Somebody posted earlier suggesting telepathic tracking bypasses S:CE. Why
is this the case? Doesn't telepathic tracking say something like play if
combat is about to end due to lack of presses to continue? Doesn't combat
just end if S:CE is played?
Thalles
"Thalles de Mello" <tha...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.3.96.100123...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, not exactly - the complete card text in question is
Telepathic Tracking [SW]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Auspex
Press, only usable to continue combat. If another round of combat occurs,
this vampire gets an optional maneuver during that round. (S) Only usable
when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end (with no
uncancelled press to continue). Combat does not end; another round starts.
You seem to have misinterpreted the text of the superior version: Combat
must be about to end, AND there cannot be unresolved presses - but those
presses are NOT required to be the reason for combat ending.
So, yes, Telepathic Tracking does work against Combat Ends effects.
--
Hardy Range
"O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell
and count myself a king of infinite space,
were it not that I have bad dreams."
Hamlet
hardy...@gmx.de
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:03:16 +0100, Hardy Range wrote:
>Telepathic Tracking [SW]
>Cardtype: Combat
>Cost: 1 blood
>Discipline: Auspex
>Press, only usable to continue combat. If another round of combat occurs,
>this vampire gets an optional maneuver during that round. (S) Only usable
>when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end (with no
>uncancelled press to continue). Combat does not end; another round starts.
>
>You seem to have misinterpreted the text of the superior version: Combat
>must be about to end, AND there cannot be unresolved presses - but those
>presses are NOT required to be the reason for combat ending.
>
>So, yes, Telepathic Tracking does work against Combat Ends effects.
The trouble with this is is that Combat Ends is defined as "This
effect ends combat immediately." The word "immediately" indicates
that when it resolves, the combat is over right away, with no time to
play other effects.
But it may be that superior Telepathic Tracking is intended to work as
you describe. If so, it is a reaction before something happens.
There are several of these in Doomtown and they always seem clumsy and
paradoxical (e.g. Stallion). It's much clearer to have reactions
_after_ an event has occurred and make them cancel the event, if
required.
Andrew
a...@csi.com wrote:
> >Telepathic Tracking [SW]> >So, yes, Telepathic Tracking does work against Combat Ends effects.
>
> The trouble with this is is that Combat Ends is defined as "This
> effect ends combat immediately." The word "immediately" indicates
> that when it resolves, the combat is over right away, with no time to
> play other effects.
>
> But it may be that superior Telepathic Tracking is intended to work as
> you describe. If so, it is a reaction before something happens.
> There are several of these in Doomtown and they always seem clumsy and
> paradoxical (e.g. Stallion). It's much clearer to have reactions
> _after_ an event has occurred and make them cancel the event, if
> required.
Combat ends immediately, yes.
And, as per [RTR 20-OCT-2000], end-of-combat effects can be played
when combat ends. Which is a fairly intuitive ruling, IMO, and
not paradoxical at all.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:D3B68E42B99B2B0E.C5839869...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:03:16 +0100, Hardy Range wrote:
>
> >Telepathic Tracking [SW]
> >Cardtype: Combat
> >Cost: 1 blood
> >Discipline: Auspex
> >Press, only usable to continue combat. If another round of combat occurs,
> >this vampire gets an optional maneuver during that round. (S) Only usable
> >when both combatants are still ready and combat is about to end (with no
> >uncancelled press to continue). Combat does not end; another round
starts.
> >
> >You seem to have misinterpreted the text of the superior version: Combat
> >must be about to end, AND there cannot be unresolved presses - but those
> >presses are NOT required to be the reason for combat ending.
> >
> >So, yes, Telepathic Tracking does work against Combat Ends effects.
>
> The trouble with this is is that Combat Ends is defined as "This
> effect ends combat immediately." The word "immediately" indicates
> that when it resolves, the combat is over right away, with no time to
> play other effects.
Good point...
