Validity of ruling on Bribes vs. Priscus Subreferendum

Hello. Just wanted to confirm if LSJ's ruling in 1997 still applies. > 4) If the Prisci subvote is in favor of the main vote, then every Priscus > is considered to have voted in favor. If the Prisci subvote is against the > main vote, then every Priscus is considered to have voted against. It > doesn't matter whether any given Priscus voted for or against the subvote, > or abstained. > > For example, if the Prisci subvote is against the main vote and Bribes > is played, nobody who controls any Prisci other than the acting player can > collect pool as a result of Bribes. > Is this still correct today? A reading of Bribes' updated card text does not seem to say so. Relevant text: Bribes Only usable during a referendum before votes {and ballots} are cast. Gain 1 pool. Any other Methuselah who {casts one or more votes or ballots} in favor of and does not {cast votes nor ballots} against the referendum gains 1 pool when the results of the referendum are tallied. Advocate of Good-looking Deck Posts pulledfangs.blogspot.com :vtes: Manila V:tES

The ruling you give was reversed some time ago: [RTR 20000501] . > > LSJ wrote: > An individual Priscus is not tainted by the result of the Prisci > sub-referendum. (This only matters for cards like Bribes and Scorn > of Adonis that care which way individual minions voted.) A Priscus > is considered to have voted "for" or "against" (or to have > abstained from) the main referendum based on how he cast his > vote(s) in the sub-referendum, regardless of the result of that > sub-referendum. For example, if the Prisci sub-referendum is for > the main referendum and Scorn of Adonis was played, the controller > of a Priscus who voted against the sub-referendum would still > lose a pool as a result of Scorn of Adonis. This is a reversal of > a previous ruling. > So, no, the 1997 ruling on Bribes vs Priscus is not correct (and hasn't been for 11 years). Bribes was updated to mirror the latest ruling from the Rules Team.