Final Loosening vs Voter Captivation [LSJ]
tigernat1
I have a 9 cap vampire with 4 blood calling a vote that is passing by
7. I play Voter Cap at PRE and plan on taking 2 pool while giving my
vamp 5 blood, announcing this when I play the Voter Cap.
My sneaky xtable "ally" plays final loosening at the aus level. What
happens?
1. I gain 1 blood on my vamp and 2 pool
2. I gain 1 blood on my vamp or 1 pool
Final Loosening
[aus] Play when the acting vampire would gain 1 or more blood. The
acting vampire and this reacting anarch each gain 1 blood instead.
Voter Cap
[pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
[PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those blood counters to your pool
On a separate note, after reading Voter Cap more closely...Is it
possible to BOTH fill up a vamp to capacity and take 2 pool? Or is
the max blood I can put on a vamp cap-2 if I take the 2 pool?
In other words:
Which comes first, the taking of the 2 pool or the removal of blood
counters in excess of capacity?
Vegas gNat
LSJ
> How do these 2 cards interact?
FL is played when the VC-playing acting vampire would gain blood from
VC. Each vampire gains 1 blood (instead of the acting vampire gaining
whatever blood xe was going to gain).
> I have a 9 cap vampire with 4 blood calling a vote that is passing by
> 7. I play Voter Cap at PRE and plan on taking 2 pool while giving my
> vamp 5 blood, announcing this when I play the Voter Cap.
9-cap would gain 5.
> My sneaky xtable "ally" plays final loosening at the aus level. What
> happens?
> 1. I gain 1 blood on my vamp and 2 pool
> 2. I gain 1 blood on my vamp or 1 pool
1.
> Final Loosening
> [aus] Play when the acting vampire would gain 1 or more blood. The
> acting vampire and this reacting anarch each gain 1 blood instead.
>
> Voter Cap
> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
> the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
> [PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those blood counters to your pool
>
> On a separate note, after reading Voter Cap more closely...Is it
> possible to BOTH fill up a vamp to capacity and take 2 pool? Or is
> the max blood I can put on a vamp cap-2 if I take the 2 pool?
BOTH.
> In other words:
> Which comes first, the taking of the 2 pool or the removal of blood
> counters in excess of capacity?
Card text: " As above, but move up to 2 of those blood counters to
your pool instead of this vampire."
Since it isn't moved to the vampire, it doesn't care about xer
capacity.
OldFan
I'll admit to some confusion on your answer Scott.
From my reading of the 2 card texts, my summary of the resulting
interaction would be:
1.) Vamp A plays Voter Cap, getting the option to gain (ex. 5) blood,
with a futher option of moving upto 2 of those blood to his pool.
2.) Anarch Vamp B plays Final Loosening at (aus), thereby reducing the
total blood generated by Voter Cap to 1 blood TOTAL.
3.) Voter Cap, modified by Final Loosening, generates 1 blood for Vamp
A, which by card text on Voter Cap, can either be left on Vamp A, OR
moved to Methuselah A's pool.
-----------
Basically, my confusion stems from - F.L. reduces the total blood gain
of Voter Cap TO 1. Not 1 + 2 pool, as you seemed to indicate in your
answer. And according to Voter Cap text, before those counters are
considered pool, they are FIRST considered as blood gained by Vamp A,
and thus subject to reduction by F.L.
Could you clarify your first answer and explain where my understanding
of these 2 card interactions is wrong?
Cheers,
-Asif Chaudhry
Peter D Bakija
> I'll admit to some confusion on your answer Scott.
Not being LSJ, but having gone through this already, I'll attempt to
clarify :-)
Final Loosening makes a vampire not gain X blood, and instead gain 1
blood. With Voter cap, it has no impact on the 2 pool the methuselah
is gaining. So if you are planning on playing Final Loosening when
someone Voter Caps, hold it till they declare how they are splitting
up the spoils.
If, say, you win a vote by 7, and you say "vampire gets 5 blood and I
gain 2 pool", a FL played will result in vampire gaining 1 blood and
you gaining 2 pool. If you win a vote by 2, and say "vampire gets 0
blood and I gain 2 pool", a FL will have no effect.
> Could you clarify your first answer and explain where my understanding
> of these 2 card interactions is wrong?
My understanding is that the Voter Cap is played, all aspects of the
card play are announced (i.e. where the blood/pool goes), and *then*
FL is played, reducing the blood gain to 1 and not touching the pool
gain (as FL only affects blood gained by a vampire).
