"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)."
Just wanted to get clarification on the definition of 'force'. It
means through non-optional, compulsory reasons only. You can't play a
Barrens if you control a Barrens, and force the burn?
Morgan Vening
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:04:55 +1000, Morgan Vening
<mor...@optusnet.com.au> scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
"force" is things like vast wealth, the end of your influence phase,
etc.
basically, you can't contest intentionally, but if it happens by
accident, the incoming burns.
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:44:18 +1000, salem
<salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:04:55 +1000, Morgan Vening
><mor...@optusnet.com.au> scrawled:
>>>"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)."
>>
>>Just wanted to get clarification on the definition of 'force'. It
>>means through non-optional, compulsory reasons only. You can't play a
>>Barrens if you control a Barrens, and force the burn?>
>"force" is things like vast wealth, the end of your influence phase,
>etc.
>
>basically, you can't contest intentionally, but if it happens by
>accident, the incoming burns.
That's what I thought. But we had one person play a Secure Haven to
cycle (he had one in play), and weren't sure on how it went down. I
knew that the second copy was the one burnt, but wasn't sure if it was
a legal action to begin.
Morgan Vening
Morgan Vening wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:44:18 +1000, salem
> <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:04:55 +1000, Morgan Vening
>><mor...@optusnet.com.au> scrawled:
>>
>>>>>"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)."
>>>
>>>Just wanted to get clarification on the definition of 'force'. It
>>>means through non-optional, compulsory reasons only. You can't play a
>>>Barrens if you control a Barrens, and force the burn?>>
>>"force" is things like vast wealth, the end of your influence phase,
>>etc.
>>
>>basically, you can't contest intentionally, but if it happens by
>>accident, the incoming burns.
Correct.
> That's what I thought. But we had one person play a Secure Haven to
> cycle (he had one in play), and weren't sure on how it went down. I
> knew that the second copy was the one burnt, but wasn't sure if it was
> a legal action to begin.
He can choose not to play the second Secure Haven, so he cannot
play it, since it would self-contest.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
i play a govern the unaligned at DOM on jimmy dunn , letting him in 4
blood (he has 1 blood before), and i control a copy of him in my ready
region. at the end of my influence phase the second copy of jimmy goes
to the ready region and burns the first copy...this is a forced
situation?
thanks!!
So is the Bakija Gambit illegal?
What if you "accidentally" (i.e. "carefully planned gambit") influence
out a vampire that you already have controlled?
Ira
<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113950470.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> So is the Bakija Gambit illegal?
>
> What if you "accidentally" (i.e. "carefully planned gambit") influence
> out a vampire that you already have controlled?
Apparently so. Otherwise the judge of that tournament would have
ruled it otherwise. Or should have - and I don't recall anyone
stating that a mistake had been made at the time.
Remember, if procedure isn't followed correctly when it should be,
the game is backed up to the point where the mistake was made and
replayed from there if humanly possible. (Or to the extent humanly
possible.) You don't just say, "Ooops, we screwed up...", and go
on.
Fred
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> So is the Bakija Gambit illegal?
No.
> What if you "accidentally" (i.e. "carefully planned gambit") influence
> out a vampire that you already have controlled?
OK. The vampire is forced out at the end of your influence phase
if he is full (or over-full). You have no choice in the matter at
that point.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wrote:
> <ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113950470.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>> So is the Bakija Gambit illegal?
>>
>> What if you "accidentally" (i.e. "carefully planned gambit") influence
>> out a vampire that you already have controlled?>
> Apparently so.
DOH! Misread the question: I responded as if Ira had asked if the
Bajija Gambit were LEGAL. (nutpunch!)
At the time, Peter lost all the pool he'd invested in the second
copy of the vampire and it got burned...a wonderful tactic for
achieving a rapid self-oust.
Fred
Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex) a écrit :
[ quoted text not captured ]
But strangely enough *this one is legal* because of the card text on
jimmy : this vampire do not contest.
