As I see there is some work going on to fix the rulebook. Guys don't want to introduce fundamental changes and even lolz ones (make first strike work against combat ends/dodges, turn life of allyes into blood e t.s.) but there is, I think, one aspect which can be fixed without breaking any "sacred oathes" - referendums.
Main goal is to reduce time, which takes for referendum to resolve when there are several partisipants. Obviously it can be "worked around" by putting negotiations before actually casting the votes, but structure will give players "in the end of queue" option to force guys in the beginning to make desicion.
So the proposed order for succesful political action is:
1. setting the terms
2. playing "before votes are cast" cards
3. casting votes:
Metusela has at once choose for each his sorce of the votes is it for/against or abstains in following order:
- acting
- his prey
- predator
- grandpray
- grandpredator
4. playing "during the referendum" cards
5. counting votes/resolving the referendum
6. cards that depend on the outcome of a referendum may be played
I may try to do this at our local games to see how it'll go, but it's, obviously, not a representative field.
And what society thinks about this?
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> As I see there is some work going on to fix the rulebook. Guys don't want to introduce fundamental changes and even lolz ones (make first strike work against combat ends/dodges, turn life of allyes into blood e t.s.) but there is, I think, one aspect which can be fixed without breaking any "sacred oathes" - referendums.
>
> Main goal is to reduce time, which takes for referendum to resolve when there are several partisipants. Obviously it can be "worked around" by putting negotiations before actually casting the votes, but structure will give players "in the end of queue" option to force guys in the beginning to make desicion.
>
> So the proposed order for succesful political action is:
> 1. setting the terms
> 2. playing "before votes are cast" cards
> 3. casting votes:
> Metusela has at once choose for each his sorce of the votes is it for/against or abstains in following order:
> - acting
> - his prey
> - predator
> - grandpray
> - grandpredator
> 4. playing "during the referendum" cards
> 5. counting votes/resolving the referendum
> 6. cards that depend on the outcome of a referendum may be played
>
> I may try to do this at our local games to see how it'll go, but it's, obviously, not a representative field.
>
> And what society thinks about this?
>
Casting votes doesn't take time. Negociations are the lengthy part, and your proposal changes nothing
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Well... I fail to see a description of the problem that is supposed to be fixed.
In my opinion, voting currently works fine...
"It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality"
---
Hardy Range
Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager
> hardyrange wrote:
> Well... I fail to see a description of the problem that is supposed to be fixed.
> In my opinion, voting currently works fine...
>
But it's stated right in the message...
Main goal is to reduce time, which takes for referendum to resolve when there are several partisipants.
elotar believes that referendums (sometimes) take a long time to handle, and apparently thinks that formalizing the order in which votes are cast would help that.
Some referendums cam take an extremely long to handle, if you find yourself with several vote decks / decks with lots of standing votes. But formalizing the order in which votes are cast doesn't affect that in any way.
Only issue is deadlocks:
A: "I'm not voting until B votes"
B: "I'm not voting until A votes"
C: "JUDGE!"
And the judge artificially creates the rule elotar seems to wish for.
Is that it?
> Brum wrote:
> Only issue is deadlocks:
> A: "I'm not voting until B votes"
> B: "I'm not voting until A votes"
>
> C: "JUDGE!"
>
> And the judge artificially creates the rule elotar seems to wish for.
> Is that it?
>
If you're having trouble getting people to cast their votes, it might be better invoke the time limit from the rulebook:
The polling stage is completed only when all Methuselahs are finished casting votes and ballots (if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds after the last vote or ballot cast to close the polling stage).
In any event, the current tally of votes says that the vote is passing or failing. If either A or B want to cause it to pass when it's failling, or fail when it's passing, they'll need to cast their votes somehow.
But, in my experience, the bigger issue usually comes when people are setting terms and other Methuselahs are saying "If you don't set the terms in a way I like, I'll vote it down." Or, if there are good intercept decks on the table (especially with Eagle's Sight/Falcon's Eye) threatening to block it in the first place, though that obviously wouldn't be affected by a change to the referendum.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Brum wrote:
> > Only issue is deadlocks:
> > A: "I'm not voting until B votes"
> > B: "I'm not voting until A votes"
> >
> > C: "JUDGE!"
