Rules Team Rulings 02-DEC-11

Gerald? paradox? x votes if no title, gain title if has x votes?

or "Has x votes" means
has x votes where x=1,2,3 or 4(constant values) exp.?

The change in cardtexts is about cards that read "[This vampire] has X votes" (or simply "X votes"). It doesn't extend to vampires with "Has X additional votes", because that cardtext doesn't make the vampires titled.

[LSJ 20100601] wrote:

> From what I remember, sources of additional votes do NOT convey
> "Titled"-ness to a vampire.

Correct. Having votes is not the same as being titled.

> For example cards such as Firebrand,
> Legendary Vampire and the effect of 3xOrun do NOT make the vampire
> with those cards titled.

> Alternatively, an Independant Vampire with 1 Vote, is a "Titled"
> vampire.

The card text on a crypt card "Me has 1 vote." is a title, yes.
[10.4]

> This becomes important particularly with something like Fee Stake:
> XXX.

> IF additional votes do NOT convey a "title", then any votes held by a
> vampire with, for example Legendary Vampire + 6x Orun, would NOT be
> affected by Fee Stake: XXX or any other card that reduces the votes of
> "titled" vampires. Additionally, it would mean that the vampire could
> NOT be targeted by any card which chooses a "titled" vampire.

Correct. (unless that vampire also had an actual title).

Kosmo,

10.4. Independents

Other clans are not aligned with any of the major sects; they are called Independent...

Some Independent vampires may start with votes, as listed on card text. Treat these vampires as if they had titles of their own.

Classic examples of titled vampires include Thetmes, Amisa and Kephamos. Each is an Independent titled vampire who has "2 votes".

If a card has the worth "Title" on it and is put in play, it is a "title card." Examples include Praxis Seizures, Crusades, Justicars and Cardinal votes.

Other cards such as Heirophant don't say "Title" but rather "has 1 additional vote." Basically, contrast what the words say for cards played whether they say "Title" or "Additional votes" to distinguish.

10.4. Independents

Other clans are not aligned with any of the major sects; they are called Independent...

Some Independent vampires may start with votes, as listed on card text. Treat these vampires as if they had titles of their own.

This is, IMHO, a pretty obscure portion of the rulebook to contain this rule. I was recently building a deck using some of the vampires you mention, and was considering whether to put in Free States Rant. I consulted every section in the book I could think of on politics and titles, and found nothing. I later found it (with the help of my opponents in a casual game )

It's an obscure part of the rulebook to put it because it's not so much relevant to Independents as it is to voting. So, just asking that if we ever have a rulebook revision, that the above "clarification" to old cards be put in a section relevant to political referendums.

prunesquallor wrote:

10.4. Independents

Other clans are not aligned with any of the major sects; they are called Independent...

Some Independent vampires may start with votes, as listed on card text. Treat these vampires as if they had titles of their own.

This is, IMHO, a pretty obscure portion of the rulebook to contain this rule.
...
So, just asking that if we ever have a rulebook revision, that the above "clarification" to old cards be put in a section relevant to political referendums.

Some years ago, I asked LSJ why the term "Titled" could not be placed on each independent vampire with votes? Then, why do you even need a rule like this at all?!? His answer to me was that he didn't want to "junk up" (my term for the essence of his meaning, not his) the card texts with excess terms like "Titled".

Now, to me, this kind of thing is exactly what you want in the card text: it's relevant, informative, and doesn't make the players depend on their memory (or be just plain confusing to the new players who haven't found the operative rule, yet) for this kind of minutia. To LSJ, it's basically junk.

This why head has bumps from banging on desktops.

Fred

fredsct wrote:

Now, to me, this kind of thing is exactly what you want in the card text: it's relevant, informative, and doesn't make the players depend on their memory (or be just plain confusing to the new players who haven't found the operative rule, yet) for this kind of minutia.

I totally agree.

fredsct wrote:

To LSJ, it's basically junk.

IANLSJ, but could it be that by this he meant that he'd like to reserve the limited textbox space in a card for the (unique) card texts which sometimes can run a bit long?

Ankha wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

fredsct wrote:

To LSJ, it's basically junk.

IANLSJ, but could it be that by this he meant that he'd like to reserve the limited textbox space in a card for the (unique) card texts which sometimes can run a bit long?

"Titled" isn't a very long word. To save space, we could define the (T) keyword indicating the vampire is titled (like R damage)

A keyword would still need to be explained in the rulebook in order to make sense. Which would bring back this same issue.

Lönkka wrote:

but could it be that by this he meant that he'd like to reserve the limited textbox space in a card for the (unique) card texts which sometimes can run a bit long?

Yeah, that makes sense — look at Ur-Shulgi's text, it's fairly epic and his +1 bleed text was missed out:

Errata: Ur-Shulgi has +1 bleed. [RTR 20010710]