Q : Charming lobby
Erwan Cario
Just two questions :
***** When I play this card ( Charming lobby ), is it MY next vote wich passes without vote, or is it the next vote ( even if it's another Met. )???
***** "As above but gain two votes":
- The next three vote passe or
- I gain two vote for the actual vote
Merci.
Erwan.
Il vaut mieux savoir quelquechose de tout que tout savoir de quelquechose.
Blaise PASCAL
Shane Hamish William Travis
: ***** When I play this card ( Charming lobby ), is it MY next vote wich
: passes without vote, or is it the next vote ( even if it's another Met.)???
I have asked this of Tom Wylie myself, and gotten an answer along the
lines of the following;
According to the wording of the card, it would seem that the next vote
passes no matter who calls it. I will check this out with the Design
Team for the next Rules Update.
Lots of qualifiers there, but the current answer seems to be that the
*very* *next* *vote* is the one that passes automatically, no matter who
calls it.
: ***** "As above but gain two votes":
: - The next three vote passe or
: - I gain two vote for the actual vote
I like that thinking!! "gain two votes" indeed... I'd probably get my
arms broken if I even suggested it though. What it means is that on the
next vote you call, you gain two additional votes for your side. If it
passes, then the vote after that (whoever calls it) is passed
automatically. This card requires three untapped vampires to be truly
effective...
Shane Travis | Opportunity is missed by most people because
sht...@duke.usask.ca | it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Thomas Edison
L. Scott Johnson
> Just two questions :
>***** When I play this card ( Charming lobby ), is it MY next vote wich passes without vote, or is it the next vote ( even if it's another Met. )???
Officially: the next vote you call on the same turn.
>***** "As above but gain two votes":
> - The next three vote passe or
> - I gain two vote for the actual vote
Officially: you never gain these votes in a useful manner.
Shane Hamish William Travis
: Officially: the next vote you call on the same turn.
: Officially: you never gain these votes in a useful manner.
'Officially' from who and in what rulings? The most recent ruling states
that, "In order to be EFFECTIVE you must have three ready vampires..."
(emphasis mine). I responded to this thread saying that I have asked Tom
if it is MANDATORY and showed his reply (or a paraphrase of it).
I have not heard anywhere that you can never gain the two additional
votes - where does this come from? And what (if any) is the
justification behind it? Even if you interpret the card in light of the
recent (somewhat cracked IMHO) ruling, the card seems fairly clear that
on the vote the card refers to ("Call a vote.") you should get these votes...
L. Scott Johnson
>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
>: Officially: the next vote you call on the same turn.
>: Officially: you never gain these votes in a useful manner.
>'Officially' from who and in what rulings? The most recent ruling states
>that, "In order to be EFFECTIVE you must have three ready vampires..."
>(emphasis mine). I responded to this thread saying that I have asked Tom
>if it is MANDATORY and showed his reply (or a paraphrase of it).
>I have not heard anywhere that you can never gain the two additional
>votes - where does this come from? And what (if any) is the
>justification behind it? Even if you interpret the card in light of the
>recent (somewhat cracked IMHO) ruling, the card seems fairly clear that
>on the vote the card refers to ("Call a vote.") you should get these votes...
Sorry for skipping too many lines.
The official ruling is (item 5, DTR 11/9/95):
Call a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed by a card in play.
Have the vote pass.
Second Minion plays Charming Lobby. If unblocked, the next vote is
successful. Gain two Votes if superior.
Third Minion calls a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed
by a card in play. If unblocked, this vote passes automatically.
When do you cast those two votes? You can't use them during the first
vote, because you can't play the card then. You could use
them during the second vote, but that's a waste of time (if even allowed)
because the vote will pass automatically.
L. Scott Johnson
Still item 5), though.
L. Scott
Marko Puumalainen
>The official ruling is (item 5, DTR 11/9/95):
>Call a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed by a card in play.
>Have the vote pass.
>Second Minion plays Charming Lobby. If unblocked, the next vote is
>successful. Gain two Votes if superior.
>Third Minion calls a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed
>by a card in play. If unblocked, this vote passes automatically.
This is weird. The card is an action card and says "Call a vote...".
This means that you call a vote, doesn't it? I don't see why you
should have an additional card that allows you to call an additional
vote, or an additional vampire. CL says that you can call a vote, why
should you need an extra card? And if you have superior presence, you
gain 2 votes during THIS vote. So basically you vote whether the next
vote passes automatically.
CL vote is not a political vote, so you can't use cards that say "Only
usable during political actions". And if you only have one vamp left,
then the next vote that somebody calls (with a card or some other way)
passes automatically.
--
Never try to be amusing and order something like a
"pint of dishwater". Judging by the state of some
of our larger brewers' beers, you just might get it.
