Card: Internal Affairs

Internal Affairs Action Modifier Requires a titled vampire. Not usable on a political action that targets another Methuselah, their cards or their pool. Vampires that do not have the same sect as this acting vampire cannot cast votes in this referendum. Idea: To replace Closed Session and Private Audience, while providing one for Independents and Laibons. Balance: Works on anything that doesn't target anyone else (so KRC is out...) Checks the acting Sect. Doesnt' work fully for Anarchs (Anarchs are Indies, so the other Indies get a say) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

"target" has one definition in this game (used for actions). Would Reins of Power 'target' everyone? Would Domain Challenge 'target' the guy with no tapped minion? Would First Tradition 'target' everyone ?

@Pascal: Target, for actions, is if it chooses the player, their cards or their pool. So, to the questions you had: Reins of Power does target every Methuselah. Reins of Power Type: Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains 6 pool. Each Methuselah also burns an amount of pool equal to the capacity of his or her predator's chosen vampire. Only one Reins of Power can be played or called in a game. Domain Challenge does target every Methuselah. Domain Challenge Type: Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each tapped minion he or she controls. First Tradition does NOT target every Methuselah (in the same way that Army of Rats does not target your prey when you take the action). First Tradition: The Masquerade Type: Political Action Requires: prince,justicar Requires a prince or justicar. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each Methuselah must burn 2 pool during his or her untap phase. A Methuselah can choose to skip his or her entire turn. Burn this card when the controller has either skipped 3 turns or burned a total of 6 pool by this effect. So other than the obvious KRC, Parity Shift, Reckless Agitation votes, other political actions that would target other Methuselahs would be (a fairly complete list): - Anarchist Uprising - Anathema - Ancient Influence - Ancilla Empowerment - Autarkis Persecution - Auto-da-fe - Banishment - Blood Siege - Can't Take it With You - Code of Milan Suspended - Command the Harpies - Corruption's Purge - Deploy the Hand - Disputed Territory - Diversity - The Eldest Command Undeath - Exclusion Principle - Excommunication - Fanfare for Elysium - The Final Nights - Finding the Path - Free State's Rant - Hand Intervention - Honor the Elders - Jericho Founding - Justicar Retribution - Kindred Segregation - Kuta (unless it is your own minion) - Lextalionis - Lily Prelude - Mark of the Damned - The Meddling of the Semsith - Might of the Camarilla - My Kin Against the World (unless you choose a minion you do not control) - Neonate Breach - Patsy - The Peace of Khetamon - Peace Treaty - Permanent Vacation - Perpetual Care - Persona Non Grata - Political Stranglehold - Regaining the Upper Hand - Reinforcements - Revolutionary Council - Rumors of Gehenna - Sabbat Threat - Screw the Masquerade - The Secret Must Be Kept - Sweeper (if it is not your minion chosen) - Tithings - Tradition Upheld (unless it is your minion) - Transfer of Power - Treaty of Tyre Enforced - Tribunal Judgement - Trumped-Up Charges - Veles' Hunt - Warrant - Wrath of the Inner Circle - Year of Fortune Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

What sort of political actions do you want to capture with this modifier? How about: Only playable during a referendum in which no choices are required. So, that would capture Anarch Salon, Ancient Influence, Brinksmanship, Autarkis Persecution, Crusades, Dogs of War, Firebrand, Hiding in the Open, Honor the Elders, Praxis Seizures, Transfer of Power, etc. But not Alastor, Anathema, Archon, Auto-da-fe, Banishment, Cardinal Benediction, Free States Rant, Justicars, Templars, etc. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Do bloat decks really need to be stronger?

It currently captures things like: Con Boon Praxis Siezure: XXX Crusade: XXX XXX Justicar Archon Alastor Templar Inquisitor Firebrand Snipe Hunt Political Flux Hiding in the Open Dogs of War National Guard Support Basically those political actions that, on their own, don't interact much with other players but may have big impacts to other players (e.g. National Guard Support, First Trad). @Pullen I'm not sure where you get the idea that this will be able to increase the strength of Bloat Decks. Most of those decks bloating via votes do it through Voter Cap and damaging their prey (e.g. KRCs) and these damaging votes would be excluded from this Action Modifier. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

