I control
> calls a vote and plays Igoli's Loyalty, if someone accepts
> I get all of his votes in favor, while if everybody refuses
> the choice comes to me and I get as much pool as
> many players there are in the game? COOL!!
Not only that, but anyone voting against burns 2 blood. That's often
going to be a very easy voter cap right there to get back all the blood
you burned.
The only problem is that you offer pool to your prey first (oh, and you
need to have a titled vampire in order to accept the pool yourself, but
I suspect that won't be hard).
> Emiliano
Jozxyqk wrote:
> Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, if I understand correctly, if an Ishtarri I control
> > calls a vote and plays Igoli's Loyalty, if someone accepts
> > I get all of his votes in favor, while if everybody refuses
> > the choice comes to me and I get as much pool as
> > many players there are in the game? COOL!!
>
> ..as much pool as many players *with titled vampires*
Yes, sure, I forgot to say that.
> I have the idea of making an Ishtarri go Anarch, then calling Free
> States Rant with this card. Anyone who votes against him burns 2 blood,
> which may be a better effect than the FSR passing in the first place :)
And Anarch Ishtarri are GREAT at playing Diversion ;-)
Emiliano
> So, if I understand correctly, if an Ishtarri I control
> calls a vote and plays Igoli's Loyalty, if someone accepts
> I get all of his votes in favor, while if everybody refuses
> the choice comes to me and I get as much pool as
> many players there are in the game? COOL!!
Er, I understand it differently, but that could be the text. Each meth,
going around the table in order, get the choice of voting for, or declining
to vote for. The first one who accepts gets 1 pool, and an additional pool
for each Meth who declined before (assuming Ishtarri burnt required blood).
Then that part ends. Votes are then placed - decliners abstaining or
against, each vampire who votes against burns 2 blood.
Sam
>
> Emiliano
>
Jazzbeaux wrote:
> > So, if I understand correctly, if an Ishtarri I control
> > calls a vote and plays Igoli's Loyalty, if someone accepts
> > I get all of his votes in favor, while if everybody refuses
> > the choice comes to me and I get as much pool as
> > many players there are in the game? COOL!!
>
> Er, I understand it differently, but that could be the text. Each meth,
> going around the table in order, get the choice of voting for, or declining
> to vote for. The first one who accepts gets 1 pool, and an additional pool
> for each Meth who declined before (assuming Ishtarri burnt required blood).
Yes, exactly, then if everyone else declines,
it is my turn to decide and I will of course
accept and cast all my votes in favor
(assuming I have titled vampires),
getting a lot of pool.
If there are 5 players, all with titled vampires,
and all the other 4 decline, I get 5 pool.
Add Voter Cap and serve slightly warm. :-)
> Then that part ends. Votes are then placed - decliners abstaining or
> against, each vampire who votes against burns 2 blood.
Well, I don't know why they should do it,
but even decliners may still vote in favor, right?
They just don't get the pool anymore.
Emiliano
[ quoted text not captured ]
If you accepted, he would have to cast his votes for. Same for
Firebrands, LegVamp and other non-title vampire votes.
> ).. so you can still agree to
> vote in favor, gain pool, and still make the vote fail (or Delay
> Tactics)..
>
> I have the idea of making an Ishtarri go Anarch, then calling Free
> States Rant with this card. Anyone who votes against him burns 2 blood,
> which may be a better effect than the FSR passing in the first place :)
Gotta play Mob Rule, too ;)
Woo hoo, finally a reason to play Disarming Presence! If nobody wants
to vote, you potentially get a lot of pool.
Olive...@gmail.com <Olive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > And votes can still be cast as normal after this card resolves, so votes
> > can be changed (with Michael Luther or whatever), or non-title votes can
> > be cast (like Ventrue HQ or Joseph O'Grady> If you accepted, he would have to cast his votes for. Same for
> Firebrands, LegVamp and other non-title vampire votes.
No, not Joseph O'Grady. This card does not force vampires to burn blood
to generate optional votes. It only forces you to cast all the current
votes your vampires have.
