[LSJ] Multiple changing of votes
hardy...@gmx.de
the usual thing happened during one of our games recently, namely:
something unusual. :-)
Player A plays Nosferatu, amongst them Ellison Humboldt and a Prince.
Card text:
Ellison Humboldt
Clan: Nosferatu (group 3)
Capacity: 9
Disciplines: ANI OBF POT PRE pro
Camarilla primogen: Princes cannot block Ellison. During a referendum,
Ellison may burn a blood to force a ready prince to vote as Ellison's
controller wishes. This can change the prince's votes.
His prey, Player B, plays Toreador, amongst them Alexandra and Michael
Luther.
Card text:
Michael Luther
Clan: Toreador (group 3)
Capacity: 4
Disciplines: aus pre
Camarilla: You may tap Michael during a referendum to change the votes
of a Camarilla vampire to votes of your choice. When Michael enters
combat, you may draw 1 card. Discard down to your hand size afterward.
What happened:
Player A calls a vote. During the referendum, his Prince votes in
favor. Player B taps Michael Luther to use his special and change
Player A's prince's votes around.
Then, Player A uses Ellison Humboldt's special to burn a blood and
change the votes of the Prince back.
- Question A: Was this back-and-forth changing of votes allowable? I
ruled yes.
After this, Player B used the special ability of Alexandra to untap
Michael Luther and wanted to use Michael's special ability again.
- Question B: I ruled that this second use of Michael Luther's special
was not allowed, becuase of the "During X, do Y" template used in his
card text. Was my decision correct?
Thanks,
Hardy Range
Prince of Bochum, Germany
http://www.vekn.de
LSJ
Yes.
> After this, Player B used the special ability of Alexandra to untap
> Michael Luther and wanted to use Michael's special ability again.
>
> - Question B: I ruled that this second use of Michael Luther's special
> was not allowed, becuase of the "During X, do Y" template used in his
> card text. Was my decision correct?
It's actually "May do Y during X", so I don't think so.
I'll check on that.
--
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/
Charles Lechasseur
hardy...@gmx.de wrote:
>After this, Player B used the special ability of Alexandra to untap
>Michael Luther and wanted to use Michael's special ability again.
How could B use Alexandra's ability during A's turn?
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
LSJ
news:%_gtd.99108$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> It's actually "May do Y during X", so I don't think so.
> I'll check on that.
Check. You were correct. My "I don't think so" is incorrect.
If Michael Luther manages to untap, he still cannot use his special again
in that referendum.
Angela Preston is in the same boat as Michael Luther -- both use that "May
tap during" phrasing.
I imagine that the tapping part makes the question quite cornercase, but
there you go.
Ankur Gupta
>> was not allowed, becuase of the "During X, do Y" template used in his
>> card text. Was my decision correct?
>
> It's actually "May do Y during X", so I don't think so.
> I'll check on that.
I'm interested as well, because there is a deck here that turbo untaps
Michael Luther using firebrands each turn until the votes pass. He then
cryptic riders the rest of the votes. . . or at least, he should. ;)
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette, IN
geo...@for.auth.gr
I mean Angela Preston's special text says that she may do Y during
phase X (influence),
but Luther's special says that he may do Y during a referendum, not
during phase X.
The rule says that the "do Y during PHASE X" template limits the Y
only once.
Am i wrong ?
George
LSJ
news:1102446555....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Phase X" is a template marker for "some window of opportunity".
In Mike's case, it's a referendum.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Joshua Duffin
"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu...
That would still work (at least in some form) even though Michael Luther
falls under the "during X do Y" template. Since his "during X" is "a
referendum", if you keep untapping him with Firebrand, you can use his
ability in each referendum that gets called.
Josh
during X take a nap
geo...@for.auth.gr
ok, understood. What about Polaris coach ?
Polaris Coach
Vehicle. Haven.
1 blood
During your untap phase, move 1 blood from this vamp. to the PC or
burn the PC. While this vampire is acting, he or she may burn one
counter from the PC to get +1 stealth for the current action. During
undirected actions and actions that are not directed at this vamp., he
or she cannot block or play reaction cards. A minion may have only one
haven and only one vehicle.
Does "While this vampire is acting" mean "during an action" ?
(i would say yes)
if yes, is the burn 1 blood limited once per action ?
I think i've heard that you can burn multiple blood with this card to
get multiple stealth
per action, is this correct ?
if yes, why ? i believe the text is clear about 1 blood during an
action (so, PC in the same
boat with Luther and Preston, if you ask me. A big boat that is.)
