Orlando Oriundus and Priscus titles
Joshua Duffin
place, but I missed it at the time...
In [LSJ 11-Sep-2006] there's a ruling that Orlando Oriundus does not double
the Priscus votes of any vampires his controller may control:
> > > #8. Does Orlando double any votes for the prisci sub-referendum? Since
> > > there is no explicit card text stating so (like Free States Rant),
> > > then
> > > based on the precedence of Condemnation: Mute and Rastacourere, I
> > > would
> > > guess that it does not double prisci votes (same thing with superior
> > > Hall of Hades' Court). Right?
>
> > Probably.
>
>
> Correct.
I think this should probably be reversed, because Orlando Oriundus's text is
written to affect the vampires themselves (i.e. doubling their votes,
whatever those votes might be) rather than explicitly affecting the *number*
of votes that those vampires' titles are worth. That is, it should work
like Scalpel Tongue (which can "see" that a Priscus has cast "one or more
votes" in a referendum, even though it makes no specific mention of the
Priscus title) rather than like Condemnation: Mute (which affects the number
of votes that a vampire has, therefore affecting only the number that
vampire has in the main referendum, since it does not specifically mention
affecting Priscus-subreferendum votes). So, just as you can Telepathic Vote
Count to make a Priscus abstain from voting, it should be possible to use
Orlando (or Hall of Hades' Court) to double a Priscus's votes.
Orlando Oriundus: "During a referendum, if Orlando is ready, your vampires'
votes are doubled when votes are tallied, and other multipliers may not be
played on your vampires."
Scalpel Tongue: "Choose a vampire who has cast one or more votes in this
referendum. The chosen vampire is tapped and abstains during this referendum
(this cancels that vampire's votes)."
Condemnation: Mute: "Put this card on a ready vampire. The vampire with this
card has -3 votes."
Josh
from the depths of hades
LSJ
> I should have brought this up when Eric asked the question in the first
> place, but I missed it at the time...
>
> In [LSJ 11-Sep-2006] there's a ruling that Orlando Oriundus does not double
> the Priscus votes of any vampires his controller may control:
>
> written to affect the vampires themselves (i.e. doubling their votes,
> whatever those votes might be) rather than explicitly affecting the *number*
> of votes that those vampires' titles are worth. That is, it should work
> like Scalpel Tongue (which can "see" that a Priscus has cast "one or more
> votes" in a referendum, even though it makes no specific mention of the
> Priscus title) rather than like Condemnation: Mute (which affects the number
> of votes that a vampire has, therefore affecting only the number that
> vampire has in the main referendum, since it does not specifically mention
> affecting Priscus-subreferendum votes). So, just as you can Telepathic Vote
> Count to make a Priscus abstain from voting, it should be possible to use
> Orlando (or Hall of Hades' Court) to double a Priscus's votes.
"V's votes" refers to V's votes in the main referendum.
"V's prisci votes" refers to V's votes in the prisci sub-referendum.
This frequently leads to confusion. It would be better if there was another
suitable name for prisci votes that didn't involve the word vote. Much like it
would be better to distinguish the bleed action from the bleed. But this is not
the case.
"Make V Abstain" sets V's alignment to neutral for the referendum. The affects
both V's votes (if any) and his prisci votes (if any).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f5f3092799ed765c
Orlando affects "votes" which means only main referendum votes.
Scalpel Tongue requires that one or more "votes" have been cast, which means one
or more main referendum votes. Once played, however, Scalpel Tongue makes the
victim abstain, and that affects the victims prisci votes as well as his votes.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:4537AFB...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> I should have brought this up when Eric asked the question in the first
>> place, but I missed it at the time...
>>
>> In [LSJ 11-Sep-2006] there's a ruling that Orlando Oriundus does not
>> double the Priscus votes of any vampires his controller may control
>
>
> "V's prisci votes" refers to V's votes in the prisci sub-referendum.
>
> This frequently leads to confusion. It would be better if there was
> another suitable name for prisci votes that didn't involve the word vote.
> Much like it would be better to distinguish the bleed action from the
> bleed. But this is not the case.
>
> "Make V Abstain" sets V's alignment to neutral for the referendum. The
> affects both V's votes (if any) and his prisci votes (if any).
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f5f3092799ed765c
>
> Orlando affects "votes" which means only main referendum votes.
>
> Scalpel Tongue requires that one or more "votes" have been cast, which
> means one or more main referendum votes. Once played, however, Scalpel
> Tongue makes the victim abstain, and that affects the victims prisci votes
> as well as his votes.