-Peter
LSJ
> On Mar 28, 10:21 am, OldFan <asif.i.chaud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll admit to some confusion on your answer Scott.
>
> Not being LSJ, but having gone through this already, I'll attempt to
> clarify :-)
>
> Final Loosening makes a vampire not gain X blood, and instead gain 1
> blood. With Voter cap, it has no impact on the 2 pool the methuselah
> is gaining. So if you are planning on playing Final Loosening when
> someone Voter Caps, hold it till they declare how they are splitting
> up the spoils.
Which is officially trivial, since they have to declare the split when
Vote Cap is played. In practice, of course, some players are a bit
sloppy with this.
> If, say, you win a vote by 7, and you say "vampire gets 5 blood and I
> gain 2 pool", a FL played will result in vampire gaining 1 blood and
> you gaining 2 pool.
Correct (and the FL-vampire also gaining 1 blood).
> If you win a vote by 2, and say "vampire gets 0
> blood and I gain 2 pool", a FL will have no effect.
Indeed, in that case, it could not even be played.
> > Could you clarify your first answer and explain where my understanding
> > of these 2 card interactions is wrong?
>
> My understanding is that the Voter Cap is played, all aspects of the
> card play are announced (i.e. where the blood/pool goes), and *then*
> FL is played, reducing the blood gain to 1 and not touching the pool
> gain (as FL only affects blood gained by a vampire).
Correct. (Card text)
Juggernaut1981
Again, I have to agree with Asif...
VC allocates the blood to the Vamp and allows the Meth to "later
allocate" some to their pool (with a simultaneous resolution).... It
looks as if, INTUITIVELY, FL should reset the value of VC's "blood
gain" to 1, thereby allowing the Methuselah to choose to accept 1
blood on the vampire or 1 blood as pool.
FL's own text says "Would gain blood...", and VC's text allocates all
blood to the vampire with the Meth gaining the option to divert some
of that as pool...
LSJ
> Again, I have to agree with Asif...
Again, I have to agree with card text.
> VC's text allocates all
> blood to the vampire with the Meth gaining the option to divert some
> of that as pool...
Not according to card text on Voter Captivation.
"move up to 2 of those blood counters to your pool instead of this
vampire."
"instead of this vampire".
So a referendum passes by 7.
You play VC at superior, declaring that you will move 2 of the blood
counters from the bank to your pool instead of to the acting vampire,
and move the other 5 blood counters to this vampire.
That is:
You: gain 2 pool. Vampire: gain 5 blood.
Final Loosening is played, changing the vampire's blood gain to 1. It
doesn't affect your pool gain.
OldFan
Scott & Peter,
The point that Juggernaut & I are trying to make is that the card text
that Scott is referring to doesn't support your contention.
Voter Cap
[pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
[PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those ***blood*** counters to your
pool
The inferior version of V.C. says "Vamp A gains X blood". The
superior version says "AS ABOVE, but move up to 2 of those BLOOD
counters to your pool"
What Jug & I are saying is that there is SOME moment/window of time
where those counters are considered to be blood being gained by a
vampire. Which you can then immediately, as part of card resolution,
send to your pool.
Final Loosening is played immediately when the Cap gets played (or at
least that's what I thought).
What you & Peter seem to be saying is that V.C. says something to the
effect of :
PRE: Minion gains X counters, up to 2 of which may be allocated to the
pool of this minion's controller - the rest go to the acting minion as
blood.
-------------------------
If you want to rule that this is how the card works, then that is fine
- but that is NOT what the reading of card text for V.C. and Final
Loosening would lead anyone to think. And the english text on V.C. is
very precise and clear on this. At (pre) gain X BLOOD counters. At
(PRE), you can move up to 2 of those "just gained BLOOD counters" to
your pool.
Again - I see what you and Peter are saying about "Acting Methuselah
plays V.C. and says Minion 5 blood & pool 2 counters" and THEN other
players may react, but I don't think a player's declaration of intent
can alter card text to that extent. V.C. only ever talks about BLOOD
counters gained, and the superior very explicitly references "as
above, but move 2 of those counters to your pool."
Just my $0.02 - it just makes Final Loosening even MORE of a coaster
card than it was before (and it was pretty damn corner case to begin
with).
-Asif Chaudhry
LSJ
OldFan and Juggernaut,
The point Peter and I are making is that the card text I refer to
exactly supports my contention.
