Hi,
Wondering if you are allowed to play call the great beast with an 11
cap baali if you already have a unique infernal vampire from a
previusly played call the great beast in play.
Since the action per se doesn' t result in a self contest, but rather
the fact that you put 11 counters on the card and the card isn´t
unique, but the vampire that is created from putting 11 counters on
it?
If the answer to the first question is "no" then...
As far as I´ve understood you can govern down on a vampire you already
have as a ready vampire and if you forget to move that blood to your
pool you get into a self-contest situation. Would it in a similar
manner be legal play to miscount the counters on a call the great
beast and think you have 9, but you actually have 10 and take the
action to put one counter on the card. Would you reverse this or is
this theoretically possible without a reversal?
This second question is obviously not something that is very likely to
ever happen, but keen on seeing what the answer will be.
Call the Great Beast
Type: Action
Blood Cost: 1
Required Clan: Baali
+1 stealth action.
Put this card on the acting Baali and put X ritual counters on it,
where X is the capacity of this Baali. This Baali may put a ritual
counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. When this card has more
than 10 ritual counters, burn this Baali and choose three Disciplines.
This card becomes a unique clanless independent infernal vampire with
9 capacity, 4 strength and 3 bleed. The Great Beast has the chosen
three Disciplines at superior. Move 9 blood to him from the blood
bank. The Great Beast can enter combat with any ready minion
controlled by another Methuselah as a (D) action and can prevent 1
damage each combat.
thanks
Tomas
[ quoted text not captured ]
IANLSJ, but AFAIK -
TGB is unique.
You can't self contest.
The action to Call TGB is fine - it doesn't become a vamp until the
last counter is placed, regardless of whether TGB is already in play.
You *can* put 11 counters on it if you have a GB in play should you so
desire, but the incoming GB would burn (see above)
Should you miscount and add the 11th counter on, then the card text
activates, you burn your acting baali, TGB is summoned and burns since
you can't self contest. If your playgroup is happy enough to accept it
was a misplay, then cool. If not, sucks to be you.
NB: - You can only govern down to a vamp you already have in play if
you've increased the ready one's capacity. Govern at superior
stipulates a younger vampire. I'm sure eveyone know that, just stating
the obvious for the sake of clarity.
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's why you can't :
- play CtGB with an 11+ cap vampire
- add the 11th counter
if there is already a CtGB vampire under your control.
You can still play a copy of CtGB with a 10- cap vampire or add up to
the 10th counter.
[ quoted text not captured ]> the 10th counter.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
I dont agree on this. The Call The Great Beast action is not unique.
So there is nothing wrong with me playing the action, when it enters
play, you then put counters on it, and then, when the counters are
added if you have 11 or more it triggers. There is nothing on Call
the Great Beast that makes me check what capacity the vampire who
plays it before it enters play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I disagree. Then again, I'm usually wrong.
You *can* put a card into play which you already have, it just burns
as per 4.1
"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."
The addition of an 11th counter to CTGB is a valid action, with a
valid target, but the enaction of CTGB's text forces you to contest a
card you already control, so the incoming copy burns.
I think.
[ quoted text not captured ]
IANLSJ, but:
You can't attempt actions that are known to be illegal from the start
(Dimple playing Parity Shift), or result in an illegal effect that is
known from the start, if the action resolves unblocked.
Example - One of your vampires has Ivory Bow. None of you minions can
try to equip with another copy of Ivory Bow.
You can control a Great Beast and a Call the Great Beast just fine, if
the later has 10 counters or less.
What you cannot do (while you control the Great Beast) is put the 11th
counter on Call the Great Beast.
Both these examples put into play a Unique minion and are illegal if
you already have a Great Beast:
Playing Call the Great Beast with an 11 cap vampire
or
Putting the 11th counter on a controlled Call the Great Beast
Normal no-contest rules apply, I think.
Cheers!
Tiago Brum
[ quoted text not captured ]
You misread that part. You can "put duplicates of the same unique
cards *in your deck*"
But "you cannot contest cards with yourself".
