From the VtES Official Clarifications, Rulings and Errata you can read:
- Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to be
contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being played is
not activated prior the contest.
- If you contest a scarce vampire, you pay the 3-pool-per-same-clan penalty
when putting tha card into play (before contesting begins).
So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have to
pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the 2nd copy of
the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?
Thanx for your help
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other vampires of
the same clan in play, since both are contested). However, since you are
contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is burned directly, without
contesting the other two already being contested.
--
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/
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:16:11 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>Silvia wrote:>> From the VtES Official Clarifications, Rulings and Errata you can read:
>> - Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to be
>> contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being played is
>> not activated prior the contest.
>>
>> - If you contest a scarce vampire, you pay the 3-pool-per-same-clan penalty
>> when putting tha card into play (before contesting begins).
>>
>> So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have to
>> pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the 2nd copy of
>> the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?>
>Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other vampires of
>the same clan in play, since both are contested). However, since you are
>contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is burned directly, without
>contesting the other two already being contested.
was the trifle designation and rule written into the rulebook so that
when contesting unique trifles you'd still get your additional master
phase action? (because otherwise if the trifle effect was just written
onto the card it wouldn't kick in if being played into contestion..and
then when (if) it comes out of contestion it's not your master phase
anymore..)
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
LSJ wrote:
> Silvia wrote:
>>> From the VtES Official Clarifications, Rulings and Errata you can read:
>> - Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to be
>> contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being
>> played is
>> not activated prior the contest.
>>
>> - If you contest a scarce vampire, you pay the 3-pool-per-same-clan
>> penalty
>> when putting tha card into play (before contesting begins).
>>
>> So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have to
>> pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the 2nd
>> copy of
>> the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?>
>
> Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other
> vampires of the same clan in play, since both are contested). However,
> since you are contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is burned
> directly, without contesting the other two already being contested.
...assuming you control any of the already contested copies.
To be clear, it is possible to contest a 3rd copy of a vampire being
contested by two other methuselahs, and in that case you go directly to
contestation, without paying for the scarce cost or having to burn the
incoming copy.
Flux
>> So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have to
>> pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the 2nd copy of
>> the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?>
> Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other vampires of
> the same clan in play, since both are contested). However, since you are
> contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is burned directly, without
> contesting the other two already being contested.
Ok -suppose there are two of Vampire A being contested by other people.
Vampire B is also in play frm the same clan.
You bring out a 3rd copy of Vampire A.
(ridiculously improbable but maybe you are having a competition for best
Trujah deck...)
Do you pay?
In article <bchvr9$jbrci$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote:
>Timlagor wrote:>> Ok -suppose there are two of Vampire A being contested by other people.
>> Vampire B is also in play frm the same clan.
>> You bring out a 3rd copy of Vampire A.
>> (ridiculously improbable but maybe you are having a competition for best
>> Trujah deck...)
>> Do you pay?>
>You pay 3 pool, for the one vampire (B) of the same clan in play.
hmm. but there's a clarification that reads:
- Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to be
contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being played is
not activated prior the contest.
in this case, Vampire A is already a contested card. so it should go
directly into contesting without costing you 3 pool...
question for LSJ: if I understand the overlap between the above-mentioned
clarification and the clarification about paying the 3-pool-per-same-clan
when contesting (as cited before), you'll pay the 3-pool-per-same-clan if
you're contesting a Scarce vampire for the first time (e.g., it's not
being contested already), but not when you bring out a copy of a Scarce
that's already being contested (by other people)?
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
salem wrote:
> was the trifle designation and rule written into the rulebook so that
> when contesting unique trifles you'd still get your additional master
> phase action? (because otherwise if the trifle effect was just written
> onto the card it wouldn't kick in if being played into contestion..and
> then when (if) it comes out of contestion it's not your master phase
> anymore..)
No. It would have the same effect if it were just card text.
Gaining an extra master phase would be a function of the play of the card,
not of the card being in play. [LSJ 27-JAN-2001]
Google: "Coven contested author:LSJ"
[ quoted text not captured ]
Flux wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> Silvia wrote:>>> So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have
>>> to pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the 2nd
>>> copy of the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?>>
>> Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other
>> vampires of the same clan in play, since both are contested). However,
>> since you are contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is burned
>> directly, without contesting the other two already being contested.>> ...assuming you [are contesting] any of the already contested copies.> To be clear, it is possible to contest a 3rd copy of a vampire being
> contested by two other methuselahs, and in that case you go directly to
> contestation, without paying for the scarce cost or having to burn the
> incoming copy.
