Yielded title and vampire entering play

I need a clarification for these three situations. In all of them, there has been a contest for titles between Vampire A and Vampire B. Vampire A has yielded his title. Vampire B is still in play. 1) Vampire A was Banished, then returned to play. Does contest start anew? 2) Vampire A was burned, then another copy of him entered play. Does contest start anew? 3) Vampire A was Banished, then another copy of him entered play. Does contest start anew? (The only relevant bit of information I've found is this ruling: A Banished vampire will remember all effects that had been applied to him, just as contested vampires do. This includes gained or lost titles, etc. [RTR 20000501] It suggests the answer "No" to the first question. It seems that the answer to the last two questions is "Yes", in lack of any reason for it to be otherwise.) Thanks, Arry

dea...@gmail.com wrote: > I need a clarification for these three situations. In all of them, > there has been a contest for titles between Vampire A and Vampire B. > Vampire A has yielded his title. Vampire B is still in play. > 1) Vampire A was Banished, then returned to play. Does contest start > anew? No. > 2) Vampire A was burned, then another copy of him entered play. Does > contest start anew? Yes. Even if Vampire A was burned and then Possessed from the ash heap, he would come into play with his printed title. > 3) Vampire A was Banished, then another copy of him entered play. > Does contest start anew? This one is tricky. Since the uncontrolled region is unordered and can be "shuffled", there's no way to prove that a vampire who took a trip into the uncontrolled region is different from another uncontrolled copy of him. I would say: If the banished copy had cards/counters on him that distinguish him from another facedown version of the same vampire, and you bring out the "other" one, then "Yes". But if the other copy is identical-in-every-way in the uncontrolled region, then you have no way to prove he is different, so "No".

[ quoted text not captured ] I think your assumptions are correct: while in question 1) the banished vampire remembers yielding his title previously, there is no reason why the second copy of the vampire would.

> This one is tricky. Since the uncontrolled region is unordered and > can be "shuffled", there's no way to prove that a vampire who took a > trip into the uncontrolled region is different from another uncontrolled > copy of him. > I would say: > If the banished copy had cards/counters on him that distinguish him from > another facedown version of the same vampire, and you bring out the "other" > one, then "Yes". > But if the other copy is identical-in-every-way in the uncontrolled region, > then you have no way to prove he is different, so "No". :-| or you can just put a token on the Banished Pelletier to note this information that is relevant to the game

coincoi...@hotmail.com wrote: > :-| or you can just put a token on the Banished Pelletier to note this > information that is relevant to the game No, I don't think you can, by the way the rules/rulings are currently worded.

On 21 avr, 11:45, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, at least you cannot act differently depending on the fact that there is a counter on the card or not. Basically, you need to be in a situation where: - you can show which copy has yielded its title - your opponents don't know where it is in your uncontrolled region a way to do this would be to mark the card under the sleeve (put a paper in it for example)... or maybe LSJ has an idea on this. I still think you can put another copy of the vampire in play with its title

Jozxyqk wrote: > dea...@gmail.com wrote: >> I need a clarification for these three situations. In all of them, >> there has been a contest for titles between Vampire A and Vampire B. >> Vampire A has yielded his title. Vampire B is still in play. > >> 1) Vampire A was Banished, then returned to play. Does contest start >> anew? > > No. Correct. >> 2) Vampire A was burned, then another copy of him entered play. Does >> contest start anew? > > Yes. Even if Vampire A was burned and then Possessed from the ash heap, > he would come into play with his printed title. Correct, assuming (as the question implies) that A has a printed title and that title contests B's title. >> 3) Vampire A was Banished, then another copy of him entered play. >> Does contest start anew? > > This one is tricky. Since the uncontrolled region is unordered and > can be "shuffled", there's no way to prove that a vampire who took a > trip into the uncontrolled region is different from another uncontrolled > copy of him. > I would say: > If the banished copy had cards/counters on him that distinguish him from > another facedown version of the same vampire, and you bring out the "other" > one, then "Yes". > But if the other copy is identical-in-every-way in the uncontrolled region, > then you have no way to prove he is different, so "No". If he is the same card, then his title remains yielded. If he is a different card, one whose title has not been yielded, then he would contest the title.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> 3) Vampire A was Banished, then another copy of him entered play. > >> Does contest start anew? > > > > This one is tricky. Since the uncontrolled region is unordered and > > can be "shuffled", there's no way to prove that a vampire who took a > > trip into the uncontrolled region is different from another uncontrolled > > copy of him. > > I would say: > > If the banished copy had cards/counters on him that distinguish him from > > another facedown version of the same vampire, and you bring out the "other" > > one, then "Yes". > > But if the other copy is identical-in-every-way in the uncontrolled region, > > then you have no way to prove he is different, so "No". > If he is the same card, then his title remains yielded. If he is a different > card, one whose title has not been yielded, then he would contest the title. If I have an empty copy of Gilbert Duane in my uncontrolled region, and my ready Gilbert Duane yields his title to Imogen, becomes empty, and then becomes banished, how can one prove which is which? I know it's legal to rearrange/randomize your uncontrolled region at any time; is it legal to "mark" the one who lost his title, while he's facedown, to distinguish him?