See, Pascal's point about "target" is quite valid. Your card actually can't be created as written without rejiggering the entire way targets "work" in VTES. That's why I had an alternate proposal. There are only a handful that you want to capture which aren't captured by my wording, and some of those are pretty nice cards to be sure. In fact, part of the choosing is what makes them powerful. Pullen seems to be saying that making it easy to lock other sects out of the voting will make vote push even more powerful, and I think he's right. But, Internal Affairs suffers from the same drawback as Closed Session and Private Audience: You might lock out voting allies just as easily as enemies. Still an interesting idea. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It currently captures things like: > Con Boon > Praxis Siezure: XXX > Crusade: XXX > XXX Justicar > Archon > Alastor > Templar > Inquisitor > Firebrand > Snipe Hunt > Political Flux > Hiding in the Open > Dogs of War > National Guard Support > > Basically those political actions that, on their own, don't interact much with other players but may have big impacts to other players (e.g. National Guard Support, First Trad). > > @Pullen > I'm not sure where you get the idea that this will be able to increase the strength of Bloat Decks. Most of those decks bloating via votes do it through Voter Cap and damaging their prey (e.g. KRCs) and these damaging votes would be excluded from this Action Modifier. > When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

The current definition of "target" as used in actions can be directly transported into referendums with no real effort. When you declare an action, you must declare the target of that action. If that action chooses anything controlled by another Methuselah (e.g. a card under their control, in torpor/hospital, in hand, in their uncontrolled region or their pool or the player/Meth directly) 'targets' that Methuselah. By extension, you can easily determine that a Methuselah (directly or indirectly) is being targeted in terms of a referendum. That is, you are declaring in the terms of the referendum a card under a Methuselah's control, in torpor/hospital, in hand, in the uncontrolled region, a Methuselah's pool or the Methuselah directly then the terms of the referendum target another Methuselah. Also by extension, if you are targeting yourself only the terms of the referendum are undirected and not 'targeting' a Methuselah. So, in response to Pascals questions, I directly responded to his three and then listed as many political actions as I could find that would be those that 'target' another Methuselah as part of their terms. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Or you just word it similar to Yoruba Shrine.

That's quite messy. Think of it this way: A Methuselah with no minions would be 'targetted' by Domain Challenge / Anarchist Uprising? How does that make any sense? A Methuselah with no vampire and no uncontrolled area would be 'targetted' by Honor the Elders? what about a Methuselah with 1 uncontrolled vampire? Would he only become 'targetted' when the referendum succeeds?

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Not usable on a political action that targets another Methuselah, their cards or their pool. > Target is the wrong term to use. For example, if we now say that Banishment 'targets' a vampire, then that vampire can use Chanjelin Ward to fail the action (currently not possible [LSJ 20011219] ), Secure Haven grants immunity to being chosen, and so on. So, that wording is a bad avenue to go down. However, it's reasonably easy to get something close to the effect you want: Play on a referendum after terms are set but before votes are cast. Not usable if the terms choose another Methusela, or a card controlled by another Methuselah, or if applying the terms will cause another Methuselah to gain or lose pool.