I still stand by my opinion that Telepathic Tracking does work against
Combat Ends - because that question popped up shortly after release of
sabbat war, and LSJ confirmed this.
But, after checking the rule book, I have to say your opinion seems to have
some merit.
I guess this is one of those timing issues again (and how I hated those when
I made my short foray in the realms of Magic: The Gathering). First, both
combatants play their strike cards. The "This effect ends combat
immediately" part does not kick in right yet - the effect sets off only
during the Resolve Strike phaese of the combat. Then, just _before_ that
comes to pass, i.e still inside the combat, you can play the (combat card)
Telepathic Tracking ("combat is ABOUT to end", which it is). So, "Combat
does not end" - the effect is cancelled altogether.
When you think of TT being played just between the Choose Strike and the
Resolve Strike phases, this makes sense to me...
I agree, though, that these finer points would be quite difficult to explain
to some new player... (Yes, my playgroup just loves me when I start
explaining things like this at length during a game :-) )
> But it may be that superior Telepathic Tracking is intended to work as
> you describe. If so, it is a reaction before something happens.
> There are several of these in Doomtown and they always seem clumsy and
> paradoxical (e.g. Stallion). It's much clearer to have reactions
> _after_ an event has occurred and make them cancel the event, if
> required.
>
> Andrew
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:02:22 GMT, LSJ wrote:
>Combat ends immediately, yes.
>And, as per [RTR 20-OCT-2000], end-of-combat effects can be played
>when combat ends. Which is a fairly intuitive ruling, IMO, and
>not paradoxical at all.
It's no surprise that you find your own rulings to be intuitive.
Anyway, to spell it out, the paradox would be that Telepathic Tracking
(which is presumably an end-of-combat effect) is played when combat
ends (i.e. when Combat Ends has resolved). But then it's too late for
it to have its effect because combat has already ended.
When I got the SW rulebook, I looked through it to see if there were
any general timing rules. There didn't seem to be any general
principles like the LIFO of Shadowfist or dynamic stack of Magic 6th
ed. It's all special cases, right?
As a practical matter, the combat sequence causes most trouble. The
rulebook states that you have three steps: Determine Range, Strike and
Press. But it's really a lot more complicated than that and there
doesn't seem to be a good drill for going through it. We tend to
verbally count off 4 steps : Pre-Range, Range, Strike and Press but
the new players don't really understand whta's going on, especially
when nothing happens in most steps or there are other steps like extra
strikes and damage prevention.
Andrew
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:25:45 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:02:22 GMT, LSJ wrote:
>>>Combat ends immediately, yes.
>>And, as per [RTR 20-OCT-2000], end-of-combat effects can be played
>>when combat ends. Which is a fairly intuitive ruling, IMO, and
>>not paradoxical at all.>
>It's no surprise that you find your own rulings to be intuitive.
>Anyway, to spell it out, the paradox would be that Telepathic Tracking
>(which is presumably an end-of-combat effect) is played when combat
>ends (i.e. when Combat Ends has resolved). But then it's too late for
>it to have its effect because combat has already ended.
That would be why Telepathic Tracking has the text on it reading
"Combat does not end". So combat ends from an S:CE's resolution, and
as combat is ending one plays TT, which causes combat not to end.
Then you read the rest of the card, which says "Another round
starts..." and go from there, at the start of round #2 (or whichever
round).
There is no paradox.
>As a practical matter, the combat sequence causes most trouble. The
>rulebook states that you have three steps: Determine Range, Strike and
>Press. But it's really a lot more complicated than that and there
>doesn't seem to be a good drill for going through it. We tend to
>verbally count off 4 steps : Pre-Range, Range, Strike and Press but
>the new players don't really understand whta's going on, especially
>when nothing happens in most steps or there are other steps like extra
>strikes and damage prevention.
We've never had much trouble with using that system, oddly enough.
When new players are around, we usually just run through "no
pre-range, no maneuvers, strike-hands-for-1, no press." Prevention,
logically enough, gets played when the damage would normally be taken;
haven't found anyone to have trouble picking that part of it up.
