Political Delays and New Referendums
Ramsteiner
political deck passed a vote and then played Cryptic Rider to allow the
next vote called to pass automatically. It was a Praxis Seizure:
Houston. Another player tossed out Delaying Tactics to halt it's
passage. The political player then wanted to play Praxis Seizure:
Dublin. We did not allow the card due to it being a Praxis Seizure and
appeared to follow under the "may not take the same political action
this turn" aspect of Delaying Tactics.
It looks like it could either way. The new political card was a Praxis
Seizure for a different city and so was not the "same" political
action, but it was another Praxis Seizure.
What is the call?
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
--
Worry comes from the belief you are powerless.
(So get in there and kick some butt!)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James Coupe
deja.com> writes
>We were confronted with a situation concerning Delaying Tactics. A
>political deck passed a vote and then played Cryptic Rider to allow the
>next vote called to pass automatically. It was a Praxis Seizure:
>Houston. Another player tossed out Delaying Tactics to halt it's
>passage.
Something is bugging me about this, and I cannot recall if Delaying
Tactics would be valid during a Cryptic Rider-ed vote (I can't recall if
it has to be played in the "gain votes" section, which is skipped, or if
it can be played during, say, set terms (which are already known for
this vote, but happens anyway)). LSJ can rule on that later, since it's
not really relevant here.
>The political player then wanted to play Praxis Seizure:
>Dublin. We did not allow the card due to it being a Praxis Seizure and
>appeared to follow under the "may not take the same political action
>this turn" aspect of Delaying Tactics.
>
>It looks like it could either way. The new political card was a Praxis
>Seizure for a different city and so was not the "same" political
>action, but it was another Praxis Seizure.
Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not the same vote as Praxis Seizure: Anywhere
Else. There is no such type of political action as a "Praxis Seizure
political action". Each Praxis Seizure: Wherever is an entirely
separate type of political action.
--
James Coupe
Frederick Scott
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>In article <8kou8t$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my-
>deja.com> writes
>>appeared to follow under the "may not take the same political action
>>this turn" aspect of Delaying Tactics.
>>
>>It looks like it could either way. The new political card was a Praxis
>>Seizure for a different city and so was not the "same" political
>>action, but it was another Praxis Seizure.
>
>Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not the same vote as Praxis Seizure: Anywhere
>Else. There is no such type of political action as a "Praxis Seizure
>political action". Each Praxis Seizure: Wherever is an entirely
>separate type of political action.
Got to agree with this. The rules contain no provisions to determine
whether two differently named political actions match or don't match for
these purposes. They either have the exact same name and do the the exact
same thing or they don't. You can't award the domain of Dublin this
turn. Other domains are just fine.
Fred
Ramsteiner
I am inclined to agree with this as the implications of Delaying a
Praxis Seizure as a whole would turn decks like the Weenie Political
deck completely off. "Opps, my Praxis Seizure is Delayed. I guess I
have to wait until next turn to try and get a domain on one of my four
minions."
However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a
political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the
Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the
same political action.
To say that I have a small argument over this is an understatement.
Ramsteiner
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8kou8t$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >political deck passed a vote and then played Cryptic Rider to allow
the
> >next vote called to pass automatically. It was a Praxis Seizure:
> >Houston. Another player tossed out Delaying Tactics to halt it's
> >passage.
>
> Something is bugging me about this, and I cannot recall if Delaying
> Tactics would be valid during a Cryptic Rider-ed vote (I can't recall
if
> it has to be played in the "gain votes" section, which is skipped, or
if
> it can be played during, say, set terms (which are already known for
> this vote, but happens anyway)). LSJ can rule on that later, since
it's
> not really relevant here.
>
would prevent the Delaying Tactics from working on a Cryptic Rider
vote. Especially based upon the fact that if you can Intercept a
Cryptic Rider vote, then you should also be able to delay one as well
(thereby hosing the Cryptic Rider). LSJ?
<snip>
Frederick Scott
>In article <8kpnc8$k4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
>>
>> The rules contain no provisions to determine whether two differently
>> named political actions match or don't match for these purposes. They
>> either have the exact same name and do the the exact same thing or
>> they don't. You can't award the domain of Dublin this turn. Other
>> domains are just fine.
>
>I am inclined to agree with this as the implications of Delaying a
>Praxis Seizure as a whole would turn decks like the Weenie Political
>deck completely off. "Opps, my Praxis Seizure is Delayed. I guess I
>have to wait until next turn to try and get a domain on one of my four
>minions."