> >
> > And the judge artificially creates the rule elotar seems to wish for.
> > Is that it?
> >
> In any event, the current tally of votes says that the vote is passing or failing. If either A or B want to cause it to pass when it's failling, or fail when it's passing, they'll need to cast their votes somehow.
>
> But, in my experience, the bigger issue usually comes when people are setting terms and other Methuselahs are saying "If you don't set the terms in a way I like, I'll vote it down." Or, if there are good intercept decks on the table (especially with Eagle's Sight/Falcon's Eye) threatening to block it in the first place, though that obviously wouldn't be affected by a change to the referendum.
>
Exactly. There are no deadlock situation currently.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Exactly. There are no deadlock situation currently.
>
OK. I think the point is closed, unswer recieved, rulebook changes are not needed. Thanks for everybody for participation.
NC Russia
I think table talk is the issue here? I love it, but there has to be a point where it comes under control somehow. It used to be under original rules that the acting player could poll people in any order he wished. That is one option. Another might be to simply allow the acting player to close the voting stage whenever they wish, using the 15 second rule.
Allowing one or more nonacting players to indefinitely stall things because they dont like whats going on and are threatening to withhold their votes while they complain or cajole others to vote with them definitely can be an issue.
Bottom line, does the current 'rule' of acting player keeping the game action going forward work in general or break down when it comes to voting? Im not sure.
> talonz wrote:
> Allowing one or more nonacting players to indefinitely stall things because they dont like whats going on and are threatening to withhold their votes while they complain or cajole others to vote with them definitely can be an issue.
>
If it's clear that the relevant player is just wasting time - as you say, to "indefinitely stall things" - then there are already tournament rules against slow play and stalling.
Nor can a player reasonably threaten to "withhold" their votes during polling. Players aren't required to cast votes. No vampire is required to cast its vote. In the general case, a vampire is either voting for, voting against, or simply currently not voting. There isn't a stage where a vampire definitely commits to abstaining (a few effects can force them to - that's a different thing). So if you go round the table and no-one is minded to cast any more of their votes, you can close the polling step.
Additionally, in the sort of situation where you want to hector someone into cooperating with you so are hoping they'll vote the way you want, that typically means that the other players also has some votes and the casting of those votes matters to you. Like, together, you and I, we can vote this down, but only if my Stanislava votes against. If I really want to stop you pestering me to vote against, I can just vote the other way to end the point of it.
But as I said, the majority of this sort of problem doesn't, in my experience, happen during polling, it happens during the "fake" polling that happens when setting terms (or possibly deciding block attempts). If you set the terms this way, I'll do this. If you set the terms this other way, Lou will try to vote it down, and do we have enough votes to outvote Lou? If you set the terms this way, Lou will vote in favour but Joey will vote against, and while Joey doesn't have that many votes on the table, there are a couple of copies of Army of Apparitions in Joey's ash heap, and that would mean... But if you set the terms the original way, then I'll do this - and I'll help you next turn. And so on.
None of this is helped by additional formalities for the polling step. In general, I've always found the polling step is way less exciting. Usually everyone just does what's expected, or reveals a surprise ("Ha! Vox Domini." or a backstab or whatever).
By the way, if this thread was necroed anyway, will share an idea.
Change political subsystem into something, where votes are generated at some point once in a turn and can be spend on political actions in some ratio (4 votes - 1 action). Leftover votes will stay till next turn or can be used to burn other people votes.
It will, maybe(!) shorten discussions about where to put votes.
No way it will be implemented, obviously, but need to take it out of my head.
NC Russia
James, when I say stall I didn't mean 'stall for time because Im winning' but rather 'stalling (the game) because I want to complain and weedle others towards my position even though they have already declined'.
Yes, most discussion happens prepolitical action. What I am after is what are people's experiences in dealing with the above? Sure people can abstain. but what guideline is there for the acting minion to simply say 'enough table talk, the vote passes'?
To draw a comparison, when I am acting and I ask for reactions, how long must I wait for other players to consider playing their reaction?
Bottomline, I love tabletalk (and it most frequently occurs during PAs) but I think tabletalk is a big factor in timed out games and there is no real limitation on it at this time.