On Apr 21, 8:20 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > If I have an empty copy of Gilbert Duane in my uncontrolled region, and my > ready Gilbert Duane yields his title to Imogen, becomes empty, and then > becomes banished, how can one prove which is which? The same way you prove that you Governed down to a younger vampire, or prove that you don't have the named card when an opponent plays Precision. Other players either take you at your word or call a judge.

On 21 avr, 14:20, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > distinguish him?- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - You can mark him with a mark that cannot be seen while he is face down, cannot you?

[ quoted text not captured ] Not quite the same, since I can shuffle my uncontrolled region without looking at it, at any time, and honestly lose track of which "unmarked" vampire is which. The 2 cards would be literally indistinguishable. If my predator chooses to look at one of my uncontrolled vampires with Nosferatu Hosting, and sees one of my Gilbert Duanes, how does he know whether it's the "untitled" one or not?

Jozxyqk wrote: > jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: >> On Apr 21, 8:20 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: >>> If I have an empty copy of Gilbert Duane in my uncontrolled region, and my >>> ready Gilbert Duane yields his title to Imogen, becomes empty, and then >>> becomes banished, how can one prove which is which? > >> The same way you prove that you Governed down to a younger vampire, or >> prove that you don't have the named card when an opponent plays >> Precision. Other players either take you at your word or call a judge. > > Not quite the same, since I can shuffle my uncontrolled region without > looking at it, at any time, and honestly lose track of which "unmarked" > vampire is which. The 2 cards would be literally indistinguishable. You distinguish them (you track which one is which). If you lose track, you reestablish the distinction trivially, since they are, as you note, identical. So you simply fiat the distinction you carelessly lost back into being. > If my predator chooses to look at one of my uncontrolled vampires with > Nosferatu Hosting, and sees one of my Gilbert Duanes, how does he know > whether it's the "untitled" one or not? You tell him. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DB7F82D.EE4A6BF7%40white-wolf.com (and surrounding thread).

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Not quite the same, since I can shuffle my uncontrolled region without > > looking at it, at any time, and honestly lose track of which "unmarked" > > vampire is which. The 2 cards would be literally indistinguishable. > You distinguish them (you track which one is which). If you lose track, you > reestablish the distinction trivially, since they are, as you note, identical. > So you simply fiat the distinction you carelessly lost back into being. So let's say that this is the situation: I have Gilbert Duane in play, who has yielded his title, and has zero blood. I also have Gilbert Duane (Gil Prime) in my uncontrolled region, who has never entered play. Gilbert Duane gets banished (by Imogen). I shuffle my crypt because it's legal to do so. Then, later on in the game, a vampire named Gilbert Duane enters play from my uncontrolled region. It may be Gilbert Duane, it may be Gil Prime, or it may be even a third copy of Gilbert who is Red List and has also been banished empty (Gilbert the Red). Of course it's to my advantage to "fiat" it to be Gil Prime. But it's to Imogen's controller's advantage to "fiat" it to be Gilbert Duane. And it's to Norm's advantage to "fiat" it to be Gilbert the Red. How is this distinction made fairly? If Gil Prime was Jyhad-backed and Gilbert Duane was VTES-backed, is that relevant to the distinction (assuming an unsleeved crypt)? Does it _require_ you to mark uncontrolled vampires with non-counter/non- card effects on them to distinguish them between each other? Frankly, I think this whole set of corner-case situations would be cleaner if "reordering" the uncontrolled region were illegal. But it's up to the Rules Team to determine whether this is worth putting up for review or not, I guess...