The Surrey Pub Guide
L. Scott Johnson
>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>>The official ruling is (item 5, DTR 11/9/95):
>>Call a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed by a card in play.
>>Have the vote pass.
>>Second Minion plays Charming Lobby. If unblocked, the next vote is
>>successful. Gain two Votes if superior.
>>Third Minion calls a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed
>>by a card in play. If unblocked, this vote passes automatically.
>Did they really make such a hash of this card? "Calling a vote" means a
>vote happens. Playing a vote card to call a vote is a political action.
>The first is not an action and cannot be blocked (a diablerie vote is an
>example). The second is an action and can be blocked.
True. And yes, they really did a bad hack job on this card.
>Charming lobby is an action. If it succeed, its effects should take place
>(that IS how actions work, isn't it?) The result says "Call a vote", so
>you pick a subject and terms (I presume by playing the appropriate card)
>and the vampire Congress is in session. It doesn't say "Attempt to call a
>vote" or "Take a political action". Note the difference from Cryptic
>Rider, which says "The next vote you call this turn passes automatically."
> That doesn't call the vote for you.
That's the best way to play. However, a strict reading of the card is that
you are calling a vote, the terms of which are that the next vote will pass.
1. Vampire A performs a Charming Lobby. (no one blocks).
2. Vote. (A gets two votes if he has superior presence).
3. If the vote succeeds, the only effect is that the next vote called
will succeed.
>If calling a vote requires a vampire take an action, that would have to
>apply to bloodhunts too, which is obviously not the case.
If you mean that the Lobby allows you to call a vote (rather than having
to rely on PA cards), then I agree wholeheartedly.
>The 2 extra votes are real simple to interpret this way - there's a vote
>going on due to the Charming Lobby.
Yes, but it's still up to interpretation whether the vote is simply to
pass the next vote, or whether an additional PA can be used.
L. Scott
CurtAdams
>a strict reading of the card is that you are calling a vote,
> the terms of which are that the next vote will pass.
Perfectly logical. Much better than my interpretation.
Has this already been gone over, or is there still a point to bringing
this up with WotC?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Garrett Ramon Love
>
> >The official ruling is (item 5, DTR 11/9/95):
> >Call a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed by a card in play.
> >Have the vote pass.
> >Second Minion plays Charming Lobby. If unblocked, the next vote is
> >successful. Gain two Votes if superior.
> >Third Minion calls a vote with a Political Action card or as allowed
> >by a card in play. If unblocked, this vote passes automatically.
>
> vote happens. Playing a vote card to call a vote is a political action.
> The first is not an action and cannot be blocked (a diablerie vote is an
> example). The second is an action and can be blocked.
>
> (that IS how actions work, isn't it?) The result says "Call a vote", so
> you pick a subject and terms (I presume by playing the appropriate card)
> and the vampire Congress is in session. It doesn't say "Attempt to call a
> vote" or "Take a political action". Note the difference from Cryptic
> Rider, which says "The next vote you call this turn passes automatically."
> That doesn't call the vote for you.
>
This may sound completely ignorant, but my general opinion on "Charming
Lobby" was that you "Call a Vote" without naming the subject. i.e.
everybody votes blindly, essentially "All in favor of the next vote
passing automatically say aye..."('cause that's what will happen).
Why is this any good? - People may be less likely to burn vote cards
against a vote they know nothing about... - Others may vote for in an
effort to gain the "auto vote" for themselves by blocking, etc...
I guess I just don't see any reason why this card requires a
previous vote... or maybe this was a previous interpretation that I
missed on the net...
-G.Love
Bob Ellison
> > anything through them. I have a list of house rules and that's good enough
> > for me.
> > (They also don't reply to e-mail re: Jyhad)
> Since when doesn't WotC support Jyhad? [I'm being serious here]
This isn't what Scott claimed. Scott claimed that they don't support
this newsgroup (reg.games.trading-cards.jyhad) and don't respond to
email, so it's hard to get on-line support.
I haven't seen Tom in a while (in a "whiley"? ;-), even on some
contentions that I would really have liked to see his input on. I hope
he's still around, but taking a few days off or something.
papillo the bearded
harpua J howard
wrote:
i don't know much about WOTC and their support, but i know Tom is still
around, i personally e-mailed him and got a reply. Tom, if you're
reading, thanx...but you should help the newsgroup out some more so i
don't have to bother you.
Harpua
ps. you guys were right about range resetting to close every round. i
still don't agree with it, but hey, it's the rules. i believed you all, i
just wanted an official response- the rule book is ambiguous about it,
and it didn't make sense to me.
