[LSJ] Removing multiple Anarch Revolts
Sam
archives/rulings:
2 anarch revolts are in play by a methuselah
and vampire A controlled by another methuselah
calls a vote to burn one.
Somone plays a delaying tactics.
During the same turn: Can another vampire (B)
take a vote to burn THE OTHER anarch
revolt or is this considered the same vote?
THX
Alf Behrends
Prince of Braunschweig - Germany
LSJ
>
> Not sure on this one and found no-thing in the
> archives/rulings:
>
> 2 anarch revolts are in play by a methuselah
> and vampire A controlled by another methuselah
> calls a vote to burn one.
> Somone plays a delaying tactics.
>
> During the same turn: Can another vampire (B)
> take a vote to burn THE OTHER anarch
> revolt or is this considered the same vote?
The former.
It is a different vote.
--
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/
Frederic Genest
> > take a vote to burn THE OTHER anarch
> > revolt or is this considered the same vote?
>
> The former.
> It is a different vote.
Does this imply that, should I have two KRCs in my hand, and the first
one is Delayed, can I call the second one with another minion?
LSJ
No.
Actions provided by a card in play are distinct by instance of card.
Actions provided by card played (from hand) are distinct by card name.
Sorrow
> Actions provided by card played (from hand) are distinct by card name.
Out of curiosity, why is this distinction made for one and not the other.
Both cards in play say "Anarch Revolt". They are the same card. What
is the underlying reasoning for this?
Sorrow
---
"Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress."
- Malcolm
LSJ
>
> > Actions provided by a card in play are distinct by instance of card.
> > Actions provided by card played (from hand) are distinct by card name.
>
> Out of curiosity, why is this distinction made for one and not the other.
> Both cards in play say "Anarch Revolt". They are the same card. What
> is the underlying reasoning for this?
Card from hand would work the same way, except that there's no mechanism
for tracking it when it's not in play.
Chris Berger
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C5ADEA4...@white-wolf.com...
> Sorrow wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why is this distinction made for one and not the
other.
> > Both cards in play say "Anarch Revolt". They are the same card. What
> > is the underlying reasoning for this?
>
> Card from hand would work the same way, except that there's no mechanism
> for tracking it when it's not in play.
>
Revolt is simply a cardless action that is granted by a card in play. Each
such action granted is thus a separate action, and a different action type
if it's not of a defined type (i.e. political action, which the Anarch
Revolt removal action is).
Hannigan
Does this mean that if three vampires on the table have a Haven
Uncovered played on them, I can attack one with Basilia, Freak Drive,
attack the second with Basilia, Freak Drive, and attack the third?
James Coupe
No Repeat Actions leads to this, yes.
"Enter combat with..." is not a defined action type, like bleed, so it
doesn't matter under that point of No Repeat Actions.
There is no action card being used (like Corruption) so it is not a
type.
Since each is provided by a distinct card in play, you can use all three
separately.
(The original question involved "same action" from Delaying Tactics.)
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti