[LSJ] Free States Rant: An Angry Assay
Mike Ooi
Can 3 points be allocated to a vampire who does not have 3 blood to burn?
For example:
Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He and Smudge are the only vampires in play.
Can he allocate 3 points on Smudge, a 1 capacity vampire, to avoid having to
allocate 4 points on himself?
Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He and Zoe are the only vampires in play. Zoe
is empty. Can he allocate points on Zoe, even though she has no blood?
Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He is the only vampire in play (most likely
because everyone else is sick of being denied the ability to play the game
and left). Does he burn in various circles of Hell because he must allocate
5 points and he cannot allocate more than 3 on himself but he must allocate
5 points but he cannot but he must...
Card Text:
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote
Called by any Independent vampire at +1 stealth
Allocate X points among one or more ready vampires, where X is half of the
capacity of the acting vampire (rounded up). No more than 3 points can be
allocated to a single vampire. Successful referendum means each vampire
burns 1 blood for each point assigned. In this referendum, titles are worth
1 less vote each (even in the Prisci sub-referendum), and burning the edge
for a vote is worth an additional vote.
Mike Ooi
Prince of Sloth
James Coupe
Ooi <sh...@texas.net> writes
>Word to the L-to the S-to the JizzAY,
>
>Can 3 points be allocated to a vampire who does not have 3 blood to burn?
Yes. They then just ignore the burn blood effect. You simply assign
points - these points are only limited by the 3 maximum. These points
then have an effect.
Consider the parallel situation of my having two pool and you having 1
pool. I call Kine Resources Contested. I can allocate 3 points to you
and 1 point to me.
>Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He and Smudge are the only vampires in play.
>Can he allocate 3 points on Smudge, a 1 capacity vampire, to avoid having to
>allocate 4 points on himself?
3 Smudge/1 Nehsi - yes.
4 Nehsi - You couldn't allocate 4 points to any vampire (more than
three).
>Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He and Zoe are the only vampires in play. Zoe
>is empty. Can he allocate points on Zoe, even though she has no blood?
Sure. It doesn't require a vampire with blood.
>Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He is the only vampire in play (most likely
>because everyone else is sick of being denied the ability to play the game
>and left). Does he burn in various circles of Hell because he must allocate
>5 points and he cannot allocate more than 3 on himself but he must allocate
>5 points but he cannot but he must...
I'd *probably* rule, if this came up in play, either:
- the vampire can't call the vote if the allocation is impossible
- the vampire allocates as much as possible; the excess is lost
I'm unsure as to the implications of either.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6
Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D
LSJ
> Mike Ooi <sh...@texas.net> writes
> >Can 3 points be allocated to a vampire who does not have 3 blood to burn?
>
> Yes. They then just ignore the burn blood effect. You simply assign
> points - these points are only limited by the 3 maximum. These points
> then have an effect.
Correct.
> >Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He and Smudge are the only vampires in play.
> >Can he allocate 3 points on Smudge, a 1 capacity vampire, to avoid having to
> >allocate 4 points on himself?
>
> 3 Smudge/1 Nehsi - yes.
Correct.
> >Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He and Zoe are the only vampires in play. Zoe
> >is empty. Can he allocate points on Zoe, even though she has no blood?
>
> Sure. It doesn't require a vampire with blood.
Correct.
> >Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He is the only vampire in play (most likely
> >because everyone else is sick of being denied the ability to play the game
> >and left). Does he burn in various circles of Hell because he must allocate
> >5 points and he cannot allocate more than 3 on himself but he must allocate
> >5 points but he cannot but he must...
>
> I'd *probably* rule, if this came up in play, either:
>
> - the vampire can't call the vote if the allocation is impossible
> - the vampire allocates as much as possible; the excess is lost
>
> I'm unsure as to the implications of either.
Go with #1. No/insufficient targets - no play.
--
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/
Chris Berger
>
> > >Nehsi calls Free States Rant. He is the only vampire in play (most likely
> > >because everyone else is sick of being denied the ability to play the game
> > >and left). Does he burn in various circles of Hell because he must allocate
> > >5 points and he cannot allocate more than 3 on himself but he must allocate
> > >5 points but he cannot but he must...
> >
> > I'd *probably* rule, if this came up in play, either:
> >
> > - the vampire can't call the vote if the allocation is impossible
> > - the vampire allocates as much as possible; the excess is lost
> >
> > I'm unsure as to the implications of either.
>
> Go with #1. No/insufficient targets - no play.
What if there are enough vampires in play when the vote is attempted,
but not when it is completed? I think you can do this if blocked by a
vampire with Anathema, then play sup Drawing Out the Beast and sup
Form of Mist when blocked, but my point is that it gets a little
sticky, seeing as the targets are not chosen when the action is
announced like a regular action, so I don't see how the targetting
restrictions of the referendum can affect your ability to try and call
the vote.
James Coupe
Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes
>I think you can do this if blocked by a
>vampire with Anathema, then play sup Drawing Out the Beast and sup
>Form of Mist when blocked
(I'll leave LSJ to answer the question, as I'm unsure, but I'd be
tempted to have the action "fizzle" if the vampires are considered a
target. Consider someone doing a similar action to steal a retainer,
being blocked, killing the retainer with one strike and then Form of
Misting.)
DotB/Anathema won't work, because DotB deals damage in the press phase,
not when combat ends. (Card text change.)
You could manage what you want, however, with, say:
My vampire with "PRO", "tha" and 8 blood calls a FSR vote. Your
vampire, Julius with a Fortitude master on him, blocks. I play
sufficient Weather Control to send Julius to torpor. Julius plays
Undead Persistence. We go to strikes and I play Form of Mist. Then
Julius burns when he enters torpor.
Corner cases, don't you just love 'em?
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Go with #1. No/insufficient targets - no play.
>
> What if there are enough vampires in play when the vote is attempted,
The he can play the card.
> but not when it is completed?
Then the effect fizzles.
See also Parity Shift when the one Methuselah who has more pool than you
has exactly 1 more pool than you and burns that one to pay for a direct
intervention to cancel a stealth card you play.