Well, yea, but that's a play-balance argument that may or may not
be relevent, depending on how important you think it is that "Weenie
Political decks" using multiple Praxis Seizures to establish their
voting power not get constrained from passing one by the play of a
single Delay card. I'm not sure I agree. But it's not an issue I'd likely
have a lot of passion for either way.
>However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a
>political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the
>Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the
>same political action.
I think the point that James and I and some others are making here is that
the statement that various Praxis Seizures of different cites in fact
"do the exact same thing" as one another. They do not. One makes a vampire
prince of city X, one makes a vampire prince of city Y. As such, that's
difference enough to make them different political actions as far as the
rules are concerned. Or show me the rule that states that two PAs are
equivalent if they grant the same title in a different city, as opposed
to (for instance) two PAs which both grant titles but are different ranks.
Why not say that a Justicar PA is "the same political action" as a Praxis
Seizure because both grant titles, even though they're different titles?
Same logic, as near as I can see.
>To say that I have a small argument over this is an understatement.
I didn't really understand this statement.
Fred
Ramsteiner
fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
> Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >In article <8kpnc8$k4j$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
> >>
> >> The rules contain no provisions to determine whether two
differently
> >> named political actions match or don't match for these purposes.
They
> >> either have the exact same name and do the the exact same thing or
> >> they don't. You can't award the domain of Dublin this turn. Other
> >> domains are just fine.
> >
> >I am inclined to agree with this as the implications of Delaying a
> >Praxis Seizure as a whole would turn decks like the Weenie Political
> >deck completely off. "Opps, my Praxis Seizure is Delayed. I guess I
> >have to wait until next turn to try and get a domain on one of my
four
> >minions."
>
> Well, yea, but that's a play-balance argument that may or may not
> be relevent, depending on how important you think it is that "Weenie
> Political decks" using multiple Praxis Seizures to establish their
> voting power not get constrained from passing one by the play of a
> single Delay card. I'm not sure I agree. But it's not an issue I'd
likely
> have a lot of passion for either way.
>
decks in the past, they are not the type of decks I enjoy playing. The
fact that if the Delaying Tactics does hose all PA's, then it would
affect more than just a Weenie Political deck. Or at least that is the
way I see it.
> >However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a
> >political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the
> >Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as
the
> >same political action.
>
> I think the point that James and I and some others are making here is
that
> the statement that various Praxis Seizures of different cites in fact
> "do the exact same thing" as one another. They do not. One makes a
vampire
> prince of city X, one makes a vampire prince of city Y. As such,
that's
> difference enough to make them different political actions as far as
the
> rules are concerned. Or show me the rule that states that two PAs are
> equivalent if they grant the same title in a different city, as
opposed
> to (for instance) two PAs which both grant titles but are different
ranks.
> Why not say that a Justicar PA is "the same political action" as a
Praxis
> Seizure because both grant titles, even though they're different
titles?
> Same logic, as near as I can see.
>
This is the area that I am leaning toward as well. I tend to see one
PA being different from another PA so long as they are for different
cities. Only a couple of people within my group have started to play
political decks, so this type of activity could occur again. Thus,
when the answer does come out, I hope that it will be constructed so I
can allow the players to read it and then see if they want to try and
take it apart.
To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am
hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than
once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a
Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal,
under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is
granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't
matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with
a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as
well.
As for the differences between votes for a Prince-title and a Justicar-
title, I can readily see (as can everyone else in my group) that Praxis
Seizure: (whatever) is different than (Clan type)Justicar.
> >To say that I have a small argument over this is an understatement.
>
> I didn't really understand this statement.
This issue has caused tempers to flare. And I am sure that whichever
way LSJ rules on this, it will leave many of the people in my group
unhappy while the others go dancing in the streets.
>
> Fred
James Coupe
deja.com> writes
>Especially based upon the fact that if you can Intercept a
>Cryptic Rider vote, then you should also be able to delay one as well
>(thereby hosing the Cryptic Rider). LSJ?
Intercept works at a different stage to cards played during a political
action.
I am still unsure, however, as to whether you can Delaying Tactics a
Cryptic Rider-ed vote. I can see arguments both ways.
--
James Coupe
James Coupe
deja.com> writes
>However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a
>political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the
>Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as the
>same political action.
No, PS: Dublin awards the title "Prince of Dublin".
PS Chicago awards the title "Prince of Chicago".
There is no such title as "Prince" without a domain.
--
James Coupe
James Coupe
deja.com> writes
>To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am
>hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than
>once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a
>Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal,
>under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is
>granting a vampire the title of Prince.