Something that came up last night, that I can't actually confirm
exactly, having looked at multiple threads.
It is legal to make transfers to any vampire in your uncontrolled
region. (i.e. I am playing a deck with 20 Sasha Miklos, and although I
already have a copy out, I want to put one on each of my others in case
she dies.)
It is legal to Govern backwards onto a vampire you already control.
(Arika (or Marcus Vitel with a master discipline) goes backwards onto
Marcus Vitel, even though I already control him. Usually done for Pool
gain)
Any vampire, at the end of your influence phase, with equal to or more
counters than capacity must be moved into the ready region.
You cannot voluntarily play The Barrens if you already have the Barrens
in play.
Can you voluntarily move 4 counters onto a 1 cap vampire, that you
already control a copy of, which then comes out at the end of your
influence phase, and burns.
The opportunity to do what you choose with your influence suggests that
you can, but the example with The Barrens, suggests you can't (as you
can't voluntarily contest).
Last night, someone deliberately wanted to do this in a friendly, I
said he couldn't, but now I'm not so sure. (Stopping him doing it
actually led him to splitting the table, so I don't feel bad, whereas
it was an attempt to self oust faster)
I can't find a definitive answer. The Rulebook suggests he could have
done it. Which is correct, and why?
Andy
VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
On 20 Apr 2005 01:20:58 -0700, "Slytherin" <an...@operamail.com>
scrawled:
>Something that came up last night, that I can't actually confirm
>exactly, having looked at multiple threads.
>
>It is legal to make transfers to any vampire in your uncontrolled
>region. (i.e. I am playing a deck with 20 Sasha Miklos, and although I
>already have a copy out, I want to put one on each of my others in case
>she dies.)
yes, legal.
>It is legal to Govern backwards onto a vampire you already control.
>(Arika (or Marcus Vitel with a master discipline) goes backwards onto
>Marcus Vitel, even though I already control him. Usually done for Pool
>gain)
legal.
>Any vampire, at the end of your influence phase, with equal to or more
>counters than capacity must be moved into the ready region.
correct.
>You cannot voluntarily play The Barrens if you already have the Barrens
>in play.
correct.
>Can you voluntarily move 4 counters onto a 1 cap vampire, that you
>already control a copy of, which then comes out at the end of your
>influence phase, and burns.
yes.
>The opportunity to do what you choose with your influence suggests that
>you can, but the example with The Barrens, suggests you can't (as you
>can't voluntarily contest).
they are slightly different.
>Last night, someone deliberately wanted to do this in a friendly, I
>said he couldn't, but now I'm not so sure. (Stopping him doing it
>actually led him to splitting the table, so I don't feel bad, whereas
>it was an attempt to self oust faster)
>
>I can't find a definitive answer. The Rulebook suggests he could have
>done it. Which is correct, and why?
he can make transfers to the vampire.
he is not intentionally contesting with himself, he is merely moving
pool.
come the end of the influence phase, the rules that tell you what to
do at that point kick in, and they force any vampire with blood equal
or greater to it's capacity to come into play.
and then, as you know, when you accidentally contest with youself, the
incoming copy is burned *cough* raven and camille in the ACT qualifier
*cough*
[ quoted text not captured ]
Slytherin wrote:
> The opportunity to do what you choose with your influence suggests that
> you can, but the example with The Barrens, suggests you can't (as you
> can't voluntarily contest).
>
> Last night, someone deliberately wanted to do this in a friendly, I
> said he couldn't, but now I'm not so sure. (Stopping him doing it
> actually led him to splitting the table, so I don't feel bad, whereas
> it was an attempt to self oust faster)
You can put pool on a vampire, even if another copy of that vampire is
in the controlled region, because (as non-intuitive as it is) putting
pool on a vampire does not bring that vampire into the ready region.
That happens automatically at the end of the influence phase when
conditions are met (pool on vampire equals or exceeds capacity).
So even though you set it up, you're still not the one bringing the
vampire out -- the rules are.
