Hostile Takeover et al.

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.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

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

It is the same as far as game mechanics care, even if it's not always the same from a decision making perspective. In the case of bidding, the game mechanics do care about who bid for 3 pool first. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

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.

As far as I know, playing cards and effects follows the normal sequencing rule.

Suoli wrote:

It is the same as far as game mechanics care, even if it's not always the same from a decision making perspective. In the case of bidding, the game mechanics do care about who bid for 3 pool first. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

The game mechanics also care who went first when it comes to Scalpel Tongue vs Delaying Tactics.

Suoli wrote:

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.

As far as I know, playing cards and effects follows the normal sequencing rule.

Incorrect.

[LSJ 20050806]

LSJ, wrote:

> Should he have been allowed to play his Delaying Tactics after the vote
> was declared as passed, even though he was just waiting to see if I was
> going to play vote modifiers?

There is no order to the referendum -- it is free form.

Once everyone is done, then it is concluded.

It sounds as if everyone was not done.

The voting bit of the polling phase is a general free-for-all.
[LSJ 20040502]

LSJ wrote:

(This is errata to
[6.3.2.1], making the setting of terms the only thing done in that step.
Polling now contains the "before votes are cast" step followed by the
general free-for-all voting step.)

[LSJ20020111]

LSJ, wrote:

> In terms of casting votes, it's pretty much freeform.
>
> "All Methuselahs may now cast any votes they have (see below) at this
> time, in any order. They call out their votes freely, and there is no
> obligation to vote." [6.3.2.2]
>
> This is an exception from the general rules of [1.6.1.6]
>
> One might regard the actual playing of cards, however, as still coming
> [1.6.1.6]. LSJ might want to clarify this.

"Any order" seems to handle the overriding of 1.6.1.6 pretty well, yep.

So whoever goes first goes first. If player D does actually play Delaying Tactics before player B, player D's is the one that wins.

Hence, we return to the fact that since you have to (potentially) handle this very same issue in every referendum, handle it the same way here.