Double Velvet Tongue - "cannot cast votes or ballots"

Pascal wrote:

I must admit I am open to suggestions regarding this one. I'd rather have "cast votes remain cast".

To add to the matter (from the point of view of "Hey, if we're thinking about this, let's think about it all at once" rather than trying to rebut anyone specifically):

Methuselah A calls a referendum. Let's say something innocuous like Praxis Seizure: Seattle.
Methuselah B casts some votes against - either from vampires or from non-vampires (e.g. tapping Ventrue HQ, burning the edge,).
Methuselah A plays Business Pressure.
Methuselah B self-ousts by spending pool on the Business Pressure (and the self oust is legal).
Methuselah B is ousted immediately. [LSJ 20060211]

What (if anything) happens to Methuselah B's votes, from minions and non-minion sources?



Similar situation:

Meth A calls a vote.
Several Methuselahs (A, B, C, D, E) cast a vote using Vox Senis controlled by Methuselah B. Relevant card text: "Put this card in play. Each Methuselah gets an additional vote during each referendum."
Methuselah A plays Business Pressure.
Methuselah B - who controls the Vox Senis - self-ousts.

What, if anything, happens to the votes already cast by Methuselahs using the Vox Senis?

Same Vox Senis scenario. Methuselah D hasn't got involved in the referendum at the point Methuelah A plays Business Pressure and Methuselah B self-ousts. When was Methuselah D granted the additional vote? Is it still there, lingering on him as an optional vote to be cast, even though Vox Senis is no longer in play? Is it something that the Methuselah 'gets' only when that Methuselah casts it, and now can't be used?

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Similar situation:

Meth A calls a vote.
Several Methuselahs (A, B, C, D, E) cast a vote using Vox Senis controlled by Methuselah B. Relevant card text: "Put this card in play. Each Methuselah gets an additional vote during each referendum."
Methuselah A plays Business Pressure.
Methuselah B - who controls the Vox Senis - self-ousts.

What, if anything, happens to the votes already cast by Methuselahs using the Vox Senis?

Same Vox Senis scenario. Methuselah D hasn't got involved in the referendum at the point Methuelah A plays Business Pressure and Methuselah B self-ousts. When was Methuselah D granted the additional vote? Is it still there, lingering on him as an optional vote to be cast, even though Vox Senis is no longer in play? Is it something that the Methuselah 'gets' only when that Methuselah casts it, and now can't be used?

In this situation, I think it is similar to modifying the number of vote a vampire have :

mehusalah cast "their votes" which are at this point 1 due to Vox Senis and then Vox Senis is not there anymore so the number of vote a meth has is now 0.

Timo wrote:

In this situation, I think it is similar to modifying the number of vote a vampire have :

mehusalah cast "their votes" which are at this point 1 due to Vox Senis and then Vox Senis is not there anymore so the number of vote a meth has is now 0.

That would be my hunch too(*), but that would seem to go against Pascal's understandable preference for "cast votes stay cast". If removing the source of the vote from play reduces votes, why wouldn't removing the source of avvote from the ready region (vampire goes to torpor) do the same?



(*) By which I mostly mean "That's probably how I would rule in a tournament situation where I didn't have the answer, and someone was unhelpful enough to play awful cards in horrifying combinations(**)."

(**) SWUETPACIHC used to be Pascal's speciality on rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad, though, so it's all his fault.

PB actually said "cast votes stay cast" BUT, he actually said that the quantity of votes can be modified wih card like Dread Gaze/Bewitching Oration.

So in the case above, a Meth would have cast his/her votes and then, the total worth of his/her votes would be reduced...

Timo wrote:

PB actually said "cast votes stay cast" BUT, he actually said that the quantity of votes can be modified wih card like Dread Gaze/Bewitching Oration.

So in the case above, a Meth would have cast his/her votes and then, the total worth of his/her votes would be reduced...

So why would the source of votes leaving the ready region matter in one case (Vox Senis burning/leaving the game) but not the other (torporized vampire)? Why does the former reduce the number of votes you've cast, but not the latter? Would it differ if the vampire was burned instead of/as well as torporized? For example, use Julius in the torporization case with a Revelation of the Sire (Toreador) and a PS: Somewhere. Do his votes continue to be cast? If so, why do they persist when not in the game but Vox Senis doesn't?