Your Firebrands and Legacy-of-Pandered vampires must cast their votes,
but you can reserve Joseph O'Grady's (or Sundown, or whomever) decision
until later, just like you can reserve the right to play Dread Gaze
until later.
> If there are 5 players, all with titled vampires,
> and all the other 4 decline, I get 5 pool.
> Add Voter Cap and serve slightly warm. :-)
Ah, now I see. Just looking at the same thing from different angles.
Sam
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure. He must cast his votes for the referendum, even if it's just 0
votes - he can't be forced to gain one. If by some effects he gains a
or four vote during the referendum, he has to cast it for. IL is played
before votes are cast anyway, so it's effect isn't over before the
referendum is over. I have no idea how this card interacts with vote
changers like Michael, though.
[ quoted text not captured ]
And the above interpretation is kind of incorrect... As soon as someone
accepts to vote all in and gain pool, you stop the whole electing
thing... So if someone accepts it won't come to you...
> The only problem is that you offer pool to your prey first (oh, and you
> need to have a titled vampire in order to accept the pool yourself, but
> I suspect that won't be hard).
Have you seen any titled Ishtari (or Laibon for that matter) yet?
~SV
[ quoted text not captured ]
Though I suppose decliners DO have the option of voting 'for'. Perhaps
they were planning to Parity Shift next turn or something...
~SV
[ quoted text not captured ]
The card is ambiguous about whether "must cast all of his or her vampire's
votes" means votes they currently have or votes they might gain later.
LSJ, If I accept the pool from Igoli's Loyalty, and later generate votes
on Joseph O'Grady, must he vote yes?
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> If there are 5 players, all with titled vampires,
> and all the other 4 decline, I get 5 pool.
> Add Voter Cap and serve slightly warm. :-)
>
5 pool at the cost of 5 blood. Makes Voter Cap more awesome, but it isn't
exactly free.
>> Then that part ends. Votes are then placed - decliners abstaining or
>> against, each vampire who votes against burns 2 blood.>
> Well, I don't know why they should do it,
> but even decliners may still vote in favor, right?
> They just don't get the pool anymore.
>
They might do it to give the pool to their cross-table buddy or to make
the referendum pass by 1 vote, thus nuking the Voter Cap effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, jnew...@difsol.com wrote:
>
> Emiliano Imeroni wrote: (Emphasis Added)>> Igoli's Loyalty
>>
>> Action modifier
>> Requires Ishtarri
>> Costs 1 blood
>>
>> Only usable during a referendum, before
>> votes are cast.
>> Starting with your prey and going clockwise,>> ****each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires****>> may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
>> votes in favor for 1 pool. Each time a
>> Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
>> to add 1 pool to that amount. Continue until a
>> Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
>> a blood. When the votes are tallied, each
>> campire voting against this referendum burnd
>> 2 blood.
>>>
> I'm not clear on the text; are people with no title vampires considered
> to be "declining" or are they simply skipped over?
>
Reread the section with emphasis.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Doesn't matter much. Even if they don't have many titles, I can have
Shawnda Dorrit or some cheap primogen or bishop in to have a title just
in case.
What's unlikely everyone else around the table passing on the pool,
especially if it gets up to 3 or 4. I can see the person who played
this gaining 1 or 2 pool if he negotiates well across the table, but
your prey will rarely pass it up if he can take it, especially if it
means *his* prey gets offered two pool. Nor will your predator likely
pass it up and allow you to take more than two (he might let you get
one or two and then cast all his votes against to minimize your voter
cap) - so he'll only pass if he *must*. So at most you could convince
two crosstable allies to pass up the pool for you
Now, if your prey has no votes showing, pairing this card with bribes
is a nice way to keep your grandprey voting your way. Here, grandprey,
I'll give you two pool. Even if I throw my stray KRC point at you (if I
need to avoid crosstable rushes, for example), you're up one, right?
The card itself seems really strong. I'd think it too strong if it
didn't offer pool to your prey.