The emphasis you give above does nothing to detract from my
contention.
Indeed, the bank is a collection of blood counters, and only blood
couters. [1.2.2] and [2.2.2]
> The inferior version of V.C. says "Vamp A gains X blood". The
> superior version says "AS ABOVE, but move up to 2 of those BLOOD
> counters to your pool"
Exactly.
"But", not "and".
and, as you omitted and I have previously emphasized, "instead"
instead of moving the "up to 2" BLOOD counters from the BLOOD bank to
the vampire, move those BLOOD counters form the BLOOD bank to your
pool.
Since they are being moved to your pool and not to the vampire, they
are not among those being moved to the vampire. QED.
> What Jug & I are saying is that there is SOME moment/window of time
> where those counters are considered to be blood being gained by a
> vampire. Which you can then immediately, as part of card resolution,
> send to your pool.
But, as per explicit card text and repeatedly explained in this
thread, there is no such window.
> Final Loosening is played immediately when the Cap gets played (or at
> least that's what I thought).
It can be played when Cap gets played, sure, assuming that the effect
of the Cap involves the acting vampire gaining 1 or more blood. In
which case, the Final Loosening will affect that amount (but not any
other effect, like, for example, pool gain provided by the Cap). In
the other case, when Cap is played for pool gain only, with the
vampire gaining no blood, the Final Loosening cannot be played.
> What you & Peter seem to be saying is that V.C. says something to the
> effect of :
>
> PRE: Minion gains X counters, up to 2 of which may be allocated to the
> pool of this minion's controller - the rest go to the acting minion as
> blood.
No. In the superior, the vampire doesn't gain X. "But" "instead", up
to 2 of the X (X being the amount by which the referendum passed) can
be used as pool gain. The rest of the X is used as blood gain. That's
what Voter Captivation is saying. Peter and I are just acknowledging
that.
> -------------------------
>
> If you want to rule that this is how the card works, then that is fine
Thanks.
But card text suffices on its own, unambiguously. So all I have to do
is refrain from issuing errata.
> - but that is NOT what the reading of card text for V.C. and Final
> Loosening would lead anyone to think.
Untrue.
> And the english text on V.C. is
> very precise and clear on this.
That bit is correct, though. VC's text is clear on this point.
> At (pre) gain X BLOOD counters. At
> (PRE), you can move up to 2 of those "just gained BLOOD counters" to
> your pool.
No. at PRE, you move up to two of those BLOOD counters to your pool
INSTEAD.
floppyzedolfin
Blood Bank holds blood counters. When moved to your pool, such
counters become pool counters.
But as long as they are in the blood bank, they are referred to as
"blood counters" (mainly because they are blood counters).
Sup' Voter Captivation refers to those blood counters that are taken
from the blood bank.
Salem
> Scott & Peter,
>
> The point that Juggernaut & I are trying to make is that the card text
> that Scott is referring to doesn't support your contention.
>
> Voter Cap
> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
> the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
> [PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those ***blood*** counters to your
> pool
This text is different to the text LSJ quoted. It lacks the 'instead of
this vampire', which makes the counters not go via the vampire first,
but instead go directly to your pool, and thus never be counters the
vampire would be gaining to be affected by Final Loosening.
I think we wouldn't be in such a confused state if the correct text had
been initially quoted.
--
salem
LSJ
> OldFan wrote:
> > Scott & Peter,
>
> > The point that Juggernaut & I are trying to make is that the card text
> > that Scott is referring to doesn't support your contention.
>
> > Voter Cap
> > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
> > the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
> > [PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those ***blood*** counters to your
> > pool
>
> This text is different to the text LSJ quoted. It lacks the 'instead of
> this vampire', which makes the counters not go via the vampire first,
> but instead go directly to your pool,
Well, the "but" also accomplishes that, albeit less clearly by itself
than when paired with the "instead".
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/34ed24555259232c
> and thus never be counters the
> vampire would be gaining to be affected by Final Loosening.
>
> I think we wouldn't be in such a confused state if the correct text had
> been initially quoted.
Perhaps, although I quoted the correct card text in my initial reply.
Juggernaut1981
"Only usable when a vampire WOULD gain blood" which implies its effect
pre-empts any effect of VC. You cannot move blood to your pool before
moving blood to the vampire, so the effect of FL would appear to
reverse the effects of VC and replace them.