Finaly, i want to kind of rant about the immense complicity of the
rules!!!
I mean, i can understand that new rules are needed in a game, buit when
you
make a rule and then further clarify the rule, with other rule
sentences, then the
game is becoming too complicated for new players, who lose trust in the
rules.
When Phase X means any Phase like influence phase and also means a
referendum,
or an action, e.t.c then the rules lose their trustworthiness.
If you want to mean that "the Phase X" is a template marker for some
"window of opportunity",
then you should have made clear from the start that it is "may do Y
during X (window of opportunity)"
or more simple say "do Y during X, limits Y once per X" and not "do Y
during Phase X".
If we need You to clarify WHAT Phase X means, when a "Phase" is a
simple and fundamental
term in our game then sadly our game is doomed...
I am not saying that you (or the rule team) are not doing a
sufficient work, i am more like starting
to believe that our game is cursed (maybe by those wicked wizards :P)
to be the most pretty and
complicated, at the same time, thing on this planet (something like a
woman).
IMO the text of cards should be made according to strict formulas
and not have such varietry.
So, by ruling limitations for these formulas you could have fewer
rules and avoid confusion.
The "do Y during phase X" formula is an example that you are making
such an effort and i believe that
you should continue to do so and define more formulas.
George
LSJ
> ok, understood. What about Polaris coach ?
>
> Polaris Coach
> Vehicle. Haven.
> 1 blood
> During your untap phase, move 1 blood from this vamp. to the PC or
> burn the PC. While this vampire is acting, he or she may burn one
> counter from the PC to get +1 stealth for the current action. During
> undirected actions and actions that are not directed at this vamp., he
> or she cannot block or play reaction cards. A minion may have only one
> haven and only one vehicle.
>
> Does "While this vampire is acting" mean "during an action" ?
> (i would say yes)
No. "While" is intended to indicate repeatability.
> if yes, is the burn 1 blood limited once per action ?
No.
> I think i've heard that you can burn multiple blood with this card to
> get multiple stealth
> per action, is this correct ?
Yes.
> if yes, why ? i believe the text is clear about 1 blood during an
> action (so, PC in the same
> boat with Luther and Preston, if you ask me. A big boat that is.)
"While"
> Finaly, i want to kind of rant about the immense complicity of the
> rules!!!
Complexity.
"Complicity" means something else.
> I mean, i can understand that new rules are needed in a game, buit when
> you
> make a rule and then further clarify the rule, with other rule
> sentences, then the
> game is becoming too complicated for new players, who lose trust in the
> rules.
A sequence of rules is necessary.
The particular sequence is chosen to be as uniform and logical as possible,
so that the unknown parts can be intuited.
> When Phase X means any Phase like influence phase and also means a
> referendum,
> or an action, e.t.c then the rules lose their trustworthiness.
Please.
> If you want to mean that "the Phase X" is a template marker for some
> "window of opportunity",
> then you should have made clear from the start that it is "may do Y
> during X (window of opportunity)"
> or more simple say "do Y during X, limits Y once per X" and not "do Y
> during Phase X".
That's what it means, yes.
It's just a ruling to say exactly that.
Now that you've pointed out a possible misinterpretation of the ruling's
text particular, I'll try to rectify that.
> If we need You to clarify WHAT Phase X means, when a "Phase" is a
> simple and fundamental
> term in our game then sadly our game is doomed...
Yes, I've heard that pronouncement before.
> I am not saying that you (or the rule team) are not doing a
> sufficient work, i am more like starting
> to believe that our game is cursed (maybe by those wicked wizards :P)
> to be the most pretty and
> complicated, at the same time, thing on this planet (something like a
> woman).
It is inherently complicated, so in that sense it destined to remain
so.
> IMO the text of cards should be made according to strict formulas
> and not have such varietry.
Variety of effects leads to variety of card texts.
Similar effects are (or at least, should be) worded similarly.
> So, by ruling limitations for these formulas you could have fewer
> rules and avoid confusion.
> The "do Y during phase X" formula is an example that you are making
> such an effort and i believe that
> you should continue to do so and define more formulas.
I agree.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
HardyRange
My description of what happened was edited for clarity, and I edited it
the wrong way round.... :-)
In fact, Player B called the referendum.
But that did not matter for the purposes of my rules question, did it?
;-)
Regards,