>
> ~SV
<Olive...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130245483.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Woo hoo, finally a reason to play Disarming Presence! If nobody wants
> to vote, you potentially get a lot of pool.
Well, yea, but the pool is coming from your vampire if I understood
the mechanic correctly - kind of like a fast action blood doll. That
doesn't strike as being all that big a deal, unless used effectively
with a third card: Voter Captivation.
Fred
Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> Igoli's Loyalty
>
> Action modifier
> Requires Ishtarri
> Costs 1 blood
>
> Only usable during a referendum, before
> votes are cast.
> Starting with your prey and going clockwise,
> each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires
> may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
> votes in favor for 1 pool.
This part makes it sound like each Methuselah has only one chance to
"participate." (I'll follow-up on this thought below)
> Each time a
> Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
> to add 1 pool to that amount.
This burn blood is mandatory, right? If this Ishtarri has blood, it
must burn it, it can not choose to not burn blood to keep someone from
getting the option to vote in favor, right?
> Continue until a
> Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> a blood.
This part almost makes it sound like, if no one accepts, go around
again. I'm probably reading something that isn't there. It would be
cool to be the only Methuselah with a titled vamp and let it go around
several times to turn lots of blood from the acting vamp into pool.
> When the votes are tallied, each
> campire voting against this referendum burnd
> 2 blood.
>
If this Ishtarri fails to burn a blood, just the going around and
offering pool is stopped. The rest of the card, "vampires voting
against burn 2 blood" still applies, right?
Later,
~Rehlow
Rehlow wrote:
> Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> > Igoli's Loyalty
> >
> > Action modifier
> > Requires Ishtarri
> > Costs 1 blood
> >
> > Only usable during a referendum, before
> > votes are cast.
> > Starting with your prey and going clockwise,
> > each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires
> > may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
> > votes in favor for 1 pool.
>
> This part makes it sound like each Methuselah has only one chance to
> "participate." (I'll follow-up on this thought below)
Not if it circles back to them (through you), no.
> > Each time a
> > Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
> > to add 1 pool to that amount.
>
> This burn blood is mandatory, right? If this Ishtarri has blood, it
> must burn it, it can not choose to not burn blood to keep someone from
> getting the option to vote in favor, right?
Correct. It's not an optional/choice effect.
> > Continue until a
> > Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> > a blood.
>
> This part almost makes it sound like, if no one accepts, go around
> again. I'm probably reading something that isn't there. It would be
> cool to be the only Methuselah with a titled vamp and let it go around
> several times to turn lots of blood from the acting vamp into pool.
It is how it sounds like - if noone accepts (potentially including
you), go around again. As the card says, you do this until someone says
'yes' or you can't pay the blood to make it keep going.
> > When the votes are tallied, each
> > campire voting against this referendum burnd
> > 2 blood.
> >
>
> If this Ishtarri fails to burn a blood, just the going around and
> offering pool is stopped. The rest of the card, "vampires voting
> against burn 2 blood" still applies, right?
Correct. (gee, I sound like LSJ almost!)
> Later,
> ~Rehlow
-John Flournoy
Rehlow wrote:
> > Continue until a
> > Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> > a blood.
>
> This part almost makes it sound like, if no one accepts, go around
> again. I'm probably reading something that isn't there. It would be
> cool to be the only Methuselah with a titled vamp and let it go around
> several times to turn lots of blood from the acting vamp into pool.
Actually, nowhere on the card text does it say that "other methuselahs"
- it just states "each" and "a" methuselah, and beginning with your
prey. So if you control a titled vampire, I would say you can cash in
the card.
However: What if you don't control a titled vamp? Or if no one on the
table does, for that matter? It figures that the card will drain your
vampire dry, and then it just burns.
Ezekiel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Rehlow wrote:
> > > Continue until a
> > > Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> > > a blood.
> >
> > This part almost makes it sound like, if no one accepts, go around
> > again. I'm probably reading something that isn't there. It would be
> > cool to be the only Methuselah with a titled vamp and let it go around
> > several times to turn lots of blood from the acting vamp into pool.