Extra strikes, logically enough, occur before the press stage; since
Celerity is the usual source of these, it's easy enough to stop and
ask "Blur?", especially since it's usually obvious when a deck is
likely to use additional strikes.
-- Derek
Goon-of-the-Month club member
In message
<DFCE8C744D0546AE.1D61777A...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>When I got the SW rulebook, I looked through it to see if there were
>any general timing rules.
Irrelevant anyway.
If there is no rules contradiction, there is no problem.
If there is a rules contradiction, enforce rule 1.4 from the Sabbat War
rulebook. "Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take
precedence."
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"What's wrong with wanting more?
If you can fly -- then soar!
With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:02:22 GMT, LSJ wrote:
>
> >Combat ends immediately, yes.
> >And, as per [RTR 20-OCT-2000], end-of-combat effects can be played
> >when combat ends. Which is a fairly intuitive ruling, IMO, and
> >not paradoxical at all.
>
> It's no surprise that you find your own rulings to be intuitive.
> Anyway, to spell it out, the paradox would be that Telepathic Tracking
> (which is presumably an end-of-combat effect) is played when combat
> ends (i.e. when Combat Ends has resolved). But then it's too late for
> it to have its effect because combat has already ended.
This isn't a "paradox." Majesty says "end combat." Telepathic Tracking
says "if combat is ending, instead of combat ending, don't end combat."
> When I got the SW rulebook, I looked through it to see if there were
> any general timing rules. There didn't seem to be any general
> principles like the LIFO of Shadowfist or dynamic stack of Magic 6th
> ed. It's all special cases, right?
In general, V:TES is a game without a timing system. When cards are
played, they have their effect immediately; there is no "in response" as
in Magic or 'Fist. One major exception is action cards, which follow
the rules for blocking before resolving.
> As a practical matter, the combat sequence causes most trouble. The
> rulebook states that you have three steps: Determine Range, Strike and
> Press. But it's really a lot more complicated than that and there
> doesn't seem to be a good drill for going through it. We tend to
> verbally count off 4 steps : Pre-Range, Range, Strike and Press but
> the new players don't really understand whta's going on, especially
> when nothing happens in most steps or there are other steps like extra
> strikes and damage prevention.
I usually run through five steps: pre-range, determine range, declare
strikes, resolve strikes, press. If people have a hard time
understanding why you need to have all these steps, you should show them
a deck with combat cards which are used during all of these steps (easy
examples: Torn Signpost, Flash, Undead Strength, Wolf Claws, and Boxed
In, respectively).
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"She does raindances and she knows the score /
All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor."
-- Shivaree
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, James Hamblin wrote:
> > As a practical matter, the combat sequence causes most trouble. The
> > rulebook states that you have three steps: Determine Range, Strike and
> > Press. But it's really a lot more complicated than that and there
> > doesn't seem to be a good drill for going through it. We tend to
> > verbally count off 4 steps : Pre-Range, Range, Strike and Press but
> > the new players don't really understand whta's going on, especially
> > when nothing happens in most steps or there are other steps like extra
> > strikes and damage prevention.
>
> I usually run through five steps: pre-range, determine range, declare
> strikes, resolve strikes, press. If people have a hard time
> understanding why you need to have all these steps, you should show them
> a deck with combat cards which are used during all of these steps (easy
> examples: Torn Signpost, Flash, Undead Strength, Wolf Claws, and Boxed
> In, respectively).
>
> James
In our group we separate strike resolution and damage resolution so that:
before range, range, strike declaration, strike resolution (which strikes
hit/miss), damage resolution (damage is taken and prevented), additional
strikes (back to strike resolution), and presses.
We found it makes a difference for some cards.
Why do you play wolf claws during strike resolution? Shouldn't it be
declared with the strike just like ammo cards?
As far as TT goes I think that the opinions regarding its use are split
down the middle. I'll have a chat about it with my group.
