[LSJ] Anarch revolt again and again...
reyda
i tried to prove myplaygroup that each referendum provided by the text on an
Anarch revolt (to burn an anarch card) is a separate political action...
Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and 'C'.
One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
The meth's answer was "you can't play Conservative Agitation a second time
if a delay it, so it must be the same for a referendum to burn the anarch".
Of course backup'ed by the entire table, including the Prince of Paris..
I replied " your are right except that in that case the ref for each card is
a different political action". We played as the table decided...
but just for the spite i want them to read here that they were wrong !
so, who 's wrong and who's right ?
I guess i am right,on the simple reading of :
http://groups.google.fr/groups?hl=xx-hacker&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=Pi
ne.SOL.4.10a.10002141355280.15993-100000%40red.csi.cam.ac.uk&rnum=1&prev=/gr
oups%3Fq%3Danarch%2Bdelaying%2Btactics%2BLSJ%2Bgroup:rec.games.trading-cards
.jyhad%26hl%3Dxx-hacker%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DPine.SOL.
4.10a.10002141355280.15993-100000%2540red.csi.cam.ac.uk%26rnum%3D1
(please explain step by step instead of pointing ot an old google link, it's
for one dumbass french player ;) )
Reyda
reyda
i tried to prove myplaygroup that each referendum provided by the text on an
Anarch revolt (to burn an anarch card) is a separate political action...
Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and 'C'.
One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
The meth's answer was "you can't play Conservative Agitation a second time
if a delay it, so it must be the same for a referendum to burn the anarch".
Of course this false assertion was backup'ed by the entire table, *including
the frickin' Prince of Paris..*
I replied " your are right except that in that case the ref' for each card
is
a different political action". We played as the table decided...
but just for the spite i want them to read here that they were all wrong !
so, whose brain is pea soup ?
Not mine i guess,on the simple reading of :
http://minilien.com/?MuUT6TkTqm
(note : the above is a minilink to a thread on this very forum)
So my french friends, enjoy the reading !
Reyda the Righteous =)
(each of you owes me a beer, drinkable in a separate pub rush action)
reyda
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and 'C'.
>One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
>Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
>methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
>turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
>whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
>political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
From the rulings:
Terminology
* "Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken
against the same target. 2) The action taken with the same card
played from hand, regardless of target. 3) The same action
provided by the same copy of a card in play. (Each action
provided by a card in play is a distinct action (and doesn't
count as the "same action"). [RTR 05-SEP-1995]
Delaying Tactics refers to the "same action", specifically "the same
political action".
1) We are not using the same inherent action against the same target -
they are not cardless actions (they use cards in play) and they are
not against the same target. (This most generally affects bleeds and
the two types of torpor action, under Change of Target.)
2) We are not playing a card in hand.
3) The same action provided by the same copy of a card in play - each
copy of Anarch Revolt is a *different* copy of a card in play.
Thus, it is not covered by sections one, two or three.
It is not, therefore, the same action to burn a second Anarch Revolt
with a second vampire (assuming you're playing NRA).
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D You don't need to hear it but I'm dried up
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 and sick to death of love.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
tetragrammaton
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3d39089c$0$26061$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
> Hi !
> i tried to prove myplaygroup that each referendum provided by the text on
an
> Anarch revolt (to burn an anarch card) is a separate political action...
>
> Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and
'C'.
> One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
> Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
> methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
> turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
> whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
> political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
>
> The meth's answer was "you can't play Conservative Agitation a second time
> if a delay it, so it must be the same for a referendum to burn the
anarch".
> Of course backup'ed by the entire table, including the Prince of Paris..
>
> I replied " your are right except that in that case the ref for each card
is
> a different political action". We played as the table decided...
> but just for the spite i want them to read here that they were wrong !
>
Each card that is permanently "in play" and that grant an action, grant an
action of his own.
In the specific case, each anarch revolt in play provides a separate "call
a political action to burn this card"; so, delaying tactics
"anarch revolt A" just taints a specific methuselah's minions to not call
again the vote that turn to burn anarch revolt A, and do not
forbide those minion to call a P.A action granted by (differenet) anarch
revolt B or C.
Of course, the former minion that called the p.a. from anarch revolt A
is anyway tainted by the NRA (if you use it), so, he/she cannot take
political
actions again at all that turn.
