This occurred at the Toronto tournament this past weekend...
[Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent... in other
words I forget exactly what vampires were involved.]
Gideon Fontaine who in a previous turn had been given the title of Ventrue
Justicar now lies in torpor due to the betrayal of the nasty Tremere. Not
wanting to waste my blood rescuing such a pathetic excuse for a justicar, I
decide to make Violette Prentiss the new Ventrue Justicar instead.
Is this legal?
When this situation occurred, the new rule about contesting your own cards
was brought up. I felt that it was not relevant in this situation but we
decided to just compromise at that time and find out later what the answer
was.
1) We discovered that vampires in torpor do not contest titles. Does this
mean that Gideon is not eligible to contest the title in such a case or is
the title contestation put 'on hold' for the duration that he remains in
torpor? For example, if I were to later rescue him would the title of
justicar *then* be contested once more or has it already been conceded to
Violette?
2) Both vampires were controlled by me. Ventrue Justicar is a *title* as
opposed to a card. Although most players place the card on the vampire for
convenience to show that the vampire is now a justicar, the card itself is
*not in play* and it is only the title that is contested, and *not* the card
itself. Therefore, my assumption was that it is perfectly legal to contest
your own titles without the newer one burning as it is played (such as for
contesting a vampire with yourself).
An opinion related to the above questions:
Although the card is not required to be placed on the vampire after they
receive a title, it seems rather strange to me that it isn't required to be.
It seems that it would be legal to ask another player *not* to play with
their Praxis Seizures et al on the table. Therefore a nasty player could
mess with the other players' minds by simply keeping track in their head who
has what title. Wouldn't it be easier for all involved if the title vote
cards were required to be placed on the vampire as a game mechanic or
what-have-you?
It just seems like a simple change that would ultimately make this game less
of a pain in the ass to teach people.
Cheers,
WES
Wes wrote:
>
> This occurred at the Toronto tournament this past weekend...
>
> [Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent... in other
> words I forget exactly what vampires were involved.]
>
> Gideon Fontaine who in a previous turn had been given the title of Ventrue
> Justicar now lies in torpor due to the betrayal of the nasty Tremere. Not
> wanting to waste my blood rescuing such a pathetic excuse for a justicar, I
> decide to make Violette Prentiss the new Ventrue Justicar instead.
>
> Is this legal?
Yes.
> When this situation occurred, the new rule about contesting your own cards
> was brought up. I felt that it was not relevant in this situation but we
> decided to just compromise at that time and find out later what the answer
> was.
You were correct. Titles aren't cards.
> 1) We discovered that vampires in torpor do not contest titles. Does this
> mean that Gideon is not eligible to contest the title in such a case or is
> the title contestation put 'on hold' for the duration that he remains in
> torpor? For example, if I were to later rescue him would the title of
> justicar *then* be contested once more or has it already been conceded to
> Violette?
The title is contested. When Gideon's turn to contest it rolls aournd
(i.e., during his controller's untap phase), he is forced to yield since
he is not allowed to contest it.
If he is rescued before that time, he can choose to pay for the contest
instead of yielding, as normal.
The title is contested until yielded, per the normal rules, even while
he's in torpor, however. The only thing torpor does is restrict his
ability to pay for the contest.
> 2) Both vampires were controlled by me. Ventrue Justicar is a *title* as
> opposed to a card. Although most players place the card on the vampire for
> convenience to show that the vampire is now a justicar, the card itself is
> *not in play* and it is only the title that is contested, and *not* the card
> itself. Therefore, my assumption was that it is perfectly legal to contest
> your own titles without the newer one burning as it is played (such as for
> contesting a vampire with yourself).
Correct.
> An opinion related to the above questions:
>
> Although the card is not required to be placed on the vampire after they
> receive a title, it seems rather strange to me that it isn't required to be.
> It seems that it would be legal to ask another player *not* to play with
> their Praxis Seizures et al on the table. Therefore a nasty player could
> mess with the other players' minds by simply keeping track in their head who
> has what title. Wouldn't it be easier for all involved if the title vote
> cards were required to be placed on the vampire as a game mechanic or
> what-have-you?
If someone required the card to be placed in the ash heap, the the player
is free to use whatever other device (Post-It(tm) note, penny, raisin,
whatever) to mark the title.
--
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/
> > 1) We discovered that vampires in torpor do not contest titles. Does this
> > mean that Gideon is not eligible to contest the title in such a case or is
> > the title contestation put 'on hold' for the duration that he remains in
> > torpor? For example, if I were to later rescue him would the title of
> > justicar *then* be contested once more or has it already been conceded to
> > Violette?