>
> Actually, nowhere on the card text does it say that "other methuselahs"
> - it just states "each" and "a" methuselah, and beginning with your
> prey. So if you control a titled vampire, I would say you can cash in
> the card.
Certainly.
> However: What if you don't control a titled vamp?
Then someone else cashes in.
> Or if no one on the
> table does, for that matter?
Then you are quite possibly a moron for playing the card.
> It figures that the card will drain your
> vampire dry, and then it just burns.
Yeah. Something like that.
John
Ezekiel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Rehlow wrote:
> > > Continue until a
> > > Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> > > a blood.
> >
> > This part almost makes it sound like, if no one accepts, go around
> > again. I'm probably reading something that isn't there. It would be
> > cool to be the only Methuselah with a titled vamp and let it go around
> > several times to turn lots of blood from the acting vamp into pool.
>
> Actually, nowhere on the card text does it say that "other methuselahs"
> - it just states "each" and "a" methuselah, and beginning with your
> prey. So if you control a titled vampire, I would say you can cash in
> the card.
>
I know you can cash in on your own card. The tricky part is getting it
to go all the way around the table so that you have the option to cash
in.
Since the current understanding is that if everyone declines, and the
Ishtarri keeps burning blood, it will keep going around. If you are the
only Methuselah with a ready titled vampire, you can decline, burn a
blood from the Ishtarri, and repeat as long as you have blood to burn.
Eventually you accept, quickly turning blood to pool (and if the vote
passes, refill with Voter Cap).
Fall of the Sabbat and Fall of the Camarilla will get rid of Sabbat and
Camarilla titles for you, leaving you with Independent and possibly
Liabon titles (if they have any) to deal with. Alternatively, you can
put all other titles in torpor (Combat, Baltimore Purge, other) or
uncontrolled (Banishment).
> However: What if you don't control a titled vamp? Or if no one on the
> table does, for that matter? It figures that the card will drain your
> vampire dry, and then it just burns.
Only Methuselah's with a ready titled vampire are given the option to
accept or decline. Only when a Methuselah declines do you burn a blood.
If no one controls a ready titled vampire, no one can decline, so you
wouldn't burn any blood and skip that part. If you don't control a
ready titled vampire, you risk having all your blood burnt.
Previously it was determined that the gain pool part just ends if the
Ishtarri runs out of blood. The "vampires voting against burn 2 blood"
will still apply, so it can still be useful for an Ishtarri with little
blood to play it.
Lots of strategy and headgames with this card, I love it. The real
trick is to stack it in your favor every time.
Later,
~Rehlow
Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> Igoli's Loyalty
>
> Action modifier
> Requires Ishtarri
> Costs 1 blood
>
> Only usable during a referendum, before
> votes are cast.
> Starting with your prey and going clockwise,
> each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires
> may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
> votes in favor for 1 pool. Each time a
> Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
> to add 1 pool to that amount. Continue until a
> Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> a blood. When the votes are tallied, each
> campire voting against this referendum burnd
> 2 blood.
Nice bit of analysis going on decoding the effect.
To answer/confirm some of the points, here's a
more detailed description of the effects of
Igoli's Loyaly:
Key points:
It goes around. The acting Methuselah gets a
chance to accept the pool once others have
declined. And it can go around more than once.
The Methuselah who accepts changes all of
her vampires' "alignment" to "in favor".
Any votes they have are cast in favor
(once polling begins).
Votes cannot be changed, per the normal rules
or referendums, except by cards and effects
which excplictly change (or cancel) them.
Pool loss for voting against occurs when the
results are tallied.
Detailed description:
Methuselah A has one of her ready Ishtarri, Adam,
call a political action. A sets the terms and
plays Igoli's Loyalty (Adam burns a blood to pay
the cost of the card).
If A's prey has any ready titled vampires, then
she has an opportunity here. If not, skip ahead
to the next Methuselah. Continue until a Methuselah
with a ready titled vampire is found.