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Not quite the same, since I can shuffle my uncontrolled region without >>> looking at it, at any time, and honestly lose track of which "unmarked" >>> vampire is which. The 2 cards would be literally indistinguishable. > >> You distinguish them (you track which one is which). If you lose track, you >> reestablish the distinction trivially, since they are, as you note, identical. >> So you simply fiat the distinction you carelessly lost back into being. > How is this distinction made fairly? Trivially, as described above and in the cited link. (hint: look for the word "judge" in the cited link's thread). > Frankly, I think this whole set of corner-case situations would be cleaner > if "reordering" the uncontrolled region were illegal. > But it's up to the Rules Team to determine whether this is worth putting up > for review or not, I guess... Then we'd just have other pot-stirrers up in arms about "how can I be sure so-and-so isn't surreptitiously rearranging her uncontrolled region or cards in hand?!" Frankly, the sky is firm.

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> > Not quite the same, since I can shuffle my uncontrolled region without >> > looking at it, at any time, and honestly lose track of which "unmarked" >> > vampire is which. The 2 cards would be literally indistinguishable. > >> You distinguish them (you track which one is which). If you lose track, you >> reestablish the distinction trivially, since they are, as you note, identical. >> So you simply fiat the distinction you carelessly lost back into being. > > So let's say that this is the situation: > I have Gilbert Duane in play, who has yielded his title, and has zero blood. > I also have Gilbert Duane (Gil Prime) in my uncontrolled region, who has never > entered play. > > Gilbert Duane gets banished (by Imogen). > I shuffle my crypt because it's legal to do so. > Then, later on in the game, a vampire named Gilbert Duane enters play from > my uncontrolled region. It may be Gilbert Duane, it may be Gil Prime, or > it may be even a third copy of Gilbert who is Red List and has also > been banished empty (Gilbert the Red). > Of course it's to my advantage to "fiat" it to be Gil Prime. But it's to > Imogen's controller's advantage to "fiat" it to be Gilbert Duane. And it's > to Norm's advantage to "fiat" it to be Gilbert the Red. > > How is this distinction made fairly? > Make the fiat at the time of the effect that's starting to bring him into play, rather than when he enters play. You're making transfers to the vamp? make a mental note that it's not the red list one or the yielded one. when he comes out, announce which one it is. if in a tourney, tell the judge when you start putting counters on it which one it is. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Apr 21, 9:16 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> > Not quite the same, since I can shuffle my uncontrolled region without > >> > looking at it, at any time, and honestly lose track of which "unmarked" > >> > vampire is which. The 2 cards would be literally indistinguishable. > > >> You distinguish them (you track which one is which). If you lose track, you > >> reestablish the distinction trivially, since they are, as you note, identical. > >> So you simply fiat the distinction you carelessly lost back into being. > > > So let's say that this is the situation: > > I have Gilbert Duane in play, who has yielded his title, and has zero blood. > > I also have Gilbert Duane (Gil Prime) in my uncontrolled region, who has never > > entered play. > > > Gilbert Duane gets banished (by Imogen). > > I shuffle my crypt because it's legal to do so. > > Then, later on in the game, a vampire named Gilbert Duane enters play from > > my uncontrolled region. It may be Gilbert Duane, it may be Gil Prime, or > > it may be even a third copy of Gilbert who is Red List and has also > > been banished empty (Gilbert the Red). > > Of course it's to my advantage to "fiat" it to be Gil Prime. But it's to > > Imogen's controller's advantage to "fiat" it to be Gilbert Duane. And it's > > to Norm's advantage to "fiat" it to be Gilbert the Red. > > > How is this distinction made fairly? > > Make the fiat at the time of the effect that's starting to bring him > into play, rather than when he enters play. You're making transfers to How are you making that fiat? Silently or openly? You don't want anyone else to know you have 2 uncontrolled Gilbert Duanes. > the vamp? make a mental note that it's not the red list one or the > yielded one. when he comes out, announce which one it is. What if before you get him out your predator burns the one you are making transfers to with Gisela Harden or Memories Fading Glimpse? You say haha you fell for my trap, that was the yielded title Gilbert? > if in a tourney, tell the judge when you start putting counters on it > which one it is. > If Gisela is in play I'd probably do this if I was thinking ahead. If I haven't seen anyone play a Memories Fading Glimpse yet I probably wouldn't have called the judge over. Later, ~Rehlow

Rehlow wrote: > What if before you get him out your predator burns the one you are > making transfers to with Gisela Harden or Memories Fading Glimpse? You > say haha you fell for my trap, that was the yielded title Gilbert? Rephrased: what if you cheat? Answer: then you are cheating. Cheating is illegal. I suppose if you are intending to be a cheater, you might be able to argue to a judge that transferring a yielded-title Gilbert is play to win. But I doubt the judge would fall for it.