> so, who 's wrong and who's right ?
>
You're right :-)
ciao
EMiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
<snip>
Gomi no Sensei
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>In message <3d39089c$0$26061$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda
><true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and 'C'.
>>One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
>>Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
>>methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
>>turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
>>whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
>>political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
>
>From the rulings:
>
>Terminology
>
> * "Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken
> against the same target. 2) The action taken with the same card
> played from hand, regardless of target. 3) The same action
> provided by the same copy of a card in play. (Each action
> provided by a card in play is a distinct action (and doesn't
> count as the "same action"). [RTR 05-SEP-1995]
Hm. By this definition, it's legal to oust your prey with a cardless
bleed, Freak, and cardless-bleed your new prey, as it is the same inherent
action taken against a different target, yes?
Of course, that's all mooted once the new rulebook becomes official.
gomi
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts
Flux
No. By the 'same action' restriction it would be legal, however there's
also a 'same type' restriction.
Of course, under the new rules this is made (more) explicit.
Flux
Xian
"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ahc6b1$p5p$1...@panix3.panix.com...
[snip James]
> Hm. By this definition, it's legal to oust your prey with a cardless
> bleed, Freak, and cardless-bleed your new prey, as it is the same inherent
> action taken against a different target, yes?
Theoretically, "your prey" is the same target. As opposed to Methuslah B, then
Methuselah C. Also, the original bleed successfully resolved, which DT did not
allow the vote to do. At least in my book. :)
> Of course, that's all mooted once the new rulebook becomes official.
True true true.
Xian
James Coupe
<go...@panix.com> writes:
>Hm. By this definition, it's legal to oust your prey with a cardless
>bleed, Freak, and cardless-bleed your new prey, as it is the same inherent
>action taken against a different target, yes?
By current rulesbook, yes.
If playing No Repeat Actions, no. (Since the "same action" rules are
specific to cards like Delaying Tactics and Change of Target.)
The "same action" definition only kicks in with specific card text.
Current canonical (rather than tournament) rules never specify anything
to do with them.
You could, by the "same action" definition, bleed (minion A), Change of
Target, bleed with a second minion (ousting your prey) and then bleed
action with minion A, to your new prey. (Since it would cease to be the
"same action", under the cited definition.)
However, this would be impossible *if* playing with No Repeat Actions -
since Change of Target doesn't remove the NRA status of a particular
minion.
AlienX_III
This is an LSJ exert from that very link.
" "Repeat Action" is associated with the DCI "No Repeat Action" rule,
which
cares only about same "action type", not just "same action". See [DCI
719]
for rules on "same action type".
The "same action" definition above has no interaction with the "No
Repeat
Action" rule - it is only applicable to cards and effects that care
about
the "same action": Obedience, Change of Target (both of which specify
weaker versions of the No Repeat Action rule), Delaying Tactics, etc.
"
It is also my understanding that currently DT with Anarchs is kind of
a loop hole, because once the action to call a vote to get rid of an
anarch revolt has been DT "for the remander of the turn the
methuselah's vampire's can't try the same action",(card text from DT).
Since anrch reads "Any vampire can burn this card with a successful
referendum; calling this referendum is a +1 stealth political action."
The key here is that each AR is not a seperate action. While it says
"this card" what your vamp is doing is calling a vote to get rid of
Anarch Revolt. Which once someone plays Delaying Tactics that action
can not be taken by your vamps again this turn. So basically the meth
who played the Anarchs was right.
James Coupe
<a_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>While it says
>"this card" what your vamp is doing is calling a vote to get rid of
>Anarch Revolt. Which once someone plays Delaying Tactics that action
>can not be taken by your vamps again this turn. So basically the meth
>who played the Anarchs was right.
Incorrect, in every important respect.
Kamel SENNI
> In message <f3837661.02072...@posting.google.com>, AlienX_III
> <a_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >While it says
> >"this card" what your vamp is doing is calling a vote to get rid of
> >Anarch Revolt. Which once someone plays Delaying Tactics that action
> >can not be taken by your vamps again this turn. So basically the meth
> >who played the Anarchs was right.
>
> Incorrect, in every important respect.
I have a deep respect for Mr Coupe, but can we have a sentence or two
from LSJ on this subject ?