@James: I am not attempting to change political actions into directed actions. I am attempting to say that " Actions are actions that target something (and indirectly target a Methuselah that controls the targeted something) and within the terms of a referendum you often must target, by choosing, something (and indirectly the Methuselah controlling that chosen thing)." I don't mind rewording it so that it instead read "Must be played after terms are declared but before any votes are cast. Only playable if the terms of this referendum do not target another Methuselah or any card not controlled by you." So I am suggesting that "target" should now be independent of an action; so actions would target something (e.g.s Bleeds target a Methuselah, Deflection changes the target of that action. Bum's Rush is a action targeting a minion of a Methuselah.) At any rate, Political Actions resolve into Referendums/Referenda (and those Referendums/Referenda then have their own resolution based on their terms) so a Political Action is undirected since all it does is establish the Referendum. Chanjelin Ward vs Banishment would not be affected since it is an undirected action (Political Action) where the terms of the referendum target a Kiasyd with Chanjelin Ward. LSJ20011219 would still hold. The action is undirected and cannot be 'failed' by Chanjelin Ward, the Terms of the Referendum target the Kiasyd and not the action itself. Ditto for Secure Haven, the action does not target them (it created a referendum) but the Terms of the Referendum do. So I am not attempting to extend "targets of actions" but to take the obvious definition of target (e.g. something aimed for or chosen to be subject to something) which is currently only defined in relation to actions and apply it to the TERMS of a REFERENDUM. @Pascal: It's actually really easy. Far less mess than you seem to believe. Here are some simple definitions. Target: The target of an action or referendum is the card/s or player/s which would be subject to the resolution of the current action or referendum. Choosing a target as part of a referendum does not make a Political Action a directed action. Directed Actions: Actions which target a card/s controlled by another player or another player directly (e.g. bleed actions). "Each Methuselah" becomes equivalent to "Target every Methuselah". The REFERENDUM'S terms state that the Methuselah is chosen (and is therefore the target) and the EFFECT of that referendum involves XYZ. So in the case of Domain Challenge: The target of the referendum of Domain Challenge is every player. The effect of the referendum is to make them burn 1 pool for every tapped minion. Domain Challenge Type: Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each tapped minion he or she controls. Ditto for Anarchist Uprising Anarchist Uprising Type: Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each minion he or she controls. Honor the Elders: The 'terms' of Honor the Elders is to give 1 blood to all vampires ready and uncontrolled of capacity 8 or more. 1. The Methuselah with no vampires able to meet the criteria of Honor the Elders (e.g. no vamps >7 ready or uncontrolled) then that Methuselah would NOT be targeted by Honor the Elders. None of their cards have been chosen by Honor the Elders. 2. Any Methuselah that does have at least 1 vampire that meets the terms of Honor the Elders, then that Methuselah is targeted because one or more of their vampires is targeted by the terms of Honor the Elders. Honor the Elders Type: Political Action Successful referendum means each ready vampire with capacity of 8 or more gains 1 blood from the blood bank, and each vampire with capacity of 8 or more in any uncontrolled region gains 1 blood from the blood bank. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Well, it seem pretty messy anyhow. A lot of additional complication for a limited card.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > @James: > I am not attempting to change political actions into directed actions. > Then the simplest answer is to stop using the terminology of directed actions. You can have the effect you want without using the term "target", where "target" already has a specific meaning. Why is it so pants-wettingly crucial that you must use the word target, even though other similar effects don't - Yoruba Shrine and Promise of 1528? The term "target" clearly causes confusion. Other wordings don't, and are more consistent with existing cards. Why are you so utterly convinced that target is the right term, when it overwhelmingly isn't? > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > @Pascal: > It's actually really easy. Far less mess than you seem to believe. > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Ha. Haha.

@Ohlmann: It would be more simple if I didn't have to justify everything about every possible OTHER card and placate James' fears that Chanjelin Ward would suddenly change and that doing this would create political actions. Or Pascal's issue with "Who is being targeted?" when I have previously had discussions with LSJ about the idea of targets. @James: Why are you so overwhelmingly against using existing plain-English terminology used in VTES in more general and modular way? Why is it that there must exist a specific term for everything on its own rather than applying the existing ideas to new scenarios? Each time I have suggested something that would create a GENERAL idea that can be applied in SPECIFIC situations, you always argue "But there already exists this Specific Idea..." Why are you so focussed on narrow readings of all situations/cards? Your insistence on bringing up specific examples as a 'rebuttal' without taking what I have written and actually applying it yourself makes this whole thing appear more confusing than it actually is. So yes, TARGET is easy to define in an expanded version to cover previous LSJ rulings (See Rulebook 1.6.1.4 for the original definition, the CRR has no separate definition and there has already been a hierarchy of 'target' defined by LSJ). I did write a very simple definition for target (feel free to go back and actually read it) which is based on the rulings that LSJ has given about "What/Who is being targeted?" (No I can't remember where the damned things are, I tend to store this kind of stuff in my memory rather than remembering which Google-Groups discussion from 2+ years ago contained that debate). AND just to allay any of your fears that including a concept of TARGET would suddenly stop Political Actions being undirected, I added in a specific part at the end to exclude it. So the only difference between them would be to effectively add "effect or referendum" into the start Rulebook 1.6.1.4 Warning: Spoiler! Targets. If a card is played on another card, or selects or chooses or otherwise targets another card, the target card must be in play (i.e., controlled). Vampires in the torpor region are eligible targets by default, but vampires in the uncontrolled region and contested cards are not. Proposed Modified Rulebook 1.6.1.4 Warning: Spoiler! Targets. If a card, effect or the terms of a referendum is played on another card, or selects or chooses or otherwise targets another card or player, the target card must be an eligible target (i.e. in play, controlled and/or meet the requirements of the card, effect or referendum terms). Vampires in the uncontrolled region and contested cards cannot be targeted by default. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418