When a Methuselah has the opportunity (as
described above), then she may either accept
and gain the specified amount of pool or decline
and let the acting Istarri burn another pool
to increase the amount.
This continues, possibly coming back around to
A again and even going again to the prey and on
around, until either a Methuselah accepts or a
Methuelah declines and Adam is empty and cannot
burn a blood.
Either way, the part about vampires who vote
against burning two blood still applies.
If no Methuselah accepts, then the referendum
is conducted as normal (with the additional
blood loss for dissenters).
If a Methuselah accepts, then the referendum
is conducted as normal and all her vampires
are "in favor" of the referendum. Each of her
vampires votes all of his votes in favor
of the referendum, including any votes that
he gains during the course of the referendum.
The vampires are not obliged to gain any
optional votes (lke Sundown's ability to burn
a blood to gain a vote), but any votes they
have are cast in favor.
The vampires' votes can be canceled or
changed by explict card text (e.g., Kindred
Coercion), as normal. This will not have
any effect on the pool that the controller
had already gained.
Exceptional cases:
If there are no ready titled vampires in
play, then no opportunities arise to either
accept or decline the offer, so that portion
of the card is lost -- no blood is burned
beyond the cost of the card and no pool is
gained by any Methuselah. The part about
vampires who vote against burning two blood
still applies.
If the acting Methuselah is the only
Methuselah with ready titled vampires, then
she may pass as many times as she likes,
letting the pool reward go up at the
expense of the acting Ishtarri's blood,
until she eventually accepts. In this
case, the card works something like a
Minion Tap at the start of the referndum
(with a blood-loss penalty for dissenters
tacked on).
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
> When a Methuselah has the opportunity (as
> described above), then she may either accept
> and gain the specified amount of pool or decline
> and let the acting Istarri burn another pool
> to increase the amount.
Of course when you stated Istarri burn another pool you meant Istarri
burn another blood...
Just some precisions.
My vampire Adam call a vote and play IL. My prey, with a camarilla
prince and Michael Luther, vote in my favor with all his vote (the 2
votes of his prince) and gain the pool. After, Michael luther tap
himself to change the vote of the prince controlled by the same player.
Does this player have to vote in favor (and respect the text of IL), or
can he vote differently? If he vote against with M.L., what happends of
IL?
A vampire controlled by another player use delaying tacticts, is the
pool gained?
SEB wrote:
> Just some precisions.
>
> My vampire Adam call a vote and play IL. My prey, with a camarilla
> prince and Michael Luther, vote in my favor with all his vote (the 2
> votes of his prince) and gain the pool. After, Michael luther tap
> himself to change the vote of the prince controlled by the same player.
> Does this player have to vote in favor (and respect the text of IL), or
> can he vote differently? If he vote against with M.L., what happends of
> IL?
Both are as answered in the previous post.
The individual vampires' votes can be changed by explicit card text
(such as Luthor's) as normal.
If the vampire's votes are changed, IL continues. The pool has
already been paid (and won't be taken back).
> A vampire controlled by another player use delaying tacticts, is the
> pool gained?
The pool has already been gained at the point of acceptance,
as per the previous post.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> > Igoli's Loyalty
> >
> > Action modifier
> > Requires Ishtarri
> > Costs 1 blood
> >
> > Only usable during a referendum, before
> > votes are cast.
> > Starting with your prey and going clockwise,
> > each Methuselah with any ready titled vampires
> > may elect to cast all of his or her vampires'
> > votes in favor for 1 pool. Each time a
> > Methuselah declines, this Ishtarri burns 1 blood
> > to add 1 pool to that amount. Continue until a
> > Methuselah accepts or this Ishtarri fails to burn
> > a blood. When the votes are tallied, each
> > campire voting against this referendum burnd
> > 2 blood.
>
> Nice bit of analysis going on decoding the effect.
And thank you for the excellent, point-by-point explanation of the
card. It was very helpful.
So, now to test my understanding.