In tournaments i have organized in Paris (little tournaments, with 40
or 50 people...), i have already judged "delayings tactics" in the way
with reyda don't agree (i 'm the meth with 3 anarch revolt...).
So: is Reydino right, and have i REALLY to pay him a beer (grrr!!!) ?
I think you have already answer to this question, but rules changes
sometimes...
Thanx in advance !
Kindred SPIRIT a.k.a. Kamel SENNI for the Kine.
LSJ
>
> Hi !
> i tried to prove myplaygroup that each referendum provided by the text on an
> Anarch revolt (to burn an anarch card) is a separate political action...
>
> Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and 'C'.
> One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
> Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
> methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
> turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
> whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
> political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
>
> The meth's answer was "you can't play Conservative Agitation a second time
> if a delay it, so it must be the same for a referendum to burn the anarch".
> Of course backup'ed by the entire table, including the Prince of Paris..
>
> I replied " your are right except that in that case the ref for each card is
> a different political action". We played as the table decided...
> but just for the spite i want them to read here that they were wrong !
> so, who 's wrong and who's right ?
You are.
By DT, the vote to burn Anarch Revolt 'A' cannot be called again this turn.
By the NRA the vampire who just got DT'ed cannot take another PA this turn.
The other vampires are free to call referendums to burn AR's 'B' and/or 'C'.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
James Coupe
SENNI <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> writes:
>> Incorrect, in every important respect.
>
>I have a deep respect for Mr Coupe, but can we have a sentence or two
>from LSJ on this subject ?
Message-ID: <3D3BEE1E...@white-wolf.com>
XZealot
"Kamel SENNI" <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> wrote in message
news:1b066664.02072...@posting.google.com...
Kamel,
Each one of the Anarchs is a separate action. BTW, thanks for the smokes (I
think it was you)!
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, JR.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Jon Stahler
<snip>
>
> By DT, the vote to burn Anarch Revolt 'A' cannot be called again this
turn.
> By the NRA the vampire who just got DT'ed cannot take another PA this
turn.
>
> The other vampires are free to call referendums to burn AR's 'B' and/or
'C'.
Ok...so let me get this straight. A player has three Anarch Revolts (A,B
and C) in play. I have three minions at my disposal. Minion 1 attempts to
call the vote to burn the Anarch Revolt and is dt'd. Minions 2 and 3 can
call the vote to burn B or C? When did this come into play?
Doesn't each political action to burn an Anarch Revolt called count as the
"same political action this turn" per DT's card text? Its not like you can
call another KRC after the first has been delayed with a DT even if you draw
a new KRC card. Why would this be any different? Granted, there is a card
in play that makes playing the vote possible. But if there are two cards in
play that make the same political action, I would think it shouldn't be
allowed to be called as it is the same political action (even though the
target is different). May just be my perspective...
Gomi no Sensei
Jon Stahler <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Ok...so let me get this straight. A player has three Anarch Revolts (A,B
>and C) in play. I have three minions at my disposal. Minion 1 attempts to
>call the vote to burn the Anarch Revolt and is dt'd. Minions 2 and 3 can
>call the vote to burn B or C? When did this come into play?
This is pretty much the way it's always been.
>Doesn't each political action to burn an Anarch Revolt called count as the
>"same political action this turn" per DT's card text?
Nope.
>Its not like you can
>call another KRC after the first has been delayed with a DT even if you draw
>a new KRC card.
Totally different situation. Under both the current Special Floor Rule
and the CE rulebook version of NRA, each action provided by a card in
play is distinct. 'calling a vote to burn AR A' is therefore different
from 'calling a vote to burn AR B', because they're each a separate card
in play.
>Why would this be any different? Granted, there is a card
>in play that makes playing the vote possible.
Well, there you go.
>But if there are two cards in
>play that make the same political action, I would think it shouldn't be
>allowed to be called as it is the same political action (even though the
>target is different). May just be my perspective...
Ding! That's it right there. They're _not_ the same political action, just
as burning 3 pool from your prey with a KRC is a different political
action than burning 3 pool from your prey with a ConAg. If AR was worded
to say 'any vampire may call a +1 stealth political action to burn an
Anarch Revolt in play,' then yeah, you'd have a case. But instead, it
says 'to burn _this card_' (emphasis added), which means that by
necessity each political action (to burn each individual AR) is distinct.