On Mar 30, 9:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:22 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OldFan wrote:
> > > Scott & Peter,
>
> > > The point that Juggernaut & I are trying to make is that the card text
> > > that Scott is referring to doesn't support your contention.
>
> > > Voter Cap
> > > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
> > > the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
> > > [PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those ***blood*** counters to your
> > > pool
>
> > This text is different to the text LSJ quoted. It lacks the 'instead of
> > this vampire', which makes the counters not go via the vampire first,
> > but instead go directly to your pool,
>
> Well, the "but" also accomplishes that, albeit less clearly by itself
> than when paired with the "instead".http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/34ed...
It is trivially obvious that excess blood to the vampire (as is the
point in the quoted thread) drains off the vampire. And that the
amount of blood & pool gained must total X (with a posisble 2 blood
going to the Methuselah). It does not appear to address "If the
vampire 'owns' the blood before it is sent to the pool".
I am not trying to say that the full blood is transferred to the
vampire and then 2 to the Methuselah (which would result in VC always
leaving a vampire at a maximum of Capacity - 2 blood).
Because of the wording that FL is only usable when a vampire WOULD
(not when a vampire HAS) gained blood... and because of the fact that
if FL is to resolve when a vampire WOULD gain blood it would have to
act potentially 'before' a Methuselah can allocate blood to their own
pool with VC.
Juggernaut1981
> Because of the wording that FL is only usable when a vampire WOULD
> (not when a vampire HAS) gained blood... and because of the fact that
> if FL is to resolve when a vampire WOULD gain blood it would have to
> act potentially 'before' a Methuselah can allocate blood to their own
>
> - Show quoted text -
LSJ> Words of your own which would lean to the idea that FL should
reset VC's X to 1...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4b914e1750de0251
This was recent and regarding Foul Blood's effect on hunts. (Which
requires a successful hunt action, while FL requires a "would gain
blood")
ira...@gmail.com
> Actually my stronger contention is the fact that Final Loosening says
> "Only usable when a vampire WOULD gain blood" which implies its effect
> pre-empts any effect of VC. You cannot move blood to your pool before
> moving blood to the vampire, so the effect of FL would appear to
> reverse the effects of VC and replace them.
Having discussed various rules with LSJ over the years, I'd like to
share a bit of wisdom I've learned:
LSJ is right. If you disagree with his answer, you simply haven't
found enlightenment yet. Ask questions to understand why he is right
and you are wrong (or just haven't understood yet.) Don't ask
questions trying to show why he is wrong, because he is actually
right.
Because LSJ is a patient teacher (as evidenced by his quintuplicate
reply in this thread), you will be able to reach understanding if you
approach it as a student.
In the rare case that LSJ gives an answer that needs to be reversed
later, that rare result will still be easily reached using the method
I propose. And in the 99% of cases when LSJ is actually right, you'll
reach an understanding of the rules faster and less painfully.
Good Luck,
Ira
P.S. As far as I can tell, the key to understanding this answer is the
word "instead" on superior VC.
LSJ
> Actually my stronger contention is the fact that Final Loosening says
> "Only usable when a vampire WOULD gain blood" which implies its effect
> pre-empts any effect of VC.
Um. No.
In the same way, "Only usable when a vampire WOULD gain blood" does
not imply that it pre-empts any effect of diablerie.
Before VC is played, the "WOULD gain blood" bit is not satisfied, so
FL cannot be played.
When VC is played (and all plays are fully announced when played), the
effect is given.
Example: X=7. Vampire gains 5 blood. I gain 2 pool.
Now that the "WOULD gain blood" bit is satisfied, the FL can be
played.
FL: The acting vampire would gain 5 blood. "This acting vampire and
this reacting anarch each gain 1 blood instead."
You still gain 2 pool.
Similarly for diablerie:
Before diablerie, the "WOULD gain blood" bit is not satisfied, so FL
cannot be played.
The vampire diablerizes an older vampire with 10 blood, a Sport Bike
and a Flamethrower.
So the vampire gains 10 blood, a sport bike, a flamethrower, and his
controlled can search for a M:D card to place on xem. And xe'll face a
blood hunt.
Now that the "WOULD gain blood" bit is satisfied, FL can be played.
The acting vampire gains 1 blood.
The reacting anarch also gains 1 blood.
The acting vampire als gets a sport bike, a flamethrower, a M:D card
(possibly) and a blood hunt referendum.
> You cannot move blood to your pool before
> moving blood to the vampire, so the effect of FL would appear to
> reverse the effects of VC and replace them.