If a Methuselah controls a titled vampire that is prohibited from
voting in the referendum, may that Methuselah accept the offer, or must
he decline? I would say he must decline.
If that is that Methuselah's only titled vampire, does the effect skip
over that Methuselah, or no? I would say no.
Emmit Svenson wrote:
> If a Methuselah controls a titled vampire that is prohibited from
> voting in the referendum, may that Methuselah accept the offer, or must
> he decline? I would say he must decline.
She may accept.
The vampire in question will still be prohibited from casting votes, of
course.
Similarly, if one of her titled vampires is in torpor (and therefore
unable to cast votes), she may accept.
> If that is that Methuselah's only titled vampire, does the effect skip
> over that Methuselah, or no? I would say no.
"No" is correct.
LSJ wrote:
> Emmit Svenson wrote:
> > If a Methuselah controls a titled vampire that is prohibited from
> > voting in the referendum, may that Methuselah accept the offer, or must
> > he decline? I would say he must decline.
>
> She may accept.
> The vampire in question will still be prohibited from casting votes, of
> course.
> Similarly, if one of her titled vampires is in torpor (and therefore
> unable to cast votes), she may accept.
That means a Methuselah can "elect to cast votes in favor" even if all
of his vampires are prohibited from voting, and still gain the pool?
Weird.
> > If that is that Methuselah's only titled vampire, does the effect skip
> > over that Methuselah, or no? I would say no.
> "No" is correct.
That I can understand, but I don't see why a Methuselah would be
elligible for an offer he can't fulfill.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo, striving to understand the full implications of
this card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Whether or not the Methuselah can fulfill the offer is not absolutely
determinable when accepting the offer.
For instance, I might play Igoli's Loyalty with my Sabbat Cardinal
Ishtarri.
My prey, who controls a Prince, agrees to vote for it and takes the
pool.
Now that IL is resolved, I elect to play a Private Audience and lock
his voter out of the actual voting.
In this case, I wouldn't go back and take the pool back from him for
failing to be able to provide votes - he is still fulfilling his end of
the bargain (agreeing to vote in favor with all his vampire's votes).
IL's offer is 'do you agree to do this thing when we get to casting
votes', not '..and you have to be able to do this thing' (beyond 'do
you have a titled vamp right now.) Think of it as 'I agree to have my
minions try their best to support you' - it's not his fault if 'their
best' is not very effective due to other effects.
> best,
>
> Fabio "Sooner" Macedo, striving to understand the full implications of
> this card.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy wrote:
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Emmit Svenson wrote:
> > > > If a Methuselah controls a titled vampire that is prohibited from
> > > > voting in the referendum, may that Methuselah accept the offer, or must
> > > > he decline? I would say he must decline.
>> For instance, I might play Igoli's Loyalty with my Sabbat Cardinal
> Ishtarri.
> My prey, who controls a Prince, agrees to vote for it and takes the
> pool.
> Now that IL is resolved, I elect to play a Private Audience and lock
> his voter out of the actual voting.
>
> In this case, I wouldn't go back and take the pool back from him for
> failing to be able to provide votes - he is still fulfilling his end of
> the bargain (agreeing to vote in favor with all his vampire's votes).
Clearly true from what LSJ said. My question was regarding the opposite
order of play--if the Private Audience was played, prohibiting the
Prince from voting, before the IL. I thought that would prohibit the
Meth from accepting the offer. But apparently the Meth can agree to
cast all his votes in favor even though he is already prohibited from
casting all his votes in favor. Slightly counterintuitive IMHO, but no
big deal.
> Clearly true from what LSJ said. My question was regarding the opposite
> order of play--if the Private Audience was played, prohibiting the
> Prince from voting, before the IL. I thought that would prohibit the
> Meth from accepting the offer. But apparently the Meth can agree to
> cast all his votes in favor even though he is already prohibited from
> casting all his votes in favor. Slightly counterintuitive IMHO, but no
> big deal.
I'm guessing the main reason for this was one of three things, or
possibly a combination:
1) The designers just didn't think of it.