If a Brujah antitribu leaves the game via a Business Pressure self-oust, what happens to Unexpected Coalition? (Assume, obviously, that said !Brujah voted in opposition to the !Brujah who played it.) Are the votes or ballots from the no-longer-thre-vampire still being cast, and what do they do to counting the extra votes from Unexpected Coalition? Card text: "Each ready Brujah antitribu gets an additional vote this referendum. When tallying results, if any Brujah antitribu cast any votes or ballots in opposition to this Brujah antitribu's votes or ballots (or if this Brujah antitribu abstains), none of the additional votes from this card are counted." Does it matter if the !Brujah who played it is the one who leaves the game? Assuming the dead vampire isn't treated as abstaining, can you vote in opposition to a vampire who is no longer in play?

Actually, I don't think PB stated that the votes of a vampire in torpor counted toward the referendum. He even asked us to give him advice on the matter ^^.

By the way, I must say that your !Brujah case is a masterpiece of SWUETPACIHC !

Timo wrote:

Actually, I don't think PB stated that the votes of a vampire in torpor counted toward the referendum. He even asked us to give him advice on the matter ^^.

Ah, I read Pascal as mulling over three options - abstain, nullify, and cast remains cast (i.e. counts). But he could have just been mulling the first two.

Timo wrote:

By the way, I must say that your !Brujah case is a masterpiece of SWUETPACIHC !

It's the new craze that's sweeping the nation.


Unexpected Coalition isn't terrible, though it's hard to rely on - but you could justify tossing a few into a !Bru breed-boon deck or something along those lines. (The crypt options for that are a little more awkward than for some others, but it's obviously possible.)

Business Pressure is pretty terrible, though I could see someone deciding it was an interesting way to manipulate their pool total mid-turn to get in range for a Parity Shift, rather than the alternative, sometimes-employed tactic of expensive masters. Obviously, you'd have to run the BP on a referendum before the Parity Shift. Not great, but I could see someone trying it. There are even seven whole copies of Business Pressure in the Lasombra-era TWDA.

My gut with the Unexpected Coalition situation hinges on the "any votes"...

Armin Brenner is acting, plays unexpected Coalition and votes for the referendum. Amelia votes her 1 vote against. An effect* sends Amelia to torpor during the referendum. Amelia is the only !Brujah voting against.

1) Amelia has cast her vote (cast votes stay cast unless tinkered with by things like TVC).
2) Amelia is now no longer ready, so she casts 0 votes when tallying occurs.
3) Tallying of votes begins and Amelia's 0 votes are not 'any votes' in the Tallying process, so Unexpected Coalition sees only !Brujah voting in favour and modifies the cast votes accordingly.

But as usual... IANPB.

Pascal wrote:

I must admit I am open to suggestions regarding this one. I'd rather have "cast votes remain cast".

Hi Pascal,

Does this sentence of yours cast doubts on what you said earlier about the original question, i.e. that "cast votes/ballots remain cast"?

The Unaligned is becoming legal soon and it would be nice to have an official clarification, on the original question, as Velvet Tongue is probably one of the easiest / most obvious cards that will find its way into decks.

In addition, I guess such decks will often star Khay'tall ("Vampires with corruption counters cannot cast votes or ballots against any referendums called by Khay'tall"), so the problem of "what happens to votes already cast when Khay'tall plays Velvet Tongue at inferior" is bound to arise.

My personal view is that James' examples show that the "cast votes/ballots remain cast" option leads inevitably to ambiguities. His examples may be somewhat contrived, but I cannot see much conceptual difference between a vampire going to torpor in a referendum and a vampire acquiring a corruption counter in a context where vampires with corruption counters cannot cast votes. A single, unifying solution would be elegant to have.

Given that usually the "cannot" clauses take precedence over the positive "can" abilities, wouldn't it be easier, more elegant and above all less ambiguous to check for votes at the moment when they are actually tallied?

In this way, you would not have to ask yourself about status changes, but just look at the current situation and draw the appropriate conclusions. A vampire in torpor? He cannot cast votes (and any he had cast are lost). A vampire with a corruption counters in a referendum called by Khay'tall? He cannot cast votes (no matter when he gained such counter).

In my humble opinion, this solution would not lead to the contradictions showed above, would be easier to explain, and facilitate judges' lives as well. Just my 2 cents!

I tend to disagree.

You can "cast Arika votes" and consider they remain cast (except if an effect force you to abstain).

And then, when the result are tallied, we check the number of votes of Arika : in torpor it would be 0 but a ready IC it would be 4 and ready IC having played a sup dread gaze it would be 8

=> casting your votes is an action possible if you have any vote and nothing preventing you and when the results are tallied, you check how many votes each vampire casting votes is worth