The No Repeat Actions rule and the Delaying Tactics text are very
different.
NRA doesn't allow *any* other Political Actions. DT doesn't allow a
specific political action.
You could have the same argument over whether DT-ing a Kine Resources
Contested with 4 players in the game prevented you from using a
Conservative Agitation. The answer is, no, it does not.
Delaying Tactics only cares about one named Political Action. Praxis
Seizure: Dublin is not called by the same name as Praxis Seizure: Rome,
so they are different actions, so far as Delaying Tactics is concerned.
--
James Coupe
Ramsteiner
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8ku7cf$3s7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >Especially based upon the fact that if you can Intercept a
> >Cryptic Rider vote, then you should also be able to delay one as well
> >(thereby hosing the Cryptic Rider). LSJ?
>
> Intercept works at a different stage to cards played during a
political
> action.
>
> I am still unsure, however, as to whether you can Delaying Tactics a
> Cryptic Rider-ed vote. I can see arguments both ways.
>
> --
>
> James Coupe
>
Tactics and Cryptic Rider are written. Especially the Cryptic Rider -
"Requires a ready vampire. Only usable after a successful vote. The
next vote you successfully call this turn passes automatically." The
vote is an action and therefore blockable, but Delaying Tactics can be
played at anytime during the voting process, either at the beginning or
right up to the very end when all votes are already tallied. Thus, we
saw no reason to deny it's usage here.
Ramsteiner
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8kuqed$h23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my-
> deja.com> writes
James,
I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no
purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought
forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting
LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin
altogether.
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
> --
>
> James Coupe
Frederick Scott
>In article <8ku9sk$nda$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>,
> fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
>> Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> >However, I am being hammered with the fact that Praxis Seizure is a
>> >political card that award's the title of Prince. And as each of the
>> >Praxis Seizures do the exact same thing it should be classified as
>> >the same political action.
>>
>> I think the point that James and I and some others are making here is
>> that the statement that various Praxis Seizures of different cites in fact
>> "do the exact same thing" as one another. They do not. One makes a
>> vampire prince of city X, one makes a vampire prince of city Y. As such,
>> that's difference enough to make them different political actions as far as
>> the rules are concerned. Or show me the rule that states that two PAs are
>> equivalent if they grant the same title in a different city, as opposed
>> to (for instance) two PAs which both grant titles but are different
>> ranks. Why not say that a Justicar PA is "the same political action" as a
>> Praxis Seizure because both grant titles, even though they're different
>> titles? Same logic, as near as I can see.
>
>To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am
>hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than
>once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a
>Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal,
>under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is
>granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't
>matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with
>a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as
>well.
Perhaps, but what has the No Repeat Action rule, which is a V:EKN
tournament rule, have to do with the group action types under Delaying
Tactics? No Repeat Actions defines for itself which sorts of things are
considered the "same type" and which do not. The definition applies to
no other V:EKN or general V:tES rules in creation. Comparing how the
two work to make arguments about Delaying Tactics is not valid.
By the way, No Repeat Actions defines _all_ political actions, whether they
be Praxis Seizures, Justicars, KRCs, or First Traditions as being the same
type of action. They're just grouped as "Political Actions" just as all
the bleed action cards are "Bleed Actions". Obviously, this type of
classification makes no sense for Delaying Tactics which states that the
minion "cannot take the same political action this turn". If it wanted
to use the NRA distinction, it would state that the minion "cannot take
_another_ political action this turn". So these are completely different
things.
The basis of my point of view is simply that (once again), given that
Delaying Tactics does not give any sort of guide for stating which
political action cards are "the same political actions" as which other
cards, the only criteria that I can see is the name of the card. The
concept that multiple Praxis Seizures are the same but any two other
PAs are not is an arbitrary human construction which lacks justification
in any rule or card text I am aware of.
Or demonstrate to me how one determines whether one named PA card is
"the same" as a differently named card but not "the same" as another one -
and justify the conclusion from rules or card text. "Readily seeing" this
is not an argument.
Fred
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> >
> This is the area that I am leaning toward as well. I tend to see one
> PA being different from another PA so long as they are for different
> cities. Only a couple of people within my group have started to play
> political decks, so this type of activity could occur again. Thus,
> when the answer does come out, I hope that it will be constructed so I
> can allow the players to read it and then see if they want to try and
> take it apart.
>
> hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than
> once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a
> Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal,
> under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is
> granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't
> matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with
> a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as
> well.