FL "reverses" the blood gain effects of VC and replaces them with
alternate blood gain, sure. Card text.
FL doesn't affect the pool gain effect of VC (or any other pool gain
effect, or indeed any effect other than blood gain).. Card text again.
"You cannot move blood to your pool before moving blood to the
vampire" is also true: the movements are simultaneous.
> > Well, the "but" also accomplishes that, albeit less clearly by itself
> > than when paired with the "instead".http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/34ed...
>
> It is trivially obvious that excess blood to the vampire (as is the
> point in the quoted thread) drains off the vampire. And that the
> amount of blood & pool gained must total X (with a posisble 2 blood
> going to the Methuselah). It does not appear to address "If the
> vampire 'owns' the blood before it is sent to the pool".
Vampire with capacity 7 has 5 blood.
Referendum passes by 5.
VC is played.
Your version:
Vampire gains 5. After which, Meth can move 2 to Meth's pool.
Result: vampire gains 5, 3 of which exceed xer capacity, so 3 drain
off to the bank. Then Meth moves 2 from the vampire to Meth's pool.
Vampire ends up with 5 blood.
Official version (per the quoted thread):
Vampire gains 3, Meth gains 2.
Result: Vampire gains 3, 1 of which exceeds xer capacity, so 1 drains
off to the bank. The Meth gains 2 (from the bank).
Vampire ends up with 7 blood.
> I am not trying to say that the full blood is transferred to the
> vampire and then 2 to the Methuselah (which would result in VC always
> leaving a vampire at a maximum of Capacity - 2 blood).
?
OK.
Either the vampire is gaining X or he's gaining X-2. Which is it?
> Because of the wording that FL is only usable when a vampire WOULD
> (not when a vampire HAS) gained blood... and because of the fact that
> if FL is to resolve when a vampire WOULD gain blood it would have to
> act potentially 'before' a Methuselah can allocate blood to their own
> pool with VC.
The allocation is declared when VC is played. [1.6.1.1]
LSJ
> > Because of the wording that FL is only usable when a vampire WOULD
> > (not when a vampire HAS) gained blood... and because of the fact that
> > if FL is to resolve when a vampire WOULD gain blood it would have to
> > act potentially 'before' a Methuselah can allocate blood to their own
> > pool with VC.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> LSJ> Words of your own which would lean to the idea that FL should
> reset VC's X to 1...
>
>
> This was recent and regarding Foul Blood's effect on hunts. (Which
> requires a successful hunt action, while FL requires a "would gain
> blood")
?
Nothing there says or implies that VC's X is affected.
Juggernaut1981
>
> Nothing there says or implies that VC's X is affected.- Hide quoted text -
>
In a Diablerie Scenario...
Vamp A declares a diablerie on Vamp B. Vamp B has 5 blood and N items
of equipment. Vamp A reaches the point where the action is not
blocked and will be successful. FL is now playable since Vamp A WOULD
gain blood during this action (the 5 blood currently belonging to Vamp
B) and Vamp C reacts with FL. The Diablerie resolves, Vamp A gains 1
blood instead of the 5 because of FL, Vamp C gains 1 blood from FL,
Vamp A takes whichever items of equipment they wish and a bloodhunt
referendum is then called.
In a Hunting Example...
Rabbat declares a Hunt Action, she has Aaron's Feeding Razor. She
plays the relevant stealth to avoid all potential blockers. With all
block attempts now failing, Rabbat would gain 2 blood. Vamp A then
plays FL, reducing the blood Rabbat will gain to 1. The action now
resolves. So Rabbat's controller can now either have 1 blood on
Rabbat or gain 1 pool (using Rabbat's text) and Vamp A gains 1 blood.
To use the example you've given...
A vote called by Vamp A passes by 5 votes. Vamp A is a 7 Cap vampire
with 5 blood.
Vamp A plays VC. Vamp A is entitled to 5 blood, but the 5 blood is
not yet transferred to Vamp A. At this point all the blood belongs to
Vamp A, but is not yet on Vamp A and so cannot "wash off".
2 of that 5, which is allocated to the vampire will instead be
transferred to the Methuselah's pool. This results in Vamp A having 3
blood transferred to it, where Vamp A gains 3 and the excess 1 above
its capacity return to the blood bank and the two blood, which did at
one stage belong to Vamp A, is transferred to the Methuselah's pool.