With the Barrens, though, you're the one putting the card into play --
so if it would contest, you're not allowed to do that.
(Theoretically, one would be prohibited from playing the [qui] version
of Undue Influence if it would result in the vampire coming out and
contesting one of your own vampires, I believe. LSJ?)
If, for example, there was a card that read suchly:
Master Card Investment
Master
Put a Master card from your hand and X+1 counters on this card, where X
is the cost of the Master card in pool. During your untap, remove one
of the counters. When all counters have been removed, burn this card,
and put that Master card on it into play (no cost is paid).
You could put the Barrens on it, even if you already controlled another
copy of the Barrens. And when it ran out of counters, it would be legal
to attempt to put the second Barrens into play, where it would
immediately burn.
--Colin McGuigan
Colin McGuigan wrote:
> Slytherin wrote:
> > The opportunity to do what you choose with your influence suggests
that
> > you can, but the example with The Barrens, suggests you can't (as
you
> > can't voluntarily contest).
> >
> > Last night, someone deliberately wanted to do this in a friendly, I
> > said he couldn't, but now I'm not so sure. (Stopping him doing it
> > actually led him to splitting the table, so I don't feel bad,
whereas
> > it was an attempt to self oust faster)
>
> You can put pool on a vampire, even if another copy of that vampire
is
> in the controlled region, because (as non-intuitive as it is) putting> pool on a vampire does not bring that vampire into the ready region.
> That happens automatically at the end of the influence phase when
> conditions are met (pool on vampire equals or exceeds capacity).
>
> So even though you set it up, you're still not the one bringing the
> vampire out -- the rules are.
Thansk to you and Salem for the explanation. As weird as it sounds, it
clearly does work that way. (But then I suppose no more weird than the
fact you are allowed to do anything that would remove your last pool,
play a Barrens, pay to contest, transfer it to a vampire, and oust
yourself.
>
> With the Barrens, though, you're the one putting the card into play
--
> so if it would contest, you're not allowed to do that.
>
> (Theoretically, one would be prohibited from playing the [qui]
version
> of Undue Influence if it would result in the vampire coming out and
> contesting one of your own vampires, I believe. LSJ?)
Actually, would that be the case. With Undue Influence, the requirement
is select a vampire in your uncontrolled region (something that last
night meant I had to pay 1 to see one, and delay playing it for a
turn). The outcome of the card is that it comes into play, much like
your example Master card below.
>
> If, for example, there was a card that read suchly:
>
> Master Card Investment
> Master
> Put a Master card from your hand and X+1 counters on this card, where
X
> is the cost of the Master card in pool. During your untap, remove
one
> of the counters. When all counters have been removed, burn this
card,
> and put that Master card on it into play (no cost is paid).
>
> You could put the Barrens on it, even if you already controlled
another
> copy of the Barrens. And when it ran out of counters, it would be
legal
> to attempt to put the second Barrens into play, where it would
> immediately burn.
>
> --Colin McGuigan
Again, cheers to you and Salem for answers. Of course, if LSJ wants to
contradict you...
:)
Andy "Wondering exactly what is the Bakija Gambit, and how do I make it
work for me" Brown
[ quoted text not captured ]
Slytherin wrote:
> Again, cheers to you and Salem for answers. Of course, if LSJ wants to
> contradict you...
Nah. Colin and Salem have it right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> So is the Bakija Gambit illegal?
Nope. Just really, really dumb.
> What if you "accidentally" (i.e. "carefully planned gambit") influence
> out a vampire that you already have controlled?
The second copy burns. It is a good way to lose a lot of pool. Bringing
vampires into play from the uncontrolled reigon when it has blood counters
equal to its capacity is an involuntary thing--you can't put a second copy
of a unique location into play, as that is illegal, and you can't go out to
equip with an Ivory Bow when you already have one in your control, again,
'cause voluntarily playing a second copy of a unique card you already
control is illegal. But when you involuntarily put a second unique card into
play, the second one burns. Bringing vampires into the conrolled reigon is
involuntary. I think you can also end up in this situation if, like, you use
Vast Wealth to accidentally try and equip with a second Ivory Bow (in which
case it just burns), as while using the Vast Wealth is voluntary, fetching a
second Ivory Bow by accident with it is involuntary.