Michael, I have been following this thread, and I have a question. Is
it the same vampire that was calling the praxis seizure: Dublin that was
calling the second praxis seizure or was it another vampire that called
the praxis seisure?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
Archon of the Swamp
Derek Ray
wrote:
>I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no
>purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought
>forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting
>LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin
>altogether.
Yeah, but you might want to steal some of the arguments in James' post
there, especially the ones about DT'ing a KRC and then having the
minion call a Cons. Ag instead - because the way the coin is going to
come down is that Praxis Seizures are unique, and DT'ing one Praxis
doesn't mean you can't play another for a different city.
Just a suggestion to help prevent your players from standing up on
their hind legs and shrieking in horror - people are always a bit
easier to deal with when you can toss a reason or two and a logical
analogy. And the KRC/Con Ag comparison seems most likely to calm them
down a bit. Or just use card text on DT.
-- Derek
Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
Derek Ray
wrote:
>The only reason why we allowed the Delay is due to how both Delaying
>Tactics and Cryptic Rider are written. Especially the Cryptic Rider -
>"Requires a ready vampire. Only usable after a successful vote. The
>next vote you successfully call this turn passes automatically." The
>vote is an action and therefore blockable, but Delaying Tactics can be
>played at anytime during the voting process, either at the beginning or
>right up to the very end when all votes are already tallied. Thus, we
>saw no reason to deny it's usage here.
I suspect that DT can only actually be played during the referendum.
So you wait for the thing to not be blocked, then you drop DT at the
start of the referendum, and poof, it goes away without any fuss or
ado. Best, of course, is to hang on and wait to see if it fails on
its own, let the guy burn bunches of vote gainers, and them splatter
the whole referendum into oblivion. But I digress. (no!)
The question comes down to, then, whether Cryptic Rider's effect
produces either no referendum at ALL, or a referendum in which the
only thing that happens is the vote passing.
A prior ruling states that you can't play BO, Voter Cap, or Dread Gaze
on a Cryptic Rider vote, leading me to believe that there is probably
no referendum at all, and therefore you can't DT a Cryptic Rider vote.
Of course, if you can play DT outside the referendum, then you CAN.
=)
Ramsteiner
Hello Norm,
I was the actual player to whom the actions occurred. I wanted to test
an off-the-cuff Presence Political deck with minions going no higher
than 5 capacity. I had 5 minions up, 2 were already "Prince'd" and I
was working toward the 3rd when the card play occurred.
I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform the
second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis Seizure and
had it Delayed. I happened to have another Praxis in my hand and tried
using that with Violette. That is when we had to stop and figure out
what was what. We decided for game flow (time) and tempers to just
perform a completely different vote, which was Autarkis Persecution.
Now as to Khalil being able to perform another Political Action after
the Delaying Tactics, I am somewhat fuzzy on that. He didn't. He went
out and bled my prey, Robert, just to take it away from him. I am
fairly sure that he would not be able to perform another political
action, though.
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
By the way, great photo shots at the Con in Atlanta.
--
Worry comes from the belief you are powerless.
(So get in there and kick some butt!)
Ramsteiner
<485CF5CE4AE87EC2.18B5EED4...@lp.airnews.net>,
From the text of the Delaying Tactics, " Only usable during a political
action", I think I see where you are going on this. I can see where
BO, VC and DG can not be played on a Cryptic Rider vote as it has
already passed by the very fact that it reaches the referendum state.
But as DT is useable only during political actions, we have taken that
to mean it can be played not only after all votes are tallied, but also
at the onset of the action itself. What is really interesting is if DT
can be used against a CR vote, then everyone has access to a hell of a
utility that can help neutralize a CR without intercept. You just
require the DT in hand and a minion who can use it.
What really surprises me is after all this time that this situation has
never been discussed before. Heck, Cryptic Rider and Delaying Tactics
are from the original set.
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> Hello Norm,
>
> I was the actual player to whom the actions occurred. I wanted to
test
> an off-the-cuff Presence Political deck with minions going no higher
> than 5 capacity. I had 5 minions up, 2 were already "Prince'd" and I
> was working toward the 3rd when the card play occurred.
>
> I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform the
> second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis Seizure and
> had it Delayed. I happened to have another Praxis in my hand and
tried
> using that with Violette. That is when we had to stop and figure out
> what was what. We decided for game flow (time) and tempers to just
> perform a completely different vote, which was Autarkis Persecution.