Chris Carter
>Protracted Investment: it is more effective than Shortterm Investment, gain
>of 3 (net) [PI] vs. gain of 2 (net) [SI]. If you have several PIs in your
>library, you can afford to use fewer Master cards, so you can concentrate on
>whatever else you deck is supposed to be good at (more skill/vote/weapon cards).
Good argument I agree with all of your points except the above one.
A [PI] gets me a net of 3 in 7 turns. 2 [SI]'s played on consecutive turns
will get you a net of 4 blood in 5 turns. Or look at it this way:
A [PI] gets you 6 for 3 or a 100% return on investment (RoI) in 7 turns.
A [SI] gets you 3 for 1 or a 200% (RoI) in 4 turns.
As you can see you get more bang for your buck from [SI]'s and you do not
have to tie up as much of your very precious blood resources to use [SI]'s
I freely admit that [PI]'s have a very definite use when you are really
tight on deck space and need every card slot you can squeeze out. But in
general I have to say that [SI]'s are way more useful and _effective_ than
[PI]'s
Do you think it would be fair to lower the cost of [PI] to 2 blood or
leave the cost at 3 blood and raise the return to 8 or 9 total ( 5 or 6
profit)? Or maybe leave [PI] like it is and allow you take 2 blood per
turn off of it?
Chris
Joseph Cochran
Chris Carter <cca...@promus.com> wrote:
>Good argument I agree with all of your points except the above one.
>A [PI] gets me a net of 3 in 7 turns. 2 [SI]'s played on consecutive turns
>will get you a net of 4 blood in 5 turns. Or look at it this way:
How do you get this? Unless you have Anson or Rumors in play,
it takes 8 turns to cycle through two SI's. You are aware that WotC has
ruled that you can only take 1 blood per master 'action' that you give
up, I hope.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Daniel G. Edelman
: Enchant Kindred: yes, this is the Govern the Unaligned's poor relative. So,
: it doesn't have a plus to stealth! Think of it as a Computer Hacking with
: an optional use.
:
is just me or does EK cost no blood to play vs. one for GTU
dan edelman
James R. McClure Jr.
Peace Dan,
Yes, Enchant Kindred costs ZERO.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
Shane Hamish William Travis
: Does Anson give you 2 master phases or just let you play 2 master cards
: each master phase?
Anson (and Rumors of Gehenna) give you the ability to play 2 master cards
in yur master phase. Official ruling is, however, that if either of
these two cards is in effect, you may take one blood from an investment
for _each_ master card you do not play.
Shane Travis | There are two kinds of men who never amount to
sht...@duke.usask.ca | very much: those who cannot do what they are told,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | and those who can do nothing else.
| -- Cyrus H.K. Curtis
Thomas R Wylie
I am still representing WotC here, but have been almost completey
incommunicado for the last week or so, and have to admit that if I find
myself with very little time to read the groups, the magic groups tend
to get first priority. I don't see why we wouldn't be answering Jyhad
questoins via email, so will check into that.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Chris Carter
>
>In article <3isstp$g...@stargate.promus.com>,
>Chris Carter <cca...@promus.com> wrote:
>>Good argument I agree with all of your points except the above one.
>>A [PI] gets me a net of 3 in 7 turns. 2 [SI]'s played on consecutive turns
>>will get you a net of 4 blood in 5 turns. Or look at it this way:
>
> How do you get this? Unless you have Anson or Rumors in play,
>it takes 8 turns to cycle through two SI's. You are aware that WotC has
>ruled that you can only take 1 blood per master 'action' that you give
>up, I hope.
my argument but I still maintain, primarily because of lower blood/resource
requirements of SI's, that they are better and more versitle plays than
PI's are. It takes you 3 master phases to break even on a PI. It only
takes one on turn a SI so if you get in a bind you can essentially abandon
an SI after one master phase and be no worse off than you were when you
played it.
Does Anson give you 2 master phases or just let you play 2 master cards
each master phase?
Chris
Bob Ellison
> each master phase?
Anson (or Rumors of Gehenna) gives you two master "actions". A master
"action" is the equivalent of playing one master card.
With Anson out, you can play two master cards, or play a master card and
take a blood off an investment, or take two blood off an investment (or
one blood each off of two investments). You cannot (for example) use
a Blood Doll to move two blood to a vampire.
And if you play an Out-of-turn Master, you lose your entire next Master
Phase. If you have Anson out, that means that you sacrifice *both*
master actions.
papillo the succinct
Thomas R Wylie
Chris Carter <cca...@promus.com> wrote:
>...I still maintain, primarily because of lower blood/resource
>PI's are. It takes you 3 master phases to break even on a PI. It only
>takes one on turn a SI so if you get in a bind you can essentially abandon
>an SI after one master phase and be no worse off than you were when you
>played it.
