The second vote called after the first passes automatically. What if
that vote is blocked? As it never 'went to vote' would the NEXT vote
successfully called pass automatically?
Or does it satisfy the lobby requirment the minute it is attempted
regardless of whether it is blocked or not?
T
[ quoted text not captured ]
CL says 'next referendum called'. Referenda are called after a successful
political action. If the action is blocked, there is no referendum,
so CL takes no notice.
gomi
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts
[snip]
>
> CL says 'next referendum called'. Referenda are called after a successful
> political action. If the action is blocked, there is no referendum,
> so CL takes no notice.
>
> gomi
Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would charming
lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?
L
Lee Fent wrote:
> Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would charming
> lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
> vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?
"Referendum", yes.
No, since it isn't called by a vampire.
Moot.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C18AEC4...@white-wolf.com...
> Lee Fent wrote:
> > Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would
charming
> > lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
> > vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?
>
> "Referendum", yes.
> No, since it isn't called by a vampire.
> Moot.
andrew style answer : "but a methuselah is technically a vampire !! " ;)
reyda
Reyda wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Lee Fent wrote:
> > > Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would
> charming
> > > lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
> > > vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?
> >
> > "Referendum", yes.
> > No, since it isn't called by a vampire.
> > Moot.
>
> andrew style answer : "but a methuselah is technically a vampire !! " ;)
Now, now. Play nice out there. :-)
Andrew, I believe, plays Buffy (the board game), so he's familiar with the
distinction between master and minion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:13:56 +0100, Reyda wrote:
>andrew style answer : "but a methuselah is technically a vampire !! " ;)
Nice one. It's certainly in the rulebook, "ancient vampires, known as
Methuselahs." "Methuselah: A powerful vampire ..."
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:20:40 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>Andrew, I believe, plays Buffy (the board game), so he's familiar with the
>distinction between master and minion.
The terms used in that game are "villain" and "servant". Either of
these may or may not be vampires and this affects whether they are
damaged if outside at sunrise. The four villains happen to be:
Master - vampire
Judge - demon
Mayor - politician
Adam - cyborg
No Glory, unfortunately. She's a God.
Andrew
>The terms used in that game are "villain" and "servant". Either of
>these may or may not be vampires and this affects whether they are
>damaged if outside at sunrise. The four villains happen to be:
>
>Master - vampire
>Judge - demon
>Mayor - politician
>Adam - cyborg
>
>No Glory, unfortunately. She's a God.
Wasn't the Mayor a demon too? You know, that whole Ascension thingy.
A shame they didn't decide to make Armin Shimerman a villain as well -
"principal."
Halcyan 2
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:36:04 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>Lee Fent wrote:>> Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would charming
>> lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
>> vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?>
>"Referendum", yes.
>No, since it isn't called by a vampire.
>Moot.
Having checked the actual card, that's a ridiculous answer. It reads,
"..then the next vote thereafter passes automatically...". It seems
that, in cleaning up the online text to make it use the word
"referendum" instead of "vote", you've introduced the word "vampire"
for no good reason. To rule that this means that a vote called by a
Methusaleh doesn't count is absurd, especially as a Methusaleh _is_ a
vampire. Someone who commits diablerie when a Charming Lobby is
pending is just asking to be burnt. What's wrong with that?
A newcomer at our club was asking me last night whether we played
VTES. I told that there were several of us that could and might but
that we generally played other CCG instead (currently W40K, LotR and
Shadowfist). I wouldn't mind playing playing some more games with
Bloodlines but can see a revival rapidly foundering on the rock of
errata, like it did before. There wasn't much wrong with the card
text to start with - why do you want to ruin the game with such
pettifogging restrictions?
Andrew
On 14 Dec 2001 03:31:27 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote:
>Wasn't the Mayor a demon too? You know, that whole Ascension thingy.
He certainly became a demon but that he was his big mistake - he was
much more powerful when he was a invulnerable politician. He seemed
to enjoy himself more too - I just loved that folksy Ronald Reagan
act.
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:36:04 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >Lee Fent wrote:
> >> Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would charming
> >> lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
> >> vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?
> >
> >"Referendum", yes.
> >No, since it isn't called by a vampire.
> >Moot.
>
> Having checked the actual card, that's a ridiculous answer. It reads,
> "..then the next vote thereafter passes automatically...". It seems
> that, in cleaning up the online text to make it use the word
Not "cleaning up" - "changing". Note the use of the errata indicators
(curly braces) instead of the clarification indicators (angle brackets).
> text to start with - why do you want to ruin the game with such
> pettifogging restrictions?
In December 1994, it required 3 actions. The current state represents
a relaxing of the restrictions.
Keep up the hyperbole, though. I can always use the smiles. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:27:31 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
>"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:>>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:36:04 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>>
>> >Lee Fent wrote:
>> >> Is the voting after blood hunt is called a 'referenda' also? Would charming
>> >> lobby kick in at that point, and if so, would it automatically burn the
>> >> vampire, or does the CL controller determine the outcome of the vote?
>> >
>> >"Referendum", yes.
>> >No, since it isn't called by a vampire.
>> >Moot.
>>
>> Having checked the actual card, that's a ridiculous answer. It reads,
>> "..then the next vote thereafter passes automatically...". It seems
>> that, in cleaning up the online text to make it use the word>
He does have a point though, in regards to the endless erratta. It is
frustrating to keep finding cards that are changed but not reprinted.
Even the reprinted ones are frustrating enough.
I would just like to see such card changes kept to an absolute
minimum, as it can and wil ruin a game.
T
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:27:31 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>Not "cleaning up" - "changing". Note the use of the errata indicators
>(curly braces) instead of the clarification indicators (angle brackets).
>>> text to start with - why do you want to ruin the game with such
>> pettifogging restrictions?>
>In December 1994, it required 3 actions. The current state represents
>a relaxing of the restrictions.
I have the most recent printing of Charming Lobby and here's what it
says:
"+1 stealth action. If this action is successful, and the next vote
you call this turn passes, then the next vote thereafter passes
automatically.
<superior> As above, and gain 2 votes for the first vote."
Having read the history of the card, this wording clarifies the
previously confusing Jyhad version and corresponds to the 3-action
ruling you allude to above.
There's nothing broken or unclear about this wording that I can see.
It seems you've just rolled the card back with errata because you
don't happen to like the MRP. The only justification for this seems
to be that the card was "wallpaper". But I thought it was not your
policy to give cards errata for this reason.
Anyway, these flip-flops don't matter so far as the blood hunt issue
is concerned. There's nothing on the card about it being related only
to votes called by vampires or minions and there doesn't need to be.
Andrew