>
> Now as to Khalil being able to perform another Political Action after
> the Delaying Tactics, I am somewhat fuzzy on that. He didn't. He
went
> out and bled my prey, Robert, just to take it away from him. I am
> fairly sure that he would not be able to perform another political
> action, though.
You are correct in your assumption that you would not be able to
perform another political action by Khalil under golden tenets NRA.
I believe that another Praxis Seizure (other than Dublin) called by a
vampire other than Khalil would be legal.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
P.S. Ethan got my good side.
Noal McDonald
>> The No Repeat Actions rule and the Delaying Tactics text
>> are very different.
>>
>> NRA doesn't allow *any* other Political Actions. DT
>> doesn't allow a specific political action.
>>
>> Praxis Seizure: Dublin is not called by the same name as Praxis
>> Seizure: Rome, so they are different actions, so far as Delaying
>> Tactics is concerned.
> James,
>
> purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought
> forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting
> LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin
> altogether.
Well, Michael, you don't have to argue. You just can take James at his
word since he is correct. *grin* LSJ was at Origins all weekend (as was
I) and had no net access to answer your question.
Here's a point to consider. Say I was controlling both the Prince of
Dublin and the Prince of Rome in a DOM/CEL/POT deck. The Praxis Seizure
he calls determines the vampire who's title he contests. There's
certainly an obvious difference.
But in your case....let's say the acting player controls vampire A &
vampire B and vampire C is controlled by someone else.
Let's say vampire A calls Praxis Seizure: Dublin and vampire C plays
Delaying Tactics. Vampire A may not call any vote (by NRA) and vampire B
may not call Praxis Seizure: Dublin, but may call _any_ other vote,
including other Praxis Seizure votes.
regards,
Noal McDonald
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Derek Ray
wrote:
>From the text of the Delaying Tactics, " Only usable during a political
>action", I think I see where you are going on this. I can see where
>BO, VC and DG can not be played on a Cryptic Rider vote as it has
>already passed by the very fact that it reaches the referendum state.
All the other vote modifiers/vote reactors state "Only usable during a
political action" also. I believe you cannot play BO outside of the
referendum either - hence my idea DT. =) I remember asking LSJ about
this some time ago. I also remember forgetting his response =/
>But as DT is useable only during political actions, we have taken that
>to mean it can be played not only after all votes are tallied, but also
>at the onset of the action itself. What is really interesting is if DT
>can be used against a CR vote, then everyone has access to a hell of a
>utility that can help neutralize a CR without intercept. You just
>require the DT in hand and a minion who can use it.
Rather making Cryptic Rider even weaker than it currently is, IMO. =)
>What really surprises me is after all this time that this situation has
>never been discussed before. Heck, Cryptic Rider and Delaying Tactics
>are from the original set.
DT is mostly played in the way I described previously - to let a vote
come through, draw out all the vote modifiers, and then slap it down
if it's not going your way *AND* penalize the guy even more by using
up some of his precious vote-passer cards. I imagine that's why it
hasn't come up until now.
Cryptic Rider... well... there are multiple ways to play it. One way
is to save yourself having to include tons of BO in your deck - call a
vote, slap BO on it, Cryptic Rider it, and the next guy doesn't need
superior Presence or BO, the vote just happens. Usually the second
vote is a Praxis vote, so you need fewer CR's in future. Of course,
it's easier in practice to BO everything, since if you don't get the
vote to the table that same turn, CR is history, and if you don't have
a second vote card in hand, CR is very risky - but you MUST play it on
that action and hope to draw up, or your next vote might not go.
Another way is to play a "Gotcha!" deck that calls universally happy
things like Autarkis Persecution, Rumors of Gehenna, etc, and drops
Cryptic Riders on them, which are then used to pass, you guessed it,
Praxis Seizures until it no longer needs the CRs. This deck normally
fails miserably since it requires other players' cooperation to help
you gain vote lock, and that's not likely to happen.
A crafty variation on it would be to drop a couple CRs, get a couple
Praxii until you're close enough to vote lock, THEN go beat up one of
the potential opposing voters and shove through two Praxii quickly
while you have temporary vote lock. =) Nossies/Anti-Nossies would be
good for this, packing Potence and OBF in shedloads (OBF to be sure
you get the auto-pass vote to the table!).
Hm. An even craftier variation would be to use Archons for the CR, as
well as Praxis Seizures, making it much easier to beat the crap out of
opposing voters.
Derek Ray
>P.S. Ethan got my good side.
