Hostile Takeover et al.

Suoli wrote:

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this is problematic. The bidding order can decide games (major finals, even) and a lack of sequencing leaves too much room for ambiguity.

Since the exact same problem can come up during polling for every referendum in the game, I imagine you could just use the exact same solution you've used for that.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Since the exact same problem can come up during polling for every referendum in the game, I imagine you could just use the exact same solution you've used for that.

If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one. If two people bid 3 pool at the same time, there very clearly is a conflict.

Suoli wrote:

If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one.

If the only referendums you see involve titled vampires, that may be true.

It is much less true if you see a referendum where things occur such as:

• Smudge playing Surprise Influence
• you tapping Ventrue Headquarters
• playing a political action card from your hand
• burning the Edge

Which are the sorts of things that happen in quite a few referendums.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Suoli wrote:

If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one.

If the only referendums you see involve titled vampires, that may be true.

It is much less true if you see a referendum where things occur such as:

• Smudge playing Surprise Influence
• you tapping Ventrue Headquarters
• playing a political action card from your hand
• burning the Edge

Which are the sorts of things that happen in quite a few referendums.

There's still no conflict. If I want to cast my prince's votes in favor, it doesn't matter if someone burns the edge before, after or at the same time. Same goes for every other modifier. From a rule point of view, the sequencing has no impact on how players can cast votes or how they are tallied.

If there is a situation where polling and bidding are comparable in this context, then I will happily campaign to change both.

To get back to the topic, how would you, as a judge, solve a situation where two people simultaneously bid the same amount? If the answer is "the same way as in situation x", my next question is how do you solve it in situation x?

@James : There might be a similar issue with Scorn of Adonis.
If C says "I cast votes against with Arika", and A plays Scorn of Adonis simultaneously (Judge's appreciation), then there would indeed be an issue, because C might not have casted Arika's votes against without Scorn of Adonis, and A might not have played Scorn of Adonis if Arika had casted votes against (especially if C is A's grand prey and is on 1 pool, but simply wants to reduce the incoming Voter Captivation's gain).


Well, perhaps we need a ruling here. Note that this ruling would only apply when the Judge can't tell who spoke first (existing rulings apply if that's not the case).
In the event of betting / declaring effects during a referendum, if two declarations are simultaneous, we use sequencing to determine which one happens first. If that makes the other declaration invalid, it is withdrawn. Otherwise, it remains.

Suoli wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Suoli wrote:

If two people cast their votes at the same time, there is no problem - the end result is the same as them casting their votes one by one.

If the only referendums you see involve titled vampires, that may be true.

It is much less true if you see a referendum where things occur such as:

• Smudge playing Surprise Influence
• you tapping Ventrue Headquarters
• playing a political action card from your hand
• burning the Edge

Which are the sorts of things that happen in quite a few referendums.

There's still no conflict.

You said it was the same as casting votes one-by-one. It really isn't.

With sequencing, you and I are the last two people on the table to cast our votes. If you pass, I can pass and then end polling. So your hand is forced somewhat. If I see you cast that vote with Wynn, I may not burn the political action card from my hand. The end result is very much not the same (which was your contention).

There is also potential for conflict if, say, two people both play a "cancel the vote" effect at the same time. (Some combination of simultaneous Telepathic Vote Counting, Vox Domini, and multiple Delaying Tactics.) Which was played first? They can't all have been played.

Similarly, try Scalpel Tongue ("The chosen vampire is tapped") at the same time as a reaction card.