>
> The title is contested. When Gideon's turn to contest it rolls aournd
> (i.e., during his controller's untap phase), he is forced to yield since
> he is not allowed to contest it.
Does Violette also have to pay 1 blood not to yield at that time, or
may Gideon yield and then Violette doesn't have to pay?
Is it possible to let Violette have the title during that untap phase,
or must she wait until the subsequent one?
On 18 Jun 2002 17:28:33 -0700, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote:
>> > 1) We discovered that vampires in torpor do not contest titles. Does this
>> > mean that Gideon is not eligible to contest the title in such a case or is
>> > the title contestation put 'on hold' for the duration that he remains in
>> > torpor? For example, if I were to later rescue him would the title of
>> > justicar *then* be contested once more or has it already been conceded to
>> > Violette?>> The title is contested. When Gideon's turn to contest it rolls aournd
>> (i.e., during his controller's untap phase), he is forced to yield since
>> he is not allowed to contest it.>Does Violette also have to pay 1 blood not to yield at that time, or
>may Gideon yield and then Violette doesn't have to pay?
At the start of your turn, her title is contested.
She must burn blood or yield, regardless of what else happens
during your untap phase.
>Is it possible to let Violette have the title during that untap phase,
>or must she wait until the subsequent one?
She must wait until the subsequent one.
LSJ 2001-07-21
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8l9ff6%248lo%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
LSJ 2001-05-31
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CF7B5D6.50C3F980%40white-wolf.com
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
>Although the card is not required to be placed on the vampire after they
>receive a title, it seems rather strange to me that it isn't required to be.
>It seems that it would be legal to ask another player *not* to play with
>their Praxis Seizures et al on the table. Therefore a nasty player could
>mess with the other players' minds by simply keeping track in their head who
>has what title. Wouldn't it be easier for all involved if the title vote
>cards were required to be placed on the vampire as a game mechanic or
>what-have-you?
Correct in that a player could technically ask for the Praxis to not be placed
on the vampire. But it seems more like that person is just trying to be
difficult. It won't really be confusing since anyone can just ask what Prince
he is (and it has to be answered truthfully since it's public knowledge). If
anything, it would only slow down the game.
The person making this request is probably either just being annoying or is a
stubborn stickler to the rules (which can also be annoying). Similarly, I can
ask other players to display their pool so that I can actually count it
(instead of having it in a big clump or in some container like a glass). Or I
can coerce them into doing so by constantly asking how much pool they have.
If people want to get picky about where to place Praxis Seizure cards, then you
can be equally picky. Oh look, too late to gain Edge pool since you already
took a blood from your Blood Doll. Or our favorite, discard is *after*
influence so since you discarded, no more transfers for you. Also, untapping a
minion who just equipped with a Leather Jacket (using that untap) counts as
ending your turn. So sad, too bad. But if you want to play annoying, so can the
rest of us! =P
Halcyan 2
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020619031220...@mb-mr.aol.com...
(snip)
> If people want to get picky about where to place Praxis Seizure cards,
then you
> can be equally picky. Oh look, too late to gain Edge pool since you
already
> took a blood from your Blood Doll. Or our favorite, discard is *after*
> influence so since you discarded, no more transfers for you. Also,
untapping a
> minion who just equipped with a Leather Jacket (using that untap) counts
as
> ending your turn. So sad, too bad. But if you want to play annoying, so
can the
> rest of us! =P
>
> Halcyan 2
Halcyan ! in this case i recomment you not to go play in Los angeles, ever !
All the things you describes are the standard there =) but the players are
so friendly it's really not a matter =)
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> If people want to get picky about where to place Praxis Seizure cards, then you
> can be equally picky. Oh look, too late to gain Edge pool since you already
> took a blood from your Blood Doll. Or our favorite, discard is *after*
> influence so since you discarded, no more transfers for you. Also, untapping a
> minion who just equipped with a Leather Jacket (using that untap) counts as
> ending your turn. So sad, too bad. But if you want to play annoying, so can the
> rest of us! =P
Being picky won't help here.
The "picked on" person can just observe that they hadn't left their untap
phase (so pulling from the Blood Doll was illegal) or that they hadn't
left the minion phase (so untapping the LJ bearer was illegal), or that
they hadn't left their influence phase (so discarding a card was illegal).
You'd have to come up with appropriate resolutions to the illegal play,
but denying the player his pool or remainder of the turn doesn't seem
appropriate. YMMV.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3D106FA8...@white-wolf.com...