There are very few situations where this is going to be advantageous
(bringing a second Jimmy Dunn into play is one, controling your pool levels
is another, although you could just spread out pool on vampires and not meet
their capacity so you can get the pool back later), so not really a problem
that it is a weird knid of loophole.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Apparently so. Otherwise the judge of that tournament would have
> ruled it otherwise. Or should have - and I don't recall anyone
> stating that a mistake had been made at the time.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying is apparently so. It is completely
legal to influence out a second copy of a unique vampire you already have in
play. Just a really dumb idea, as all it does for you is burn pool (except
in the case of Jimmy Dunn).
> Remember, if procedure isn't followed correctly when it should be,
> the game is backed up to the point where the mistake was made and
> replayed from there if humanly possible. (Or to the extent humanly
> possible.) You don't just say, "Ooops, we screwed up...", and go
> on.
I may be missing context here, but in the situation the original poster
presented (accidentally bringing out a second Jimmy Dunn 'cause he forgot to
remove the extra pool from the Govern), while certainly a mistake, was a
play error, rather than a procedural error--it isn't illegal to add pool to
the second Jimmy Dunn with Govern or with transfers, and if you get to the
end of your transfer phase, and you have a uncontrolled vampire that has
blood counters equal to its capacity, it enters the controlled reigon,
regardless of whether or not you already control a copy of the same unique
vampire (and if Jimmy Dunn, the first Jimmy burns. If not Jimmy Dunn the
second copy burns). In casual play, if this happens, I'd expect everyone to
be like "Oh, wait, fix that" and let you put the pool on the right vampire.
In competetive play, however, as nothing illegal was done, it seems likely
that the end result is going to be the second copy of the unique vampire you
already control is going to burn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Frederick Scott wrote:
> DOH! Misread the question: I responded as if Ira had asked if the
> Bajija Gambit were LEGAL. (nutpunch!)
Ah. Excellent. Ignore my previous, overly explanitory post (although it
still might be helpful for other people to read :-)
> At the time, Peter lost all the pool he'd invested in the second
> copy of the vampire and it got burned...a wonderful tactic for
> achieving a rapid self-oust.
Yeah, it was bad. I think I put 9 pool on Lithrac (who I already had in
play), thinking he was Suhalia, and in a massive compounded error (I put 4
pool on Lithrac, thinking he was Suhalia, left it there, put 4 more pool on
Lithrac, thinking he was Suhalia, didn't bring Lithrac into play, leaving
him in my uncontrolled reigon with 8 pool on him, and then on the next turn,
put on the last needed pool, flipped over Suhalia, discovered it was
Lithrac, said "Doh.", consulted the judge, and then proceded to burn 9 pool
for no vampire...) succeded in rapidly self ousting :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
reyda wrote:
> But strangely enough *this one is legal* because of the card text on
> jimmy : this vampire do not contest.
The card text on Jimmy isn't really an issue--it is perfectly legal to
influence out a second copy of a unique vampire you already control. Just
nothing good happens as a result (in the case of Jimmy Dunn, often something
good happens).
There is nothing preventing you from placing pool counters on a second copy
of an uncontrolled vampire you already have in play (people do it all the
time in, like, cycling Anson decks--put 4 pool on a second copy of Anson so
as soon as you Golconda the one you have in play, you can bring him out
again immediately). There is nothing preventing you from putting pool
counters onto them that equals their capacity. And when this happens, the
vampire comes into play. Usually, it just means the second vampire (and all
the pool on it) burns).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Slytherin wrote:
> It is legal to make transfers to any vampire in your uncontrolled
> region. (i.e. I am playing a deck with 20 Sasha Miklos, and although I
> already have a copy out, I want to put one on each of my others in case
> she dies.)