Thalles
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:08:10 +0800, Thalles de Mello
<tha...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>In our group we separate strike resolution and damage resolution so that:
>before range, range, strike declaration, strike resolution (which strikes
>hit/miss), damage resolution (damage is taken and prevented), additional
>strikes (back to strike resolution), and presses.
>
>We found it makes a difference for some cards.
It does make SOME difference. Skin of Steel, for example; if you
intend to play it at superior, you have to play it during the first
strike resolution, as it can't be retroactive. I think we mostly
combine strike/damage resolution into one big glob here though.
>Why do you play wolf claws during strike resolution? Shouldn't it be
>declared with the strike just like ammo cards?
Actually, both Wolf Claws and ammo cards are played "before strike
resolution", which can be at the end of the "declare strikes" phase.
from the rulings:
Ammo (Dragon's Breath Rounds, Glaser Rounds, Manstopper Rounds) are
played "before resolution of a gun's strike", not "when damage from a
gun is being resolved". That is, it is played after the strike is
announced, but before the strike resolution phase. [RTR 19990105]
The damage modifier must be played before the end of the Choose Strike
phase in order to affect the current strike. [RTR 19960112]
...which permits you to still play a damage modifier (claws) in
response to an opponent's strike declaration, and still have it occur
during the strike declaration phase.
>As far as TT goes I think that the opinions regarding its use are split
>down the middle. I'll have a chat about it with my group.
it'd be good to be aware that LSJ is the official rules authority; as
far as interpretations of cards go, his statement as Net.Rep isn't an
opinion, it's a fact. TT *does* negate the effects of S:CE; whether
the wording is clear or not is the question. =)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <t9kt4tg0ic6la6tpo...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>it'd be good to be aware that LSJ is the official rules authority; as
>far as interpretations of cards go, his statement as Net.Rep isn't an
>opinion, it's a fact. TT *does* negate the effects of S:CE; whether
>the wording is clear or not is the question. =)
Also, LSJ was lead designer for the expansion, so we can be fairly clear
that he knows what was intended.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 20:29:10 -0500, Derek Ray wrote:
>We've never had much trouble with using that system, oddly enough.
>When new players are around, we usually just run through "no
>pre-range, no maneuvers, strike-hands-for-1, no press."
And what do you do when new players are not around?
Andrew
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:38:09 -0600, James Hamblin wrote:
>This isn't a "paradox." Majesty says "end combat." Telepathic Tracking
>says "if combat is ending, instead of combat ending, don't end combat."
No they don't.
>In general, V:TES is a game without a timing system. When cards are
>played, they have their effect immediately; there is no "in response" as
>in Magic or 'Fist. One major exception is action cards, which follow
>the rules for blocking before resolving.
And press cards. And vote cards. And stealth/intercept cards. And
enabling cards like The Parthenon. And reactions. The timing for
these layered effects seems to be ad hoc - you have to treat each case
separately.
>If people have a hard time understanding why you need to have all these
>steps
I think our players have the general idea. But it's tiresome going
through lots of steps when most of them are empty. Players then get
impatient and the sequence of play disintegrates. I favour doing
things properly but the rules don't give you a good template to follow
- see the Combat Outline on the back of the SW rulebook.
Andrew
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 21:53:18 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 20:29:10 -0500, Derek Ray wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
Much the same, actually, although often someone who isn't going to be
doing anything in a particular combat will just say "I don't do
anything weird, punch for 1" whether or not they're the acting minion.
It's only when two combat decks match up that we slow down and go
through each step individually, because that's when it truly starts to
matter. We don't often run into confusion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<8C4A249702F70AF0.BAE838A3...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:38:09 -0600, James Hamblin wrote:
> Majesty says "end combat." Telepathic Tracking
> says "if combat is ending, instead of combat ending, don't end
> combat."
>
> No they don't.
You're right. Majesty actually says STRIKE: Combat Ends. Telepathic
Tracking says "Combat does not end; another round starts."