Well, yes. The Protacted Investment gives you more blood per card,
whereas the Short Terms are safer to use. I'm not sure what the problem
is supposed to be here.
>Does Anson give you 2 master phases or just let you play 2 master cards
>each master phase?
One master phase, two master cards. So he'll let you burn up investments
twice as quickly (which makes Protacted Investments a bit more palatable,
IMHO). Same goes for Rumors of Gehenna.
CurtAdams
:In article <1995Feb23.1...@cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu
(Alan Kwan) writes:
:> Take it, man. A trading-card game /need/ unbalancing
:> cards such as Fame, and game-under-priced & cash-highly-
:> priced cards such as Ivory Bow to get players to
:> buy box after box of cards ...
:>
:>
:> Alan.
:>
>Are you quite sure you know enough about Jyhad to make that statement?
Are you
>sure Fame is really that unbalancing? Think about it. A guy rushing to go
off
>to torpor can be stopped in two ways. 1) Burn him in combat with
aggravated
>damage. 2 Much easier, Minor Boon him to prevent him from going to torpor
and
>he'll never bleed you again (almost). ANNOUNCEMENT! ANNOUNCEMENT!! FAME
COUNTER
>STATED HERE!!! The only thing left to combo Fame with would be throwing
Day Ops
>for mundane actions. Note: no bleeding allowed. Have fun!
Aggravated damage would normally be used to burn a vampire whenever
possible, so it's not really a counter. It's tough to burn a vampire with
aggro under any circumstances, even if he's a wimp. Yes, everybody can
dream up "carefully reduce him to 0 blood and then flamethrower" scenarios
but if your opponent is a good player he will interfere with your
necessarily elaborate plans.
Minor boon is a very inadequate counter. First, it costs more (an entire
master phase) than the card it counters does (a master card play). This
is particularly disadvantageous in a multiplayer game (all other players
gain). Second, the Fame is still around and there are other good ways to
get to torpor (ever seen a Talbot's Chainsaw Fame deck? How about
intercept with Dawn Op or Burst of Sunlight or Trap?) Third, Minor Boon
is not a generally useful card so you can't afford to stick it in your
deck just in case you're prey for a Fame deck.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
740926...@v9001.ntu.ac.sg
:>
:>> [...]
:>>I truely believe
:>>that Jyhad is incredibly balanced and much better than Magic. I am wholy
:>>against WotC's "new" version of Jyhad: "It needs to be faster and more like
:>>Magic." Yeah! Right! if I wanted to play Magic the-every-card-in-my-deck-is-
:>>a-fifty-dollar-or-more-out-of-print-rare-an-I-can-kill-my-opponent-in-one-
:>>turn-sixty-percent-of-the-time, I'd bloody well play Magic, now wouldn't I!
:>
:> Jyhad is incredibly balanced ... relative to Magic. Talk about Fame.
:> Talk about Wakes. Talk about Malk. Dementia. Talk about
:> Giant's Blood, Hospitality, Minion Tap, and Golondia.
:> The counters I've heard against them are mostly Magic-style
:> (Sudden Reversal, etc.). Talk about expensive wallpaper,
:> such as Chainsaw, Powerbase: Washington D.C.,
:> Protracted Investment, Enchant Kindred (undirected
:> action at +0 stealth!)...
:>
:> Compare it to a good non-trading card game, and you'll
:> see Jyhad as incredibly broken.
:>
:> cards such as Fame, and game-under-priced & cash-highly-
:> priced cards such as Ivory Bow to get players to
:> buy box after box of cards ...
:>
:>
:> Alan.
:>
Are you quite sure you know enough about Jyhad to make that statement? Are you
sure Fame is really that unbalancing? Think about it. A guy rushing to go off
to torpor can be stopped in two ways. 1) Burn him in combat with aggravated
damage. 2 Much easier, Minor Boon him to prevent him from going to torpor and
he'll never bleed you again (almost). ANNOUNCEMENT! ANNOUNCEMENT!! FAME COUNTER
STATED HERE!!! The only thing left to combo Fame with would be throwing Day Ops
for mundane actions. Note: no bleeding allowed. Have fun!
>
> Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
f
(CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> Aggravated damage would normally be used to burn a vampire whenever
> possible, so it's not really a counter. It's tough to burn a vampire with
> aggro under any circumstances, even if he's a wimp. Yes, everybody can
> dream up "carefully reduce him to 0 blood and then flamethrower" scenarios
> but if your opponent is a good player he will interfere with your
> necessarily elaborate plans.
>
Actually, I have done this many times.
Normally my opponent plays fame on a catiff,
In combat, I simply play Theft of Vitae, press, Walk of Fame.