Yes. See the answer above, which says so directly in the first sentence before
moving on to the "however" to handle the self-contestation given in the case
presented, or see the rules on Scarce. [7]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Charles Lechasseur wrote:
> - Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to be
> contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being> [in play] is not activated prior the contest.>
> in this case, Vampire A is already a contested card. so it should go
> directly into contesting without costing you 3 pool...
No, it costs 3 pool when moved from the uncontrolled region to the ready
region (i.e., when "played"). Scarce doesn't have any effect from being in
play, so the fact that any in-play effect would not be handled for the
contested card is moot (for the Scarce rules).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Flux wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>>> Silvia wrote:
>>>>>>> So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have
>>>> to pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the
>>>> 2nd copy of the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?>>>
>>>
>>> Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other
>>> vampires of the same clan in play, since both are contested). However,
>>> since you are contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is
>>> burned
>>> directly, without contesting the other two already being contested.>>
>>
>> ...assuming you [are contesting] any of the already contested copies.
>> To be clear, it is possible to contest a 3rd copy of a vampire being
>> contested by two other methuselahs, and in that case you go directly
>> to contestation, without paying for the scarce cost or having to burn
>> the incoming copy.>
>
> Yes. See the answer above, which says so directly in the first sentence
> before moving on to the "however" to handle the self-contestation given in the
> case presented, or see the rules on Scarce. [7]
>
That wasn't a question, I just wanted to make sure your answer was clear
enough. Self-contesting is not mentioned directly in the original question,
and it was not the first situation that crossed my mind, someone else who
reads it the same way may find your answer confusing.
Just trying to help... :-/
Flux
Flux wrote:
> That wasn't a question, I just wanted to make sure your answer was clear
> enough. Self-contesting is not mentioned directly in the original
> question, and it was not the first situation that crossed my mind,
> someone else who reads it the same way may find your answer confusing.
>
> Just trying to help... :-/
Sorry to jump you like that. Getting too accustomed to the "but what about
<the same thing again> questions" around here. My apologies.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Flux wrote:>> That wasn't a question, I just wanted to make sure your answer was clear
>> enough. Self-contesting is not mentioned directly in the original
>> question, and it was not the first situation that crossed my mind,
>> someone else who reads it the same way may find your answer confusing.
>>
>> Just trying to help... :-/>
> Sorry to jump you like that. Getting too accustomed to the "but what about
> <the same thing again> questions" around here. My apologies.
It's all a dastardly conspiracy to confound you LSJ ;-D
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3EEC557B...@white-wolf.com...
> Silvia wrote:
> > From the VtES Official Clarifications, Rulings and Errata you can read:
> > - Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to be
> > contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being played
is
> > not activated prior the contest.
> >
> > - If you contest a scarce vampire, you pay the 3-pool-per-same-clan
penalty
> > when putting tha card into play (before contesting begins).
> >
> > So what exactly happens when you contest a scarce vampire? do you have to
> > pay the 3 pool penalty if you bring to the controlled region the 2nd copy
of
> > the vampire and not if you bring out the 3rd one?
>
> Correct (since, when you bring out the third, there are no other vampires of
> the same clan in play, since both are contested). However, since you are
> contesting it already, the incoming (3rd one) copy is burned directly,
without
> contesting the other two already being contested.
So, the [LSJ 2001-10-18] ruling that Scarce cost must be paid
"when putting the card into play (before contesting begins)"
is not overturned by [RTR 2003-05-19]'s rule that "The incoming
contested card has no effect prior to being contested"?
It seems logical that it would be reversed. The RTR implies
that a contested card's text is not inspected before contesting
begins.
It would be an oddity that Scarce cost would never be paid in
this case, though. And the "text is not inspected" idea
wouldn't work for Jimmy Dunn, either, although he could slip
by on the Golden Rule of Cards since his text specifically
addresses contesting, which "Scarce" does not.
Josh
not that contesting is likely to be an efficient way to avoid
scarce cost...
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> So, the [LSJ 2001-10-18] ruling that Scarce cost must be paid
> "when putting the card into play (before contesting begins)"
> is not overturned by [RTR 2003-05-19]'s rule that "The incoming
> contested card has no effect prior to being contested"?
Correct.
> It seems logical that it would be reversed. The RTR implies
> that a contested card's text is not inspected before contesting
> begins.
It means that the effect of the card being in play is not activated
(briefly) before being deactivated by contesting. See the text of
the RTR in question for examples.
Apologies for the ambiguous phrasing the RTR. The online E/R/C
list has better phrasing.
[ quoted text not captured ]