LSJ
> Jon Stahler <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >Ok...so let me get this straight. A player has three Anarch Revolts (A,B
> >and C) in play. I have three minions at my disposal. Minion 1 attempts to
> >call the vote to burn the Anarch Revolt and is dt'd. Minions 2 and 3 can
> >call the vote to burn B or C? When did this come into play?
>
> This is pretty much the way it's always been.
Correct. It was first ruled in RTR 09-MAY-1995:
==== BEGIN RTR QUOTE ====
The default actions provided by the game, and actions provided by
cards in play, are considered distinct as long as you're choosing
what gets affected. So a hunt or default bleed that was stopped
by Obedience could not be attempted again later in the turn, but
you could try to equip with a different piece of equipment, could
try to burn a different Army of Rats, etc. All of this applies to
Change Target as well.
=== END RTR QUOTE ====
Andy Brown
>
> reyda wrote:
> >
> > Hi !
> > i tried to prove myplaygroup that each referendum provided by the text on an
> > Anarch revolt (to burn an anarch card) is a separate political action...
> >
> > Yesterday, we had 3 Anarch Revolts in play. Let's name them 'A' 'B' and 'C'.
> > One meth decided to get rid of them. He called a first referendum to burn
> > Anarch 'A'. The vote was (of course) delayed with delaying tactics. The
> > methuselah controlling the anarchs claimed that, for the remainder of the
> > turn no one can call a vote to burn any of the Anarch 'A' or 'B' or 'C'
> > whereas i claimed the delaying can only protect the Anarch 'A' since each
> > political action provided by each anarch is a separate action.
> >
> > The meth's answer was "you can't play Conservative Agitation a second time
> > if a delay it, so it must be the same for a referendum to burn the anarch".
> > Of course backup'ed by the entire table, including the Prince of Paris..
> >
> > I replied " your are right except that in that case the ref for each card is
> > a different political action". We played as the table decided...
> > but just for the spite i want them to read here that they were wrong !
> > so, who 's wrong and who's right ?
>
> You are.
>
> By DT, the vote to burn Anarch Revolt 'A' cannot be called again this turn.
> By the NRA the vampire who just got DT'ed cannot take another PA this turn.
>
> The other vampires are free to call referendums to burn AR's 'B' and/or 'C'.
>
If this is the case, can I just clarify the following.
Meth A has 2 KRC's in his hand. Vampire A1 calls one.
Vampire B1 plays delaying tactics.
Meth A takes it back to his hand. Can Vampire A2 call the
other KRC, and how does he prove it is a different card (assuming
that one isn't Jyhad and one VTES) if he isn't allowed to reveal
his hand by the rules of the game (assuming it isn't a tournament
game with a judge who could impartially check)?
Cheers for an answer.
--
Andy "Slytherin" Brown
VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
SET awakens, watch out all non-believers
Jozxyqk
> Meth A has 2 KRC's in his hand. Vampire A1 calls one.
> Vampire B1 plays delaying tactics.
> Meth A takes it back to his hand. Can Vampire A2 call the
> other KRC, and how does he prove it is a different card (assuming
> that one isn't Jyhad and one VTES) if he isn't allowed to reveal
> his hand by the rules of the game (assuming it isn't a tournament
> game with a judge who could impartially check)?
As far as I understand it:
KRC is always the same Political Action as KRC, no matter which
card it is. If you have a hand full of 7 KRCs, and someone plays
a Delaying Tactics, you can't play *any* of them again this turn.
"Referendum to remove this card" is explicitly different per
card in play. Each Anarch Revolt is a different card. They are
different groups of Anarchs, staging different revolts. If the card
name bothers you, just think of them as being caled "Anarch Revolt",
"Banarch Revolt", and "Canarch Revolt". But Delaying Tactics played
on the referendum to burn one of them does not preclude you from
calling a vote to burn a different one.
LSJ
>
> > If this is the case, can I just clarify the following.
>
> > Meth A has 2 KRC's in his hand. Vampire A1 calls one.
>
> > Vampire B1 plays delaying tactics.
