Specialization "Same Card" Question

A few quick questions on what is considered the "same card." Specialization [BH:R] Cardtype: Master Unique master. Put this card in play. During your untap phase, you may tap this card and discard two copies of the same card from your hand to gain 1 pool. Draw back up to your hand size afterward. #1. Do cards that have undergone spelling changes still count as the same card? Take Heidelberg vs. Heidelburg or Trick of Danya vs. Trick of the Danya. I would assume so since NRA considers both Tricks to be the same card. #2. Are Stake and Wooden Stake considered to be different cards? I would assume so (so you could also equip a Stake and also equip a Wooden Stake in the same turn without violating NRA). This might be more likely to happen now that the Grouping rule for Limited Tournaments has been lifted (so playing Jyhad and VTES with Black Hand isn't entirely unfeasible). #3. Similarly, how about Gangrel Atavism and Gangrel De-Evolution? I would assume they are different cards as well. Just wanted to check. Thanks! Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] #4 And what about Dominate Kine and Kine Dominance?

Halcyan 2 wrote: > A few quick questions on what is considered the "same card." > #1. Do cards that have undergone spelling changes still count as the same card? > Take Heidelberg vs. Heidelburg or Trick of Danya vs. Trick of the Danya. I > would assume so since NRA considers both Tricks to be the same card. > #2. Are Stake and Wooden Stake considered to be different cards? I would assume > so (so you could also equip a Stake and also equip a Wooden Stake in the same > turn without violating NRA). This might be more likely to happen now that the > Grouping rule for Limited Tournaments has been lifted (so playing Jyhad and > VTES with Black Hand isn't entirely unfeasible). > #3. Similarly, how about Gangrel Atavism and Gangrel De-Evolution? I would > assume they are different cards as well. If it's the same card, it's the same card. Variant spellings and renamings of the same card do not count as different cards. Stake and Wooden Stake are two names for the same card. Same with Gangrel Atavism and Gangrel De-Evolution. See online card lists for those and other such renamings. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Halcyan 2 wrote: >> A few quick questions on what is considered the "same card." >> #1. Do cards that have undergone spelling changes still count as the >> same card? Take Heidelberg vs. Heidelburg or Trick of Danya vs. >> Trick of the Danya. I would assume so since NRA considers both >> Tricks to be the same card. #2. Are Stake and Wooden Stake >> considered to be different cards? I would assume so (so you could >> also equip a Stake and also equip a Wooden Stake in the same turn >> without violating NRA). This might be more likely to happen now that >> the Grouping rule for Limited Tournaments has been lifted (so >> playing Jyhad and VTES with Black Hand isn't entirely unfeasible). >> #3. Similarly, how about Gangrel Atavism and Gangrel De-Evolution? I >> would assume they are different cards as well. > > If it's the same card, it's the same card. Variant spellings and > renamings of the same card do not count as different cards. > > Stake and Wooden Stake are two names for the same card. > Same with Gangrel Atavism and Gangrel De-Evolution. > > See online card lists for those and other such renamings. I'd like to ask for an official ruling in this matter, for TOs and Judges such as myself: What is the official defining characteristic(s) of a "card"? > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:TFwFb.21425$J77.2058@fed1read07... [snip] > I'd like to ask for an official ruling in this matter, for TOs and Judges > such as myself: > > What is the official defining characteristic(s) of a "card"? From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=card 7. Informal. An eccentrically amusing person. > Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) > "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier -Mike Ooi

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>See online card lists for those and other such renamings. > > What is the official defining characteristic(s) of a "card"? Obviousness. If you need a specific card issue resolved, see the online card lists. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:35:52 -0500, LSJ wrote: >If it's the same card, it's the same card. That's begging the question. This is not the policy when determining the admissibility of cards from a new expansion, is it? The new printing of a card is considered to be different from the old, regardless of whether they have the same text or effect. So, arguably, just being from different expansions is enough to make two versions of a card not the same. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<r77guv0v9t52a3io5...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] You're comparing apples and oranges here. Whether or not a card is 'considered different from the old' in terms of printings and tournament legality has nothing to do with whether or not a card is considered different in terms of game play. For instance, whether or not your card says "Jyhad" or "Vampire" on the back has absolutely no meaning to play once a game has begun. Similarly the expansion symbol has no meaning while you play, and neither does if a card is WotC constructed-tournament-legal The admissibility of cards from a new expansion is a deck-building rule specific to WotC-sanctioned tournaments - nothing about the game stops you from using a card that was released 2 days ago in friendly play or in a tournament that you and your buddies run. It's specifically a restriction about WotC tournaments, not about 'the rules of the game of V:TES'. -John Flournoy

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<r77guv0v9t52a3io5...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] *WOOOOOT-WOOOOOOT-WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT* *Warning!...thread becoming dangerously anal...Warning!...total pointlessness expected in T minus 2 posts and counting...Warning!...* *WOOOOOT-WOOOOOOT-WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT*

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > arguably, just being from different expansions is enough to make two > versions of a card not the same. Do follow the topic, won't you? This thread, as indicated by the subject line and meticulously detailed in Halcyan2's original post, is about what constitutes two copies of the same card for the purposes of Specialization. It is not about whether one card is the same as another for * collecting (i.e., it is indistinguishable from the other) * ownership (i.e., it is the same physical copy as the other) * aesthetics (i.e., it has the same [name], art, and background as the other) * set rotation (i.e., has the same [name], and expansion symbol or border) A card is the "same" as another for the purposes of this thread if, as previously indicated, it has the same name (after accounting for variant spellings and renamings). If one has a particular pair of cards in mind, then, as indicated, one can check the online card lists to see if they share a single entry (in which case they are the same card for game purposes). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 23 Dec 2003 07:41:48 -0800, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) scrawled: [snip] >For instance, whether or not your card says "Jyhad" or "Vampire" on >the back has absolutely no meaning to play once a game has begun. >Similarly the expansion symbol has no meaning while you play, and >neither does if a card is WotC constructed-tournament-legal *cough*WW not WotC*cough* salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm