Dumb question

Can you play a Unique master, then contest with yourself and yield? I'm sure this is answered in the rulebook, but I'm a moron.

waxm...@gmail.com wrote: > Can you play a Unique master, then contest with yourself and yield? > > I'm sure this is answered in the rulebook, but I'm a moron. No. You cannot volluntarily play a copy of a Unique card that you already control. There are ways to play a second copy of a card you control already involuntarily (Vast Wealth, influencing vampires), in which case you burn the new copy immediately and do not contest with yourself. But you can't contest your own cards voluntarily. -Peter

Boourns, I was hoping I could piggyback copies of Fame. Thanks for the clarification.

Peter D Bakija skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] Have they bothered to write that in the rulebook somewhere?

In message <1160638442.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >Peter D Bakija skrev: >> No. You cannot volluntarily play a copy of a Unique card that you >> already control. There are ways to play a second copy of a card you >> control already involuntarily (Vast Wealth, influencing vampires), in >> which case you burn the new copy immediately and do not contest with >> yourself. But you can't contest your own cards voluntarily. > >Have they bothered to write that in the rulebook somewhere? Yes. To spite us all, they put it in the hard to find section 4.1, "Contested Cards". Be careful about putting duplicates of the same unique cards in your deck. You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card). On the other hand, you may wish to have a second copy handy in case the first is burned Frankly, I think it's an outrage that such an important piece of text should be clearly and intelligently written in a well-marked section of the rulebook. It's clearly a double-bluff to make us all ignore it. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] I am curious how does it work with unique titles provided by pol. actions - yes, I know its possible (see the Nosf. Justicar + Cryptic Rider trick) and that the old one burns and the new remains, but rule-wise, why? playing a political action (even though you cannot be sure that the vote will pass) hardly seems to me as "unintentional"

[ quoted text not captured ] Because that's the vampires fighting amongst themselves, not you as a Methuselah. Most Methuselahs understand the value of not destroying for themselves by contesting what they already control. I could argue that the Malkavian Methuselah should be able to contest with himself (since one never knows how many he thinks he is) but normal Methuselahs can't control when two vampires decides to dish it out politically to take or keep control of a city. Archie

Alias skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] Also, how does this work with Jimmy Dunn? Since you can influence up a vampire you already control shouldn't his cardtext take precedence over the rule? Name: Jimmy Dunn [Sabbat:V, Tenth:B] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Pander Group: 2 Capacity: 4 Discipline: for CEL POT Sabbat: Jimmy Dunn cannot be contested. If a second Jimmy comes into play, burn the first Jimmy in play instead of contesting him.

Alias wrote: >> >Peter D Bakija skrev: >> >> No. You cannot volluntarily play a copy of a Unique card that you >> >> already control. There are ways to play a second copy of a card you >> >> control already involuntarily (Vast Wealth, influencing vampires), in >> >> which case you burn the new copy immediately and do not contest with >> >> yourself. But you can't contest your own cards voluntarily. > I am curious how does it work with unique titles provided by pol. > actions - yes, I know its possible (see the Nosf. Justicar + Cryptic > Rider trick) and that the old one burns and the new remains, but > rule-wise, why? playing a political action (even though you cannot be > sure that the vote will pass) hardly seems to me as "unintentional" the rule states you cannot contest unique _cards_ with yourself. titles are not unique cards. they are non-unique cards, some of which may grant unique titles (i believe the no-self-contest rule was written _before_ title-giving cards actually went in play, so that may have unexpected consequences here) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Oct 12, 5:45 am, "Myrdin" <Smurfal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, how does this work with Jimmy Dunn? Exactly like you would think it would. You bring out the second Jimmy Dunn. The first one burns. Just like the card says. -Peter

On Oct 12, 3:34 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > -PeterHave they bothered to write that in the rulebook somewhere? As noted, yes. -Peter

Myrdin wrote: > Also, how does this work with Jimmy Dunn? Since you can influence up a > vampire you already control shouldn't his cardtext take precedence over > the rule? Yes. He doesn't contest (card text), so the Methuselah who controls him will never find herself in a position to contest him with herself. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Re-read the rule: "you cannot contest cards with yourself". Not 'titles', 'cards'. A political title is not a card, therefore you can contest your own title (unintentionally or otherwise). And the cards that provide titles (like Nos Justicar) are neither unique nor typically stay in play, so there's no issue about contesting those, either. -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: > > I am curious how does it work with unique titles provided by pol. > > actions - yes, I know its possible (see the Nosf. Justicar + Cryptic > > Rider trick) and that the old one burns and the new remains, but > > rule-wise, why? playing a political action (even though you cannot be > > sure that the vote will pass) hardly seems to me as "unintentional" > > Re-read the rule: "you cannot contest cards with yourself". Not > 'titles', 'cards'. > > A political title is not a card, therefore you can contest your own > title (unintentionally or otherwise). And the cards that provide titles > (like Nos Justicar) are neither unique nor typically stay in play, so > there's no issue about contesting those, either. Except that, as of Legacies, these cards do stay in play to represent unique titles. And according to http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eec40e4f253db570 the title cards go out of play when they contest. Witness1 -believe the lie

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course, the cards are not unique; the titles are. So the titles, not the cards, are contested.

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Have they bothered to write that in the rulebook somewhere? Have you bothered to look for it? Play. The. Game. Read. The. Rules.