[LSJ] Titles, votes, and Huh?!?

A while ago (a thread going back to mid 2001), Leggy asked about titles and votes. It was said at the time that vampires that have "static votes" (no title but votes) have titles. However, the rulebook seems to have changed in the latest incarnation (no 6.3.4 anymore). 6.3.3 says: "Titled Vampires. For each ready titled vampire a Methuselah controls, she gains extra votes. The number of votes gained depends on the title. A Methuselah gains: 1 vote for each ready primogen or bishop, and 2 votes for each ready prince, archbishop or baron, and 3 votes for each ready justicar or cardinal, and 4 votes for each ready Inner Circle member. Other vampires may have votes (as listed on card text) without holding one of the Camarilla or Sabbat titles listed above. All votes can be used only when the vampire is ready." That last paragraph seems to say that votes with no specific titles (e.g. Synesios) are no longer titles. Is this the correct interpretation? The key effect I am thinking of is becoming an Anarch. Can a vampire with no worded title, but votes (e.g. Synesios) become an Anarch? If so, will the votes held by the vampire become cumulative with another title (e.g. (You guessed it) Fee Stakes). Dave Apologies if this has been asked recently, but I did a Google search and this above thread was the best example, if a bit dated.

>> If so, will the votes held by the vampire become cumulative with >> another title (e.g. (You guessed it) Fee Stakes). > > Moot, but no. Such titles are lost (like any title) when the vampire > gets a new title. I'm guessing that this was the original reason to make those vampires titled. otherwise they could use CI to become sabbat/camarilla and get titles on top of their 'untitled' votes (Amisa, the Ventrue Justicar with 5 votes... hmmmm....) -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:26:37 +0200, hawk_the_demon wrote: >>> If so, will the votes held by the vampire become cumulative with >>> another title (e.g. (You guessed it) Fee Stakes). >> >> Moot, but no. Such titles are lost (like any title) when the vampire >> gets a new title. > > I'm guessing that this was the original reason to make those vampires > titled. otherwise they could use CI to become sabbat/camarilla and get > titles on top of their 'untitled' votes (Amisa, the Ventrue Justicar > with 5 votes... hmmmm....) Would have been nice if they had some titles (cf Konstantin: Baro -though he doesn't have any votes) - not to replace the "x votes" text but as well for flavour.

Can somebody repost the response - I'm using Google and it's missing a few messages in the thread. Cheers. On the assumption that LSJ will say "vampires with static starting votes ARE considered Titled", can the rulebook be changed ASAP since it seems to contradict this nowadays, and any other player who is NOT a regular of the newsgroup would never know this at all. I spent a fair bit of time looking for this info on the WW site and there is no evidence of this ruling, and 6.3.4 is definitely not there in the online rulebook anymore. Of course, if he says "Synesios (et al) are not titled any more" I'll be stoked - Trujah Anarch decks here we come (40 Rewind Times and a lot of Blood Gen...) ;) DH

hamdamcwa wrote: > Can somebody repost the response - I'm using Google and it's missing a > few messages in the thread. > > Cheers. > > On the assumption that LSJ will say "vampires with static starting > votes ARE considered Titled", can the rulebook be changed ASAP since > it seems to contradict this nowadays, and any other player who is NOT > a regular of the newsgroup would never know this at all. It is not contradicted in the rulebook. It is stated in the rulebook. [10.3] > I spent a fair bit of time looking for this info on the WW site and > there is no evidence of this ruling, and 6.3.4 is definitely not there > in the online rulebook anymore. When looking for this info, search for "Independent vampire" or "start with votes" or "title". See also "title" in the index of the printed rulebook. -- 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/

On 19 Jun 2003 02:16:08 -0700, dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Last sentence in 10.3 covers this. No rules book change required. Raille

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EF1A573...@white-wolf.com>... > hamdamcwa wrote: > > Can somebody repost the response - I'm using Google and it's missing a > > few messages in the thread. > > > > Cheers. > > > > On the assumption that LSJ will say "vampires with static starting > > votes ARE considered Titled", can the rulebook be changed ASAP since > > it seems to contradict this nowadays, and any other player who is NOT > > a regular of the newsgroup would never know this at all. > > It is not contradicted in the rulebook. > It is stated in the rulebook. [10.3] Ok, well how about moving all the information about Titled vampires to the same section. The single sentance that clarifies Independant "Titles" can surely be brought forward? It is pretty critical (especially with Anarchs on the landscape) and not currently intuitive. <snip> DH