You mean the side where you can't see the beer in your hand? =)
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
<55D3BF1DCF29DA70.23BDEE45...@lp.airnews.net>,
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:33 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote:
>
> >P.S. Ethan got my good side.
>
> You mean the side where you can't see the beer in your hand? =)
At least I had my pants on. ;)
Hanging Out,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
> To argue the point of the people who feel differently, this what I am
> hearing. Under the No Repeat Rule, I am unable to bleed you more than
> once with the same minion in a turn. Even if I try to do it with a
> Computer Hacking and then later with Night Moves. It is not legal,
> under the NRR. The PA is doing the same thing in this case. It is
> granting a vampire the title of Prince. Prince of what, doesn't
> matter, as a Prince is a Prince is a Prince is a Prince. In-line with
> a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed is a Bleed. I can see how this works as
> well.
Actually, as far as that comparison goes, it should be: "The PA is doing
the same thing in this case. It is *calling a referendum*. In-line with
a Bleed is a Bleed ad naseum."
And, for the NRA, the result is the same: the vampire who called
the first Praxis Seizure cannot take another political action this
turn - not to seize the same praxis, not to seize a different praxis
and not to call any other referendum.
Delaying Tactics, however, has nothing to do with action *types* - it
has only to do with specific actions.
When playing without the V:EKN "No Repeat Actions" Floor Rule, a vampire
could bleed with Computer Hacking get blocked and be subjected to inferior
Obedience and untap. Obedience prevents him from attempting the same action
again this turn, but he would be free to bleed with Govern the Unaligned
or without a card at all - he is merely prohibited from attempting another
Computer Hacking. [DTR 23-SEP-1994]
Likewise Delaying Tactics prohibits the vampire (and all the other vampires
controlled by the same Methuselah) from taking the same political action
this turn. The means they cannot play the same action card (by name) or,
if the action comes from an in-play source (burning the Anarch Revolt,
for example), they cannot call the referendum to burn the same Anarch
Revolt. The card name, in the case of the praxes seizures, includes the
city. So seizing a different city would be allowable. [DTR 09-MAY-1995]
The result of the combination of NRA and DelayingTactics' text is that
the vampire who called the first referendum is unable to call any referendums
for the remainder of the turn (NRA) and all other vamires controlled by
the same Methuselah are unable to call that same referendum (by card name
for political action cards in hand, or by instance of a card in play) for
the remainder of the turn.
--
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/
Derek Ray
>In article
><55D3BF1DCF29DA70.23BDEE45...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:51:33 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote:
>>
>> >P.S. Ethan got my good side.
>>
>> You mean the side where you can't see the beer in your hand? =)
>
>At least I had my pants on. ;)
Which reminds me, it was DAMNED COLD in that room! Sheesh.
LSJ
> From the text of the Delaying Tactics, " Only usable during a political
> action", I think I see where you are going on this. I can see where
> BO, VC and DG can not be played on a Cryptic Rider vote as it has
> already passed by the very fact that it reaches the referendum state.
> to mean it can be played not only after all votes are tallied, but also
> at the onset of the action itself.
DT is "only usable during a political action" and, as such, is only usable
during the referendum part of the political action. [6.3.2]
It cannot be played at the onset of the action itself (before block
attempts, etc.)
During an auto-pass vote, these effects (Bribes, DT, BO, etc.) cannot be
used [LSJ 07-JAN-1998].
Voter Captivation, however, is not "during" a political action, but after.
It can be played, but, since the referendum didn't pass by any specific
amount, no blood (nor pool) is gained. [LSJ 07-JAN-1998]
Ramsteiner
> 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/
>
Hello LSJ,
Thank you for the answer. From the way the posts were leaning, I had
already informed my group that it didn't look like they were correct
with the Praxis Seizure issue. But I did inquiry why they felt that PS
deserved special attention as opposed to other votes and here is what I
got.
All other votes are clearly defined with separate text and effects
(exception Crusades). Both PS's and Crusade's identify an action that
contains a subset of the original vote. This identifier is the ":"
colon. The Praxis Seizure and Crusade both are actions containing a
list. No other vote card possesses this characteristic. Therefore,
they see the PS's and Crusade's as a master set action with the cities
as a subset of the master set. Thus, all PS's and Crusade's do the
same action the same exact way.
They did inform me that if PS and Crusade did not have the colon then
the cards would clearly identify different actions.
Now I am NOT an English major, I am Logistician. So I decided to look
up exactly what a colon is. Here it is according Webster (for all of
you who follow Webster).