Yup, the difference is immense. Much like the difference between a
hamster and a dwarf hamster. Or a very large thing and another thing
which is almost, but not quite as large, but the difference is hardly
visible to the naked eye. Or the clothed eye, even.
> > When cards are played, they have their effect immediately; there is
> > no "in response" as in Magic or 'Fist. One major exception is
> > action cards, which follow the rules for blocking before resolving.
>
> And press cards.
They have their effect immediately, but the effect of each individual
card can be canceled with another one played. Much like playing
Confucian Stability on Dance of the Centipede. Or vice versa.
Assuming they haven't been changed.
> And vote cards.
They also take effect immediately, they are just not summed up until
the phase is declared to be over.
> And stealth/intercept cards.
Again, the effect the card generates is immediate, but the effect on
game play may not be. Additional intercept will result in either more
stealth being added, or a trip to the combat factory.
> And enabling cards like The Parthenon.
Hahahahahha!%!!!@#%!@#!@%# "Enabling cards." The Parthenon is now
taking its place in pop psychology and is encouraging self-destructive
behavior. The Parthenon *immediately* generates an extra master phase
action, which you do not have to *use* immediately.
>And reactions.
If you have specific examples of reactions, why didn't you include
them, like intercept/stealth? (Intercept cards *are* reactions
cards.) I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't
generate an immediate effect.
> I think our players have the general idea. But it's tiresome going
> through lots of steps when most of them are empty. Players then get
You can always tell the other players that you are going to skip
straight to phase X unless they have something interesting to play.
And I'm pretty liberal about letting people take back or go back a
phase if they forget or if things were moving too quickly.
Xian
--
But rain falls down and I feel cold
A cold that sleeps within my heart
It tears the earth and sun apart
--New Order, "Shellshock"
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<8C4A249702F70AF0.BAE838A3...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:38:09 -0600, James Hamblin wrote:
> Majesty says "end combat." Telepathic Tracking
> says "if combat is ending, instead of combat ending, don't end
> combat."
>
> No they don't.
You're right. Majesty actually says STRIKE: Combat Ends. Telepathic
Tracking says "Combat does not end; another round starts."
Yup, the difference is immense. Much like the difference between a
hamster and a dwarf hamster. Or a very large thing and another thing
which is almost, but not quite as large, but the difference is hardly
visible to the naked eye. Or the clothed eye, even.
> > When cards are played, they have their effect immediately; there is> > no "in response" as in Magic or 'Fist. One major exception is
> > action cards, which follow the rules for blocking before resolving.
>
> And press cards.
They have their effect immediately, but the effect of each individual
card can be canceled with another one played. Much like playing
Confucian Stability on Dance of the Centipede. Or vice versa.
Assuming they haven't been changed.
> And vote cards.
They also take effect immediately, they are just not summed up until
the phase is declared to be over.
> And stealth/intercept cards.
Again, the effect the card generates is immediate, but the effect on
game play may not be. Additional intercept will result in either more
stealth being added, or a trip to the combat factory.
> And enabling cards like The Parthenon.
Hahahahahha!%!!!@#%!@#!@%# "Enabling cards." The Parthenon is now
taking its place in pop psychology and is encouraging self-destructive
behavior. The Parthenon *immediately* generates an extra master phase
action, which you do not have to *use* immediately.
>And reactions.
If you have specific examples of reactions, why didn't you include
them, like intercept/stealth? (Intercept cards *are* reactions
cards.) I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't
generate an immediate effect.
> I think our players have the general idea. But it's tiresome going> through lots of steps when most of them are empty. Players then get
You can always tell the other players that you are going to skip
straight to phase X unless they have something interesting to play.
And I'm pretty liberal about letting people take back or go back a
phase if they forget or if things were moving too quickly.