The VC has allocated 5 blood to the vampire and that vampire WOULD
gain blood (it would gain 5, but the Methuselah may appropriate up to
2 of that 5). So if FL is played after VC, the FL would recognise
that the full 5 blood is the entitlement of the Vampire (of which the
Methuselah can take up to 2), reduces the vampire's entitlement to 1
blood and result in resetting the X of VC to 1.
I hope you and Ira understand the point I am attempting to advocate
here. This is not because I do not understand what is being said by
LSJ, but more to point out the ambiguity in the wording of FL and the
way it could be interpreted when used with a number of different
effects. I also think there is an ambiguity in VC, that has been
highlighted since FL has been printed, namely that VC could be easily
interpreted to imply that all the blood belongs to the vampire but the
Methuselah is given the option to transfer the blood to their own pool
instead of the Vampire (simultaneously to transferring to the vampire).
floppyzedolfin
> Ira,
>
>
>
> > Nothing there says or implies that VC's X is affected.- Hide quoted text -
>
> In a Diablerie Scenario...
> Vamp A declares a diablerie on Vamp B. Vamp B has 5 blood and N items
> of equipment. Vamp A reaches the point where the action is not
> blocked and will be successful. FL is now playable since Vamp A WOULD
> gain blood during this action (the 5 blood currently belonging to Vamp
> B) and Vamp C reacts with FL. The Diablerie resolves, Vamp A gains 1
> blood instead of the 5 because of FL, Vamp C gains 1 blood from FL,
> Vamp A takes whichever items of equipment they wish and a bloodhunt
> referendum is then called.
I think this is rather irrelevant with Voter Captivation.
> In a Hunting Example...
> Rabbat declares a Hunt Action, she has Aaron's Feeding Razor. She
> plays the relevant stealth to avoid all potential blockers. With all
> block attempts now failing, Rabbat would gain 2 blood. Vamp A then
> plays FL, reducing the blood Rabbat will gain to 1. The action now
> resolves. So Rabbat's controller can now either have 1 blood on
> Rabbat or gain 1 pool (using Rabbat's text) and Vamp A gains 1 blood.
Perhaps.
> To use the example you've given...
> A vote called by Vamp A passes by 5 votes. Vamp A is a 7 Cap vampire
> with 5 blood.
> Vamp A plays VC. Vamp A is entitled to 5 blood,
No. Vamp A plays VC, and announces the terms, which means A says "I
move 2 of those 5 blood counters awarded by Voter Captivation from the
blood bank to my controller's pool instead of moving them to me". As a
result of this, A gains 5-2 = 3 blood, and A's controller gains 2
pool.
> but the 5 blood is
> not yet transferred to Vamp A. At this point all the blood belongs to
> Vamp A, but is not yet on Vamp A
Incorrect. 3 blood are entitled to move to A, and 2 are entitled to
move to pool.
> and so cannot "wash off".
> 2 of that 5, which is allocated to the vampire will instead be
> transferred to the Methuselah's pool.
Correction: "2 of that 5 are instead allocated to the Methuselah's
pool, and are therefore not allocated to the vampire".
> This results in Vamp A having 3
> blood transferred to it, where Vamp A gains 3 and the excess 1 above
> its capacity return to the blood bank and the two blood, which did at
> one stage belong to Vamp A, is transferred to the Methuselah's pool.
Those blood never belonged to A.
> The VC has allocated 5 blood to the vampire and that vampire WOULD
> gain blood (it would gain 5, but the Methuselah may appropriate up to
> 2 of that 5).
There is nothing in VC's cardtext that says the vampire gets all the
blood counters, and that the split happens afterwards.
> So if FL is played after VC, the FL would recognise
> that the full 5 blood is the entitlement of the Vampire (of which the
> Methuselah can take up to 2),
The Methuselah can take up to 2 blood counters and move them to pool
among those 5 taken from the blood bank.
> reduces the vampire's entitlement to 1
> blood and result in resetting the X of VC to 1.
>
> I hope you and Ira understand the point I am attempting to advocate
> here.
You're misreading Voter Captivation. It is a 1-step effect : the
awarding of blood counters and the splitting apart to vampire and to
pool are simultaneous.
I think Voter Captivation sup's text is equivalent to this:
PRE : X is the number of votes by which this referendum passed.
Choose one: this acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank; or
you gain 1 pool and this acting vampire gains X-1 blood from the blood
bank; or you gain min(2,X) pool and this acting vampire gains X-2
blood from the blood bank.