>
> > Meth A takes it back to his hand. Can Vampire A2 call the
> > other KRC, and how does he prove it is a different card (assuming
> > that one isn't Jyhad and one VTES) if he isn't allowed to reveal
> > his hand by the rules of the game (assuming it isn't a tournament
> > game with a judge who could impartially check)?
>
> As far as I understand it:
>
> KRC is always the same Political Action as KRC, no matter which
> card it is. If you have a hand full of 7 KRCs, and someone plays
> a Delaying Tactics, you can't play *any* of them again this turn.
Correct.
> "Referendum to remove this card" is explicitly different per
> card in play. Each Anarch Revolt is a different card. They are
> different groups of Anarchs, staging different revolts. If the card
> name bothers you, just think of them as being caled "Anarch Revolt",
> "Banarch Revolt", and "Canarch Revolt". But Delaying Tactics played
> on the referendum to burn one of them does not preclude you from
> calling a vote to burn a different one.
Correct.
Andy Brown
>
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> >
> > > If this is the case, can I just clarify the following.
> >
> > > Meth A has 2 KRC's in his hand. Vampire A1 calls one.
> >
> > > Vampire B1 plays delaying tactics.
> >
> > > Meth A takes it back to his hand. Can Vampire A2 call the
> > > other KRC, and how does he prove it is a different card (assuming
> > > that one isn't Jyhad and one VTES) if he isn't allowed to reveal
> > > his hand by the rules of the game (assuming it isn't a tournament
> > > game with a judge who could impartially check)?
> >
> > As far as I understand it:
> >
> > KRC is always the same Political Action as KRC, no matter which
> > card it is. If you have a hand full of 7 KRCs, and someone plays
> > a Delaying Tactics, you can't play *any* of them again this turn.
>
> Correct.
>
At least I have been calling that one correctly. It's important in my
Anti-political aspect.
> > "Referendum to remove this card" is explicitly different per
> > card in play. Each Anarch Revolt is a different card. They are
> > different groups of Anarchs, staging different revolts. If the card
> > name bothers you, just think of them as being caled "Anarch Revolt",
> > "Banarch Revolt", and "Canarch Revolt". But Delaying Tactics played
> > on the referendum to burn one of them does not preclude you from
> > calling a vote to burn a different one.
>
> Correct.
Easy enough to remember, and a good point to. Cheers for the info.
Matt Morgan
> If this is the case, can I just clarify the following.
>
> Meth A has 2 KRC's in his hand. Vampire A1 calls one.
>
> Vampire B1 plays delaying tactics.
>
> Meth A takes it back to his hand. Can Vampire A2 call the
> other KRC, and how does he prove it is a different card (assuming
> that one isn't Jyhad and one VTES) if he isn't allowed to reveal
> his hand by the rules of the game (assuming it isn't a tournament
> game with a judge who could impartially check)?
>
> Cheers for an answer.
Delaying Tactics card text: "Requires a ready vampire. Only usable
during a referendum. The political action is canceled. Untap the
acting vampire. The controller of the acting vampire takes the
political action card (if any) back into his or her hand, and his or
her vampires cannot take the same political action this turn."
That doesn't really clear up the muddied waters. The point is that
Kine Resources Contested is a Kine Resources Contested political
action, so it doesn't matter if you have another in hand. Delaying
Tactics prevents you from playing any more Kine Resources Contested
political actions for the rest of your turn.
The point this thread is making is that "burn Anarch Revolt #1" is not
the same political action as "burn Anarch Revolt #2." Delaying
Tactics will prevent you from attempting to burn #1 again, but not #2.
Does that make more sense? Perhaps not. Try this. If I call my
Jyhad-backed Kine Resources Contested, I do 4 points of damage to 2 or
more Methuselahs (assuming it passes). If I call my VTES-backed KRC,
the same thing happens. Same action. If I call a vote to burn Anarch
Revolt #1, then Anarch Revolt #1 is burned. If I call a vote to burn
AR #2, a different card is being affected, so it's a different
political action.
True, it really makes no difference whether AR #1 or AR #2 is burned,
but who knows what future cards will be printed that might change the
effects of an Anarch Revolt in play?
-Matt
LSJ
> True, it really makes no difference whether AR #1 or AR #2 is burned,
It does if they're controlled by different Methuselahs (when one is
ousted, the one she controls will be burned).