Xian
--
But rain falls down and I feel cold
A cold that sleeps within my heart
It tears the earth and sun apart
--New Order, "Shellshock"
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 22:53:34 GMT, Xian wrote:
>> And vote cards.>
>They also take effect immediately, they are just not summed up until
>the phase is declared to be over.
It's quite complex and, now that I reread the SW rulebook, it appears
to be a mess. 6.3.3 separates the process of gaining votes from the
process of casting them but 6.3.2 provides no step in the referendum
during which votes are gained. As things stand, there is no point at
which you can make a Bewitching Oration, for example.
And the 15-second rule is quite amusing. How is this enforced during
tournaments?
Andrew
In message
<EBF181670F50054D.C106CAD6...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>And the 15-second rule is quite amusing. How is this enforced during
>tournaments?
It rarely needs to be, since most players make up their minds much more
quickly.
The rule is only there as a backup, when necessary, to stop a player
dragging things out for too long. This can be very important when a
vote heavy deck or two is at the table when V:TES can already be pushed
for time under the 2 hour time limit, on the right table.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<EBF181670F50054D.C106CAD6...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
[voting]
> It's quite complex and, now that I reread the SW rulebook, it appears
> to be a mess. 6.3.3 separates the process of gaining votes from the
> process of casting them but 6.3.2 provides no step in the referendum
> during which votes are gained. As things stand, there is no point at
> which you can make a Bewitching Oration, for example.
I'm don't really see what's so confusing about it. Right before the 15-
second rule bit in 6.3.2, the rulebook states:
"Polling. All Methuselahs may now cast any votes they have
(see below) at this time, in any order. They call out their votes
freely, and there is no obligation to vote."
Bewitching Oration gives you votes, so the acting vampire can play one
at any point during the polling phase. Beyond Bewitching Oration/Dread
Gaze/Surprise Influence/Business Pressure/Charming Lobby/Awe or
throwing down a single political action card, there aren't any cards
that you would play from the hand to gain votes. Everything else is
already on the table in the form of Master cards or titles and the Edge.
Should be pretty simple. Gain votes (and play any cards that gain
votes for you), then cast your votes. If you gain more votes (Dread
Gaze, etc.) you may cast them at any time after you've gained them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Personally, I try to make sure that all the combats I'm involved in run
through all those steps. It's easy to get sloppy. I remember going to
tournaments with my rush deck; I would get into a combat, and the other
player would just toss a Majesty out of their hand, thinking that was
all there was to it. I had to tell him to go through the maneuver
step. He seemed annoyed, but then I played Immortal Grapple, and then
he was sad. A lot of people (at that time, I don't know how true this
is now) had had no exposure to good combat decks that can deal with
S:CE.
Unless both players agree "we're just going to punch each other for 1",
I wouldn't skip over the combat steps.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"What drives you on can drive you mad.
A million lies to sell yourself is all
you ever had."
-- Garbage
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:10:58 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 22:53:34 GMT, Xian wrote:>>>> And vote cards.>>
>>They also take effect immediately, they are just not summed up until
>>the phase is declared to be over.>
>It's quite complex and, now that I reread the SW rulebook, it appears
>to be a mess. 6.3.3 separates the process of gaining votes from the
Complex?
"I call a vote (drops KRC).. this vote. Anyone block?"
(nobody blocks. the action is successful. now a referendum ensues;
during the referendum, vote modifiers may be played)
"OK. The terms are 3 to my prey and 1 to my predator. I have two
Princes, so I have 5 votes in favor."
(someone else) "I have one vote against from Gitane."
(someone plays Dread Gaze) "Rake, here, has six votes against."
(plays Bewitching Oration) "Fine. I now have NINE votes in favor...
currently passing 9 to 7?"
(someone else plays Delaying Tactics) "Oh, screw this. Try that again
next turn."
And presto... it's over. What was so complicated about that?
The rulebook is not required to make provisions for the existence of
each individual card. That's what the cards' text is for, to handle
their own existence.
Stop trying to rules-lawyer the game and just play it.
[ quoted text not captured ]