Colon n. The section of the large intestine extending... opps, no need
for that.
Colon n. A punctuation mark (:) used after a word introducing a
quotation, explanation, example, or series and after the salutation of
a business letter.
Now, what the hell does all that mean?
Quick example would be this:
You are in the market to rent an apartment. The apartment complex has
a sign that states, No Pets Allowed: Dogs, Cats, Fish, Birds, etc.
The "No Pets Allowed" is the Major set with the Dogs, Cats, Fish,
Birds, etc., belonging in the subset. Just because an Iguana is not
listed does not mean you can bring it in. It is also under the Major
set of "No Pets Allowed".
So they are trying to make this parallel with the Praxis Seizure and
Crusade vote cards.
Are there any English Majors out there who play this game and can clear
this issue up grammatically?
Thoughts, any?
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
--
Worry comes from the belief you are powerless.
(So get in there and kick some butt!)
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Likewise Delaying Tactics prohibits the vampire (and all the other
> vampires
> > controlled by the same Methuselah) from taking the same political
> action
> > this turn. The means they cannot play the same action card (by name)
> or,
> > if the action comes from an in-play source (burning the Anarch Revolt,
> > for example), they cannot call the referendum to burn the same Anarch
> > Revolt. The card name, in the case of the praxes seizures, includes
> the
> > city. So seizing a different city would be allowable. [DTR 09-MAY-
> 1995]
>
> contains a subset of the original vote. This identifier is the ":"
> colon. The Praxis Seizure and Crusade both are actions containing a
> list. No other vote card possesses this characteristic.
>
> the cards would clearly identify different actions.
The colon doesn't separate the name of the card from some secondary
descriptor.
Examples:
The Elysium: The Arboretum won't contest The Elysium: The Palace of Versaille.
The various Powerbases do not contest each other.
A Cardinal can play both Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission and Cardinal Sin:
Insubordination in the same action (the former upon blocking, the latter after
the resulting combat).
A Prince could play Judgment: Camarilla Segregation, Freak Drive, and
Judgment: Death to the Brujah! even under the V:EKN No Repeat Action rule.
R. David Zopf
Ramsteiner wrote in message <8l0skh$37v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
snip
>Hello LSJ,
>
>Thank you for the answer. From the way the posts were leaning, I had
>already informed my group that it didn't look like they were correct
>with the Praxis Seizure issue. But I did inquiry why they felt that PS
>deserved special attention as opposed to other votes and here is what I
>got.
>
>All other votes are clearly defined with separate text and effects
>contains a subset of the original vote. This identifier is the ":"
>colon. The Praxis Seizure and Crusade both are actions containing a
>they see the PS's and Crusade's as a master set action with the cities
>as a subset of the master set. Thus, all PS's and Crusade's do the
>same action the same exact way.
>
>the cards would clearly identify different actions.
>
>up exactly what a colon is. Here it is according Webster (for all of
>you who follow Webster).
>
>Colon n. The section of the large intestine extending... opps, no need
>for that.
>
>Colon n. A punctuation mark (:) used after a word introducing a
>quotation, explanation, example, or series and after the salutation of
>a business letter.
>
>Now, what the hell does all that mean?
>
>Quick example would be this:
>You are in the market to rent an apartment. The apartment complex has
>a sign that states, No Pets Allowed: Dogs, Cats, Fish, Birds, etc.
>The "No Pets Allowed" is the Major set with the Dogs, Cats, Fish,
>Birds, etc., belonging in the subset. Just because an Iguana is not
>listed does not mean you can bring it in. It is also under the Major
>set of "No Pets Allowed".
>
>So they are trying to make this parallel with the Praxis Seizure and
>Crusade vote cards.
>
>Are there any English Majors out there who play this game and can clear
>this issue up grammatically?
>
>Thoughts, any?
>
Sorry to interject, but this may help you in your arguments/understanding of
this issue. Card titles do not imply any function or subset or power,
whatsoever, except for their unique identification from other cards.
Regardless of grammar, lexicon, etc. the only consideration is whether the
text adds up to something different than any other card, for these
considerations.
Consider, I create an unique promo vampire for the Charlotte group named as
follows
"Scoombs, the Confused. Ancient Antediluvain Malkavian with 14 Capacity and
All Disciplines at Superior"
With the following stats
2 capacity, obf
Flavor text: "The Confused... because the Hungry, the Weak, the Ignored,
and the Repugnant were all taken."
The title makes no difference to the function of the vampire other than to
differentiate it from other vampires for the purposes of contestation, etc.