Correct.
> It is legal to Govern backwards onto a vampire you already control.
> (Arika (or Marcus Vitel with a master discipline) goes backwards onto
> Marcus Vitel, even though I already control him. Usually done for Pool
> gain)
Correct.
> Any vampire, at the end of your influence phase, with equal to or more
> counters than capacity must be moved into the ready region.
Correct.
> You cannot voluntarily play The Barrens if you already have the Barrens
> in play.
Correct.
> Can you voluntarily move 4 counters onto a 1 cap vampire, that you
> already control a copy of, which then comes out at the end of your
> influence phase, and burns.
Yes.
> The opportunity to do what you choose with your influence suggests that
> you can, but the example with The Barrens, suggests you can't (as you
> can't voluntarily contest).
Vampires coming out at the end of the influence phase, when blooded up to
capacity, is an involuntary action--it happens whether or not you want it
to. Playing The Barrens is a voluntary action. You cannot *voluntarily* self
contest. The difference is that vampires moving to the controlled reigon is
*involuntary*.
I'm pretty sure that you can also involuntarily self contest by, like,
accidentally trying to equip with a second Ivory Bow with Vast Wealth
(unless VW has verbiage on it that specifically prevents this--I don't
remember off hand).
> Last night, someone deliberately wanted to do this in a friendly, I
> said he couldn't, but now I'm not so sure. (Stopping him doing it
> actually led him to splitting the table, so I don't feel bad, whereas
> it was an attempt to self oust faster)
Oh, he can do that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:52:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>Slytherin wrote:>> Again, cheers to you and Salem for answers. Of course, if LSJ wants to
>> contradict you...>
>Nah. Colin and Salem have it right.
Hi-five, colin!
*raises palm* ?
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> Hi-five, colin!
>
> *raises palm* ?
<high-fives>
<prevents your high-five>
<pays 1 blood to play Blur and high-five two more times>
--Colin McGuigan
Slytherin wrote:
> Actually, would that be the case. With Undue Influence, the requirement
> is select a vampire in your uncontrolled region (something that last
> night meant I had to pay 1 to see one, and delay playing it for a
> turn). The outcome of the card is that it comes into play, much like
> your example Master card below.
Yes, because it's a direct result of playing the card -- it's not a
future effect.
--Colin McGuigan
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:47 -0500, Colin McGuigan
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> Hi-five, colin!
>>
>> *raises palm* ?>
><high-fives>
>
><prevents your high-five>
>
><pays 1 blood to play Blur and high-five two more times>
shit.
<press with boxed in>
<Taps elysium>
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:47 -0500, Colin McGuigan
> <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>
>>>salem wrote:
>>>>>Hi-five, colin!
>>>
>>>*raises palm* ?>>
>><high-fives>
>>
>><prevents your high-five>
>>
>><pays 1 blood to play Blur and high-five two more times>>
>
> shit.
>
> <press with boxed in>
>
> <Taps elysium>
Is this pre-errata Elysium? Since Frederick the Weak is modelled after
me, post-errata Elysium can't be used against me.
--Colin McGuigan
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:32:35 -0500, Colin McGuigan
<magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> shit.
>>
>> <press with boxed in>
>>
>> <Taps elysium>>
>Is this pre-errata Elysium? Since Frederick the Weak is modelled after
>me, post-errata Elysium can't be used against me.
erm, i think i am starting to get a bit lost now....
can i tap mariel? or is she first round only? hmmm....
maybe i'll go with riposte.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> erm, i think i am starting to get a bit lost now....
>
> can i tap mariel? or is she first round only? hmmm....
>
> maybe i'll go with riposte.
Heh. Someone in Chicago had a Riposte deck awhile ago -- lots of Flash
+ Riposte. Actually, not completely sucky.
--Colin McGuigan