2) It's so cornercase that it hardly matters, and nothing especially
weird or broken happens to the game (unlike say animate dead on
worldgorger dragon in that other game).
3) The text is already rather long and complicated, and additional
sentence along the lines of "If none of that Methuselahs titled
vampires are eligible to vote in the referendum, that Methuselah must
decline" would just make matters worse.
All in all, I really like this card. It's cool and flavorful,
potentially very powerful, and it seems like the kind of thing that
could make referendums more like Richard Garfield wanted them to be,
with lots of deal making and bargaining for votes/pool, and people
having to weigh positive and negative outcomes of the vote passing.
Kind of like bribes+scorn of adonis+steroids.
The one problem with the card is that if you yourself don't have a
titled vampire out, it would be extremely dangerous to play it. If
only one other meth has a title ready, that meth could do exactly the
same thing you can in the same scenario, and drain all the blood off
your vampire for him/herself. Alternatively, 2 or more meths could
bargain to let the effect pass around the table a few times, with
equally devestating effect. So I guess this card won't end up being
very popular in decks without titles, though given its positive uses,
this would probably be the case anyhow.
CthuluKitty wrote:
>>Clearly true from what LSJ said. My question was regarding the opposite
>>order of play--if the Private Audience was played, prohibiting the
>>Prince from voting, before the IL. I thought that would prohibit the
>>Meth from accepting the offer. But apparently the Meth can agree to
>>cast all his votes in favor even though he is already prohibited from
>>casting all his votes in favor. Slightly counterintuitive IMHO, but no
>>big deal.>
> I'm guessing the main reason for this was one of three things, or
> possibly a combination:
> 1) The designers just didn't think of it.
> 2) It's so cornercase that it hardly matters, and nothing especially
> weird or broken happens to the game (unlike say animate dead on
> worldgorger dragon in that other game).
> 3) The text is already rather long and complicated, and additional
> sentence along the lines of "If none of that Methuselahs titled
> vampires are eligible to vote in the referendum, that Methuselah must
> decline" would just make matters worse.
or
4) It was thought of and the desired effect was implemented using
the wording as you see it in the preview.
Counterintuitive or no (is it really intuitive that a Methuselah
controlling ready Arika and torpored Smudge would be ineligible?),
it is the effect of card text, and that matches designer intent
in this case.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>or
>>4) It was thought of and the desired effect was implemented using
>>the wording as you see it in the preview.>>Counterintuitive or no (is it really intuitive that a Methuselah
>>controlling ready Arika and torpored Smudge would be ineligible?),
>>it is the effect of card text, and that matches designer intent
>>in this case.
Oh, I definitely was not disputing that, and I think the current
wording is fine. In any case, the example above doesn't address the
scenario that people are questioning, which is when a player controls
ready titled vampires, but none of them are able to vote in the
referendum. I guess the bizarre interaction is that such vampires will
be under 2 contradictory effects at the same time: vampire MUST do X
and vampire CANNOT do X. This is conceptually strange perhaps, but
doesn't cause any actual glitches in the rules.
CthuluKitty wrote:
> Oh, I definitely was not disputing that, and I think the current
> wording is fine. In any case, the example above doesn't address the
> scenario that people are questioning, which is when a player controls
> ready titled vampires, but none of them are able to vote in the
> referendum. I guess the bizarre interaction is that such vampires will
> be under 2 contradictory effects at the same time: vampire MUST do X
> and vampire CANNOT do X. This is conceptually strange perhaps, but
> doesn't cause any actual glitches in the rules.
What is the difference between all cannot vote (not all can) and "only
some" cannot vote (not all can) when attempting to analyze the wording "may
elect to cast all of his or her vampires' votes in favor" ?
The fact that they are the same under that analysis is why I keep
bringing it up as a parallel. The vampire MUST do X and vampire CANNOT
do X. I keep bringing up the torpor example to help illustrate why the
Closed Session example's ruling follows from card text.
You can also Spirit Marionette a vampire who cannot bleed, for
example.
[ quoted text not captured ]