Which is ridiculously long.
LSJ
> Ira,
I'm Scott, not Ira.
> > Nothing there says or implies that VC's X is affected.- Hide quoted text -
> In a Diablerie Scenario...
[snip]
Correct.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4aa78a7a3d0137d4
> In a Hunting Example...
[snip]
Correct.
> To use the example you've given...
> A vote called by Vamp A passes by 5 votes. Vamp A is a 7 Cap vampire
> with 5 blood.
> Vamp A plays VC. Vamp A is entitled to 5 blood, but the 5 blood is
> not yet transferred to Vamp A. At this point all the blood belongs to
> Vamp A, but is not yet on Vamp A and so cannot "wash off".
Incorrect, as given in the example when given.
VC is fully declared when played, as has been stated several times in
this thread already.
"A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by
showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash
heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is
played." [1.6.1.1]
A played VC. At this point, the X is allocated between A and A's
controller. (5,0), (4,1), or (3,2).
The example continues with A playing it in the most common fashion:
(3,2).
> 2 of that 5, which is allocated to the vampire will instead be
> transferred to the Methuselah's pool.
Incorrect.
If it is allocated to the Methuselah, then it is not allocated to the
vampire, by definition.
There is no question of how it "will be" allocated. It "is" allocated
when VC played, not later.
> The VC has allocated 5 blood to the vampire and that vampire WOULD
> gain blood (it would gain 5, but the Methuselah may appropriate up to
> 2 of that 5).
Incorrect.
The vampire WOULD gain 3 and the controller WOULD gain 2.
The allocation is declared when VC is played. It isn't delayed until
later.
> I hope you and Ira understand the point I am attempting to advocate
> here.
Yes.
You advocate that the play is not completely declared when played.
And somehow also, that VC's card text is something other than it is:
something that doesn't have "but" and "instead", but rather has
something like "and the controller can move up to two of the blood
this vampire gains to his or her pool (before blood drains off this
vampire for exceeding capacity)."
> This is not because I do not understand what is being said by
> LSJ, but more to point out the ambiguity in the wording of FL and the
> way it could be interpreted when used with a number of different
> effects.
?
That's new. In what way is FL ambiguous?
> I also think there is an ambiguity in VC, that has been
> highlighted since FL has been printed, namely that VC could be easily
> interpreted to imply that all the blood belongs to the vampire but the
> Methuselah is given the option to transfer the blood to their own pool
> instead of the Vampire (simultaneously to transferring to the vampire).
Perhaps. That question came up in 1997, as previously cited. It was
never really ambiguous (it always used "but" in the superior to show
that it was altering the basic effect rather than simply adding to
it). But nonetheless it has been made even clearer and iron-clad now
(with the "instead" made explicit).
So long as one remembers that cards are declared when played, of
course.
Which is explicit in the rulebook.
Juggernaut1981
action involving Rabbat that does NOT declare the blood transfer to
pool is a hunt action purely for blood and none of the blood that
would be gained from the hunt action can be transferred to pool.
Voter Captivation
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Presence
Only usable after resolving a successful referendum called by this
acting vampire.
[pre] ***The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank***,
where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
[PRE] As above, ***but move up to 2 of those blood counters to your
pool*** instead of this vampire.
Rabbat, The Sewer Goddess
Clan: Nosferatu (group 4)
Capacity: 7
Disciplines: ANI FOR OBF pot
Independent. Red List: Rabbat may send a vampire to torpor or burn an
ally as a strike. ***If she hunts, you may move 1 of the blood she
gains to your pool.*** She cannot take (D) actions or block actions
that aren't directed at her or at a card on her.
LSJ
> So, based on what has been said here, I can assume that any hunt
> action involving Rabbat that does NOT declare the blood transfer to
> pool is a hunt action purely for blood and none of the blood that
> would be gained from the hunt action can be transferred to pool.
No. but you might assume that her card text applies, leading to the
result that when she hunts, her controller may move 1 of the blood she
gains to xer pool.
Note that Rabbat's text does not parallel VC's text.
Parallel text would be (well, as parallel as it gets, since VC is not
an action): Rabbat can take a +1 stealth hunt action to move 1 blood
counter from the blood bank to your pool instead of to her.*
* It wouldn't be worded that way, since actions have a slightly
different template; this is just parallel-illustrating text.