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > If people want to get picky about where to place Praxis Seizure cards,
then you
> > can be equally picky. Oh look, too late to gain Edge pool since you
already
> > took a blood from your Blood Doll. Or our favorite, discard is *after*
> > influence so since you discarded, no more transfers for you.
>> Being picky won't help here.
>
> The "picked on" person can just observe that they hadn't left their untap
> phase (so pulling from the Blood Doll was illegal) or that they hadn't
> left the minion phase (so untapping the LJ bearer was illegal), or that
> they hadn't left their influence phase (so discarding a card was illegal).
The "forgiving" nature of this approach does appeal to me, but
it seems problematic to evaluate the "honesty" of the "picked
on" person. If taking an action appropriate to a later phase
doesn't mean that the player considers herself to be in that
(later) phase, what *would* mean that? Only an explicit
declaration "I'm going to my master phase now"?
It sounds like the motivation behind this approach is that,
if no one else has done anything based on the "incorrect"
game state, there's no reason not to let the erring player "go
back" and "do it over". Most of the time, outside of the minion
phase, this will be true, and so anyone holding the Edge would
be eligible to remember to gain pool as late as, say, the first
action of their minion phase (before anyone blocks).
Is this accurate?
Certainly anyone who gets confused about the orders of the
phases should be treated gently, and if they in fact try to
unwittingly do something illegal (eg gain pool for the Edge
after playing a master card) they shouldn't be unduly penalized.
But most people playing in tournaments do (I think) know the
rules well enough that they're not forgetting what happens in
what phase, they're just forgetting that they had something
useful to do in that phase. This may be poor play, but many
people seem to think that it's not the kind of thing that
should be corrected by "going back" and letting them "do it
over". I'm not sure yet where I ought to stand on this, but
this is definitely an interesting topic to me.
Josh
jump down turn around
pick a bale of cotton
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3D106FA8...@white-wolf.com...
> > Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > > If people want to get picky about where to place Praxis Seizure cards,
> then you
> > > can be equally picky. Oh look, too late to gain Edge pool since you
> already
> > > took a blood from your Blood Doll. Or our favorite, discard is *after*
> > > influence so since you discarded, no more transfers for you.
> >
> > Being picky won't help here.
> >
> > The "picked on" person can just observe that they hadn't left their untap
> > phase (so pulling from the Blood Doll was illegal) or that they hadn't
> > left the minion phase (so untapping the LJ bearer was illegal), or that
> > they hadn't left their influence phase (so discarding a card was illegal).
>
> The "forgiving" nature of this approach does appeal to me, but
> it seems problematic to evaluate the "honesty" of the "picked
> on" person. If taking an action appropriate to a later phase
> doesn't mean that the player considers herself to be in that
> (later) phase, what *would* mean that? Only an explicit
> declaration "I'm going to my master phase now"?
Making the explicit statement would certainly suffice.
In the absence of that, though, it falls to a judgment call.
You'll just have to decide if the player's actions are
intended to denote that she is leaving phase X or not.
If it's problematic in your group, reconsider your gaming
partners, or reconsider the notion of making explicit
statements.
> It sounds like the motivation behind this approach is that,
> if no one else has done anything based on the "incorrect"
> game state, there's no reason not to let the erring player "go
> back" and "do it over". Most of the time, outside of the minion
> phase, this will be true, and so anyone holding the Edge would
> be eligible to remember to gain pool as late as, say, the first
> action of their minion phase (before anyone blocks).
>
> Is this accurate?
Judgment call. If the player herself has done anything (like
replacing a master card or whatever), then motivation is suspect.
> Certainly anyone who gets confused about the orders of the
> phases should be treated gently, and if they in fact try to
> unwittingly do something illegal (eg gain pool for the Edge
> after playing a master card) they shouldn't be unduly penalized.
> But most people playing in tournaments do (I think) know the
> rules well enough that they're not forgetting what happens in
> what phase, they're just forgetting that they had something
> useful to do in that phase. This may be poor play, but many
> people seem to think that it's not the kind of thing that
> should be corrected by "going back" and letting them "do it
> over". I'm not sure yet where I ought to stand on this, but
> this is definitely an interesting topic to me.
In a tournament, you've got the judge to fall back on.
Describe the situation to the judge. If the judge feels that
the player's actions indicate the transition to a particular
phase, fine.
Don't confuse a suggested response to unreasonable pickiness
with an endorsement of lax judging practices.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3D10E4CF...@white-wolf.com...