[ quoted text not captured ] All the information about what it means to be titled and how titles are acquired/lost/handled is currently in the same section (section 10). 6.3.4 was moved to its appropriate place in the rulebook. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dbIf9.391009%24me6.44814%40sccrnsc01 [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EF70C66...@white-wolf.com>... > hamdamcwa wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EF1A573...@white-wolf.com>... > >>hamdamcwa wrote: > >>>On the assumption that LSJ will say "vampires with static starting > >>>votes ARE considered Titled", can the rulebook be changed ASAP since > >>>it seems to contradict this nowadays, and any other player who is NOT > >>>a regular of the newsgroup would never know this at all. > >> > >>It is not contradicted in the rulebook. > >>It is stated in the rulebook. [10.3] > > > > Ok, well how about moving all the information about Titled vampires to > > the same section. The single sentance that clarifies Independant > > "Titles" can surely be brought forward? It is pretty critical > > (especially with Anarchs on the landscape) and not currently > > intuitive. > > All the information about what it means to be titled and how titles are > acquired/lost/handled is currently in the same section (section 10). See, here's where it is down to interpretation. If independant vampires are to be treated as if they had a title, would it not make sense just to put that one sentance that qualifies it (current in 10.3) into the section that lays out the definition of a title. Seriously, we had what seemed like a 2 hour arguement about this last week with my playgroup when someone wanted to play a Free States Rant with Amisa and claimed she still still had 2 votes (It made a difference since she was only just going ot pass it). I knew otherwise, but they thought I was making it up - it had never really come up before. Rule books (Anarchs) were flicked through, and because there is nothing about it in the "Titles" section (6.3) their word (eventually) had to stand. It did not occur to us to look in the "Independant" section. When looking for a clear breakdown of what makes qualifies as a title, you wouldn't. The sentance under the lexicon of votes (something about "other vampires may have votes without titles") seemed to apply. Hence this thread. Now, my playgroup are not stupid (all are well educated and in good jobs, etc). We are, however, busy people who like V:TES, and don't have time to search all the way through a rulebook. We like things arranged sensibly. It would not hurt, surely, to move one sentance from the arse end of the book to where it would probably be more relevant. If a vampire is being "treated as if it has a title", it does, to all intents and purposes, have a title. Are there any examples of where "treated as if..." titles have any benefit / detriment to a "real" title? Not that I can think of. Sure, there aren't any "only playable by an independant who has votes" cards I can think of, but that's pretty much it. So if they are effectively titled, mention it in the "Titles" section. If nothing else, the fact that Indies with votes are not untitled needs to be qualified in capitals for new players, since they are going to see a lot of Anarch stuff at the moment. > 6.3.4 was moved to its appropriate place in the rulebook. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dbIf9.391009%24me6.44814%40sccrnsc01 Yeah, great. I'm banging on about this because I feel strongly you should change it, mainly becuase it wasted a goodly time of my evening last week, and I suspect others may have similar rucks with the holding of titles becoming ever more important, and the number of titles growing with each expansion. Regards DH

hamdamcwa wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EF70C66...@white-wolf.com>... >>hamdamcwa wrote: >>>Ok, well how about moving all the information about Titled vampires to >>>the same section. The single sentance that clarifies Independant >>>"Titles" can surely be brought forward? It is pretty critical >>>(especially with Anarchs on the landscape) and not currently >>>intuitive. >> >>All the information about what it means to be titled and how titles are >>acquired/lost/handled is currently in the same section (section 10). > > See, here's where it is down to interpretation. If independant > vampires are to be treated as if they had a title, would it not make > sense just to put that one sentance that qualifies it (current in > 10.3) into the section that lays out the definition of a title. Yes. That's why it is there. > Seriously, we had what seemed like a 2 hour arguement about this last > week with my playgroup when someone wanted to play a Free States Rant > with Amisa and claimed she still still had 2 votes (It made a > difference since she was only just going ot pass it). I knew > otherwise, but they thought I was making it up - it had never really > come up before. Rule books (Anarchs) were flicked through, and because > there is nothing about it in the "Titles" section (6.3) their word 6.3 is not the titles section. It is the politics section. It contains a section on voting (as related to politics)- section 6.3.3, which in turn contains a bullet item about titles (as related to voting). But that is not to say that 6.3 is the titles section. If you wish to find information about titles in the rulebook, look up titles in the index. > (eventually) had to stand. It did not occur to us to look in the > "Independant" section. When looking for a clear breakdown of what > makes qualifies as a title, you wouldn't. The sentance under the How does 6.3 give a clear breakdown of "Prince" and who can have or use that title and when that title is lost? > lexicon of votes (something about "other vampires may have votes > without titles") seemed to apply. Hence this thread. > > Now, my playgroup are not stupid (all are well educated and in good > jobs, etc). We are, however, busy people who like V:TES, and don't > have time to search all the way through a rulebook. We like things That's where the index comes in. > arranged sensibly. It would not hurt, surely, to move one sentance They are arranged sensibly. > from the arse end of the book to where it would probably be more > relevant. It was moved from it's inappropriate place in the rulebook to 10.3, where it is more relevant. > If a vampire is being "treated as if it has a title", it does, to all > intents and purposes, have a title. Are there any examples of where > "treated as if..." titles have any benefit / detriment to a "real" > title? Not that I can think of. Sure, there aren't any "only playable > by an independant who has votes" cards I can think of, but that's > pretty much it. So if they are effectively titled, mention it in the > "Titles" section. 10 is the closest thing the rulebook has to a titles section, since that is the section where all the titles are. > Yeah, great. I'm banging on about this because I feel strongly you > should change it, mainly becuase it wasted a goodly time of my evening > last week, and I suspect others may have similar rucks with the > holding of titles becoming ever more important, and the number of > titles growing with each expansion. I appreciate your fervor. The text was moved in response to such comments in the first place. In the absence of a good reason to undo that reasonable improvement to the rulebook, however, simply "banging on" won't have much effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > Yeah, great. I'm banging on about this because I feel strongly you > > should change it, mainly becuase it wasted a goodly time of my evening > > last week, and I suspect others may have similar rucks with the > > holding of titles becoming ever more important, and the number of > > titles growing with each expansion. > > I appreciate your fervor. > The text was moved in response to such comments in the first place. > In the absence of a good reason to undo that reasonable improvement > to the rulebook, however, simply "banging on" won't have much effect. OK. Point taken. Using the Index in future. <descends from soapbox> Thanks for the responses. ;) DH