It is similarly so for library cards. As such, you don't need to worry
about standard written English. It wasn't used or intended to be used in
such a manner for CCG's...
Hope this helps :-)
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver
V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC
James Hamblin
>
> DT is "only usable during a political action" and, as such, is only usable
> during the referendum part of the political action. [6.3.2]
> It cannot be played at the onset of the action itself (before block
> attempts, etc.)
LSJ, another quick question:
Since Delaying Tactics puts the vote card (if any) back into the
player's hand, they have to discard back down to their hand size,
correct? I think I saw someone put the card they drew off of the vote
action back on top of their deck, but I wasn't sure.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"And the tide rushes by where we stand /
And the earth underneath turns to sand"
-- Sheryl Crow
The Lasombra
Michael Eichler, Prince of Ramstein <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I was the actual player to whom the actions occurred. I wanted to
> test an off-the-cuff Presence Political deck with minions going no
> higher than 5 capacity. I had 5 minions up, 2 were already
> "Prince'd" and I was working toward the 3rd when the card play
> occurred.
>
> I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform the
> second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis Seizure and
> had it Delayed.
Just stop right there.
Khalil Anvari, I assume?
The Follower of Set, Non-Camarilla vampire, who cannot even call a
Praxis Seizure vote nor be a prince without a Writ of Acceptance or the
passing of an Invitation Accepted vote?
From the online Rulebook (http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html):
10. Vampire Sects
"A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. Only
Camarilla vampires can become Primogen, Princes, Justicars, or Inner
Circle members. Likewise, only Sabbat vampires can become Bishops,
Archbishops, Prisci, or Cardinals. Additionally, clan Justicar titles
can only be given to a vampire of the appropriate clan."
> I happened to have another Praxis in my hand and tried
> using that with Violette. That is when we had to stop and figure out
> what was what. We decided for game flow (time) and tempers to just
> perform a completely different vote, which was Autarkis Persecution.
>
> Now as to Khalil being able to perform another Political Action after
> the Delaying Tactics, I am somewhat fuzzy on that. He didn't. He
> went out and bled my prey, Robert, just to take it away from him.
> I am fairly sure that he would not be able to perform another
> political action, though.
Under the No Repeat Actions rule (NRA), he would not be able to call
another vote that turn. He had successfully completed the action to
call the vote and the cannot attempt to call another one that turn.
He could call a different vote per Delaying Tactics, but not per NRA.
Remember that NRA is a tournament/DCI/VEKN rule only, it is not a part
of the basic set of VTES rules at this time. If you usually play with
VEKN tournament rules, then he could not call any other vote that turn.
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
Noal McDonald
>> I used a different vampire (I think it was Violette) to perform
>> the second Praxis Seizure. Khalil performed the first Praxis
>> Seizure and had it Delayed.
>
> Just stop right there.
>
> Khalil Anvari, I assume?
>
> The Follower of Set, Non-Camarilla vampire, who cannot even call
> a Praxis Seizure vote nor be a prince without a Writ of Acceptance
> or the passing of an Invitation Accepted vote?
Yes, that was probably done. (Notice the reference to Violette Prentiss)
I really should have played my Setite Vote deck at Origins (not that it
would have done any better on Sunday with at least half the decks being
politcal decks) so this idea wouldn't strike people as odd as they do.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
LSJ
> Since Delaying Tactics puts the vote card (if any) back into the
> player's hand, they have to discard back down to their hand size,
> correct? I think I saw someone put the card they drew off of the vote
> action back on top of their deck, but I wasn't sure.
Right. The discarded card can even be the vote card in question, and it
goes to the ash heap (not the library) whatever it is.
Noal McDonald
> I think I saw someone put the card they drew off of the
> vote action back on top of their deck, but I wasn't sure.
Yeah, you really have to watch people when you play cards that require
them to put cards back into their hand or reduce their hand size. More
than once, I've caught people trying to put the cards back into their
hand that they were supposed to discard because of reduced hand size due
to multiple Raptors in combat.
James Coupe
deja.com> writes
>I am not going to argue the issue at this point as it serves no
>purpose. I have only presented what some of my players wanted brought
>forward. In short, I have tossed down the coin. Now we are awaiting
>LSJ's answer on which side is correct or if I am using the wrong coin
>altogether.
If you only want an official answer, e-mailing LSJ directly would
probably be simpler for you.
Posting to a newsgroup will inevitably lead to other people discussing
the idea.
--
James Coupe