John Flournoy
> > Rabbat, The Sewer Goddess
> > Clan: Nosferatu (group 4)
> > Capacity: 7
> > Disciplines: ANI FOR OBF pot
> > Independent. Red List: Rabbat may send a vampire to torpor or burn an
> > ally as a strike. ***If she hunts, you may move 1 of the blood she
> > gains to your pool.*** She cannot take (D) actions or block actions
> > that aren't directed at her or at a card on her.
Side question for Rabbat's wording...
Rabbat is full, and hunts. Normally, the blood gained would spill off.
Does Rabbat's wording mean that she can move the blood that she gains
(i.e. the one spilling off) into your pool instead of being lost?
More specifically, since Rabbat is "move one of the blood gained",
that'd imply "Rabbat gains the blood, and then it gets moved" (which
obviously is very different than Voter Cap's "blood is moved to you
instead of the vampire"). Is this reading of how Rabbat's special
works correct? Does the blood have to effectively pass through Rabbat
before hitting your pool? (This could matter if Rabbat had one of the
various "cannot gain blood" effects on her when she hunts.)
-John Flournoy
LSJ
> On Apr 1, 8:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rabbat, The Sewer Goddess
> > > Clan: Nosferatu (group 4)
> > > Capacity: 7
> > > Disciplines: ANI FOR OBF pot
> > > Independent. Red List: Rabbat may send a vampire to torpor or burn an
> > > ally as a strike. ***If she hunts, you may move 1 of the blood she
> > > gains to your pool.*** She cannot take (D) actions or block actions
> > > that aren't directed at her or at a card on her.
>
> Side question for Rabbat's wording...
>
> Rabbat is full, and hunts. Normally, the blood gained would spill off.
>
> Does Rabbat's wording mean that she can move the blood that she gains
> (i.e. the one spilling off) into your pool instead of being lost?
Yes.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bf726410965e553f
I'll put that on the list for RT review, however.
(But the wording "may move 1 of the blood she gains" still indicates
that that bit is handled (including the decision for the "may") at the
time of the gain, rather than indicating that the decision needs to be
made at the time the hunt action is declared (in contrast to the VC-
parallel wording offered above).
Juggernaut1981
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bf72...
> I'll put that on the list for RT review, however.
>
> (But the wording "may move 1 of the blood she gains" still indicates
> that that bit is handled (including the decision for the "may") at the
> time of the gain, rather than indicating that the decision needs to be
> made at the time the hunt action is declared (in contrast to the VC-
Actually LSJ, both her text and VCs would function as action modifiers
that either reallocate (i.e. no Rabbat's) or divert (i.e. was Rabbat's
at an earlier point but is now Meth's)... During the Action of
hunting, you may use this effect X. And implicit by card play During
the resolution of a passing referendum, you gain effect X. (the you
may is implied by the fact it is a card in your hand). I still don't
see exactly where the logical distinction is with VC and Rabbat OTHER
than by the current public ruling. Nothing in their texts actually
precludes either option for their functioning. Since Rabbat is not a
card-in-hand, she requires the "may" to make the text function as a
"vampire-enabled action modifier" rather than a "permanent effect on
the vampire" or a "vampire-enabled action".
For brevity (since Rabbat has extensive card text already) it could be
assumed that Rabbat has the "instead" clause of VC. OR it could be
assumed that VC has an omitted "you may" and VC's "instead" clause is
just to remind you that "that vampire ain't your pool spastic".
Side Note: Ruling that FL reduces the total X of VC to 1 will also
limit excessive pool gain with another card and speed up competitive
games. It would certainly slow down the usual TGB-Vote decks (Tap,
Vote, KRC/Parity, VC, repeat...) and other variations on that core
tactic of converting vamp blood to pool, refilling using VC and
gaining pool for having vote-lock (either permanent or excessive vote-
push) and repeating...
Voter Captivation *EDITED*
Type: Action Modifier
Requires: Presence
Only usable after resolving a successful referendum called by this
acting vampire.
[pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank,
where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passed.
[PRE] As above, but (you may) move up to 2 of those blood counters to
your
pool (instead of this vampire).
Rabbat, The Sewer Goddess **EDITED**
Clan: Nosferatu (group 4)
Capacity: 7
Disciplines: ANI FOR OBF pot
Independent. Red List: Rabbat may send a vampire to torpor or burn an
ally as a strike. If she hunts, you may move 1 of the blood she
gains to your pool, (instead of this vampire). She cannot take (D)