> In a tournament, you've got the judge to fall back on.
In a tournament, I often *am* the judge to fall back on. Which
is why I find this topic interesting. :-)
> Don't confuse a suggested response to unreasonable pickiness
> with an endorsement of lax judging practices.
Ah, I was under the impression that the "pickiness" being
described amounted to "insisting on tournament-style enforcement
of tournament-standard rules".
Thanks for the input.
Josh
pick it up!
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<aeqn18$9av3l$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> This may be poor play, but many
> people seem to think that it's not the kind of thing that
> should be corrected by "going back" and letting them "do it
> over". I'm not sure yet where I ought to stand on this, but
> this is definitely an interesting topic to me.
In my playgroup we are pretty flexible about "going back". Making
allowances for people who spaz out and for example, play their Very
Important Master Card before collecting edge income (or even
untapping) helps to prevent arguments.
The only time we don't allow "going back" is when a player has gained
some information or advantage by their misplay, or other players have
acted significantly on the misplay. For example, we *do not* allow a
takeback like: "I bleed with Igo." "OK, Dragos plays Guard Dogs and
blocks." "What!...opps, sorry...I don't bleed."
Basically, it comes down to whether you would prefer to win because
you played well and designed your deck well, or because the other
players were idiots. I prefer the former.
Not to mention the fact that it is always nice to treat the retard
nicely, because next turn it might be you who is the 'tard.
* lehrbuch
>> > Being picky won't help here.
>> >
>> > The "picked on" person can just observe that they hadn't left their untap
>> > phase (so pulling from the Blood Doll was illegal) or that they hadn't
>> > left the minion phase (so untapping the LJ bearer was illegal), or that
>> > they hadn't left their influence phase (so discarding a card was>illegal).>>
>> The "forgiving" nature of this approach does appeal to me, but
>> it seems problematic to evaluate the "honesty" of the "picked
>> on" person. If taking an action appropriate to a later phase
>> doesn't mean that the player considers herself to be in that
>> (later) phase, what *would* mean that? Only an explicit
>> declaration "I'm going to my master phase now"?>
>Making the explicit statement would certainly suffice.
>In the absence of that, though, it falls to a judgment call.
>You'll just have to decide if the player's actions are
>intended to denote that she is leaving phase X or not.
>If it's problematic in your group, reconsider your gaming
>partners, or reconsider the notion of making explicit
>statements.
Like Josh, I do appreciate the forgiving and flexible aspects of this policy,
but it still seems a bit iffy.
Each time this happens, the person would still get a penalty or warning for
illegal play then, right?
And Josh makes a good point when asking exactly how late you can collect Edge
pool.
So...:
#1. I forget to get Edge pool and have just played a Master card. I can say "I
actually still haven't left my untap phase so that play was illegal and I can
get my Edge pool."?
#2. If I forget to transfer and have already discarded I can claim to have
tried to discard during my influence phase? (Though this is slightly more
complicated due to information advantage. Let's say you discarded but didn't
replace b/c of a Visit from the Capuchin).
#3. Here's a situation from a tournament a while back: Minion A hunts. Minion B
diablerizes. Then I realize I forgot to bleed first to get the Edge. Can I say,
"hold on a second, I'm actually not done yet with Minion A. It's right at the
end of Minion A's action and I'm thinking about playing a Freak Drive or other
action modifier so I can't have Minion B do his thing yet."? (Fortunately in my
case, I survived the Blood Hunt anyway).
???
Halcyan 2
[ quoted text not captured ]
You word the statement as if you played the Master card correctly (in your master
phase) and that you forgot to take the edge back in your untap phase.
That supplies the answer.
> #2. If I forget to transfer and have already discarded I can claim to have
> tried to discard during my influence phase? (Though this is slightly more
> complicated due to information advantage. Let's say you discarded but didn't
> replace b/c of a Visit from the Capuchin).
Again, the wording supplies the answer.
> #3. Here's a situation from a tournament a while back: Minion A hunts. Minion B
> diablerizes. Then I realize I forgot to bleed first to get the Edge. Can I say,
> "hold on a second, I'm actually not done yet with Minion A. It's right at the
> end of Minion A's action and I'm thinking about playing a Freak Drive or other
> action modifier so I can't have Minion B do his thing yet."? (Fortunately in my
> case, I survived the Blood Hunt anyway).
Again, the wording supplies the answer.
Forgetting to do something is not the same as attempting to do something in the
wrong phase.
[ quoted text not captured ]