Ah, fair enough, and a very clear explanation (though yeah, it would
certainly be nice if we had more-easily-distinguishable terms from the
start). Sounds like there is some existing confusion on Scalpel Tongue
though - in this message (LSJ 13-Nov-2005) you appeared to be confirming
that Scalpel Tongue was playable against Gratiano even if he only has his
own (Priscus) votes, though maybe you were thinking of the case where
Gratiano *did* have main-referendum votes:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4f891bc1bec0f7ee
Josh
scalpel!
clamp!
Jozxyqk
> "V's votes" refers to V's votes in the main referendum.
> "V's prisci votes" refers to V's votes in the prisci sub-referendum.
> This frequently leads to confusion. It would be better if there was another
> suitable name for prisci votes that didn't involve the word vote. Much like it
> would be better to distinguish the bleed action from the bleed. But this is not
> the case.
The Prisci Block: The prisci as a group have 3 votes. During a referendum, the
prisci block of 3 votes is cast "for" or "against" the referendum according to
the prisci subreferendum. Each ready priscus provides 1 *frumple* for this
subreferendum, and no other votes may be used in this subreferendum. Each *frumple*
is either "for" or "against" the main referendum. Whichever side has the
greater number of *happy campers* in the subreferendum gains 3 votes in the main
referendum. If the subreferendum is tied, the prisci abstain from the
main vote. As prisci cast their *fingers* in the subreferendum, the prisci
block of 3 votes may shift between "for," "against" and "abstain" (as the
majority in the subreferendum changes).
(Apologies to Star Control II)
Andrew 'Wes' Weston
"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote
>
> (Apologies to Star Control II)
No need to apologize, hu-man.
Enjoy,
WES
Jozxyqk
> Ah, fair enough, and a very clear explanation (though yeah, it would
> certainly be nice if we had more-easily-distinguishable terms from the
> start). Sounds like there is some existing confusion on Scalpel Tongue
> though - in this message (LSJ 13-Nov-2005) you appeared to be confirming
> that Scalpel Tongue was playable against Gratiano even if he only has his
> own (Priscus) votes, though maybe you were thinking of the case where
> Gratiano *did* have main-referendum votes:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4f891bc1bec0f7ee
So is that only true if Gratiano also casts non-Priscus Votes?
What about this crazy situation:
Cardano goes Into the Fire.
Someone calls Investiture on him.
Someone else controls Astrid Thomas.
A vote is called and Cardano casts 1 priscus vote in favor;
Astrid casts 1 vote against.
Astrid's text:
"When votes are tallied during a referendum, any Tremere vampires who cast
votes (that is, who are not abstaining) vote with Astrid if Astrid casts any
votes."
The key is the clarification text "(that is, who are not abstaining)".
Cardano is not abstaining; does his Priscus vote get changed by Astrid's
ability?
It seems like "yes", specifically because of her 10th anniversary Parenthetical
Clarification (and before that clarification it seems it would have been "no").
But if the answer to the above question is "no", then let's say Cardano is also
Legendary, and the same situation happens; since Cardano now has both regular
votes and Priscus votes, does Astrid's ability now affect both?
LSJ
> Joshua Duffin <joshduff...@spam.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, fair enough, and a very clear explanation (though yeah, it would
>> certainly be nice if we had more-easily-distinguishable terms from the
>> start). Sounds like there is some existing confusion on Scalpel Tongue
>> though - in this message (LSJ 13-Nov-2005) you appeared to be confirming
>> that Scalpel Tongue was playable against Gratiano even if he only has his
>> own (Priscus) votes, though maybe you were thinking of the case where
>> Gratiano *did* have main-referendum votes:
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4f891bc1bec0f7ee
>
> So is that only true if Gratiano also casts non-Priscus Votes?
>
> What about this crazy situation:
>
> Cardano goes Into the Fire.
> Someone calls Investiture on him.
>
> Someone else controls Astrid Thomas.
> A vote is called and Cardano casts 1 priscus vote in favor;
> Astrid casts 1 vote against.
>
> Astrid's text:
> "When votes are tallied during a referendum, any Tremere vampires who cast
> votes (that is, who are not abstaining) vote with Astrid if Astrid casts any
> votes."
>
> The key is the clarification text "(that is, who are not abstaining)".
> Cardano is not abstaining; does his Priscus vote get changed by Astrid's
> ability?
Yes.
Astrid's ability changes his alignment. All votes from a single source must be
cast in agreement (this rule giving rise to the notion of "alignment").
> It seems like "yes", specifically because of her 10th anniversary Parenthetical
> Clarification (and before that clarification it seems it would have been "no").
In truth, the clarification changes nothing, since the situation you describe
will never occur. :-)
I will further clarify it.