Adding the 11th counter to the CtGB results directly into putting a
unique vampire into play, which you can't do if you already control
that unique vampire (ou can't self contest)
The parallel with influencing on an already controlled vampire is not
correct, because influencing pool on a vampire doesn't put it directly
in play.
Rather, at the end of your influence phase, the game mecanism puts
vampires with pool=capacity into play.
> IANLSJ, but:
> You can't attempt actions that are known to be illegal from the start
> (Dimple playing Parity Shift), or result in an illegal effect that is
> known from the start, if the action resolves unblocked.
> Example - One of your vampires has Ivory Bow. None of you minions can
> try to equip with another copy of Ivory Bow.
>
> You can control a Great Beast and a Call the Great Beast just fine, if
> the later has 10 counters or less.
> What you cannot do (while you control the Great Beast) is put the 11th
> counter on Call the Great Beast.
>
> Both these examples put into play a Unique minion and are illegal if
> you already have a Great Beast:
> Playing Call the Great Beast with an 11 cap vampire
> or
> Putting the 11th counter on a controlled Call the Great Beast
>
> Normal no-contest rules apply, I think.
>
> Cheers!
> Tiago Brum
I'm not saying no-contest doesn't apply, I'm saying it categorically
does.
There's a difference between playing a card that you can't meet the
requirements for (and is just plain illegal) such as Dimple playing
Parity Shift, and taking an action that results in you being forced to
self contest, I believe. I can't see why anyone would want to attempt
to self contest, but it could happen for whatever reason.
If, for example you can't pull enough pool off a vamp you've governed
down to (and already have in play) but you need the two pool you're
about to pull back to survive (in your opinion) would that be by the
same reasoning illegal?
E.g. You have Dirk in your ready region, and in your uncontrolled
region. Hardestaadt has Governed down to the uncontrolled copy of
Dirk, transferring 2 pool back in the influence phase still sees Dirk
attempt to self contest, and the incoming copy burning - but more than
that it would mean the original Govern down was "illegal" since you'd
know that you were intentionally taking an action that would make you
self contest (which is essentially what we're talking about with
adding the final counter to CTGB).
That's my reasoning, anyway.
Ta
B
On Nov 24, 10:26 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> If, for example you can't pull enough pool off a vamp you've governed
> down to (and already have in play) but you need the two pool you're
> about to pull back to survive (in your opinion) would that be by the
> same reasoning illegal?
No; the Govern isn't directly putting a card into play. (Putting the
11th counter on a CTGB *does* put a vampire into play.)
- D.J.
>
> You misread that part. You can "put duplicates of the same unique
> cards *in your deck*"
> But "you cannot contest cards with yourself".
>
> Adding the 11th counter to the CtGB results directly into putting a
> unique vampire into play, which you can't do if you already control
> that unique vampire (ou can't self contest)
>
> The parallel with influencing on an already controlled vampire is not
> correct, because influencing pool on a vampire doesn't put it directly
> in play.
> Rather, at the end of your influence phase, the game mecanism puts
> vampires with pool=capacity into play.
Ah but you're missing the "if some effect would
force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the
incoming copy of the unique card" part, which is the relevant bit (I
think).
You can meet all the requirements of placing the final counter, so its
still a valid action (this is where the crux is - and I always get
these wrong, its a rubbish superpower). When the text is enacted, you
are forced to self contest, so the incoming copy (and acting baali are
burned).
I suppose it's whether placing the final counter is still valid, see
my parallel with Dirk.
I can see the argument that placing the final counter is illegal
because it results in an attempt a self contest, but I'm not saying
self contesting is legal (or even a good idea) I'm saying that if CTGB
forces you to, because you've enacted its text, all that happens is
you get a red face and two crispy infernal vamps.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, I can see the distinction there, just.
I'm still struggling to see why placing the final counter isn't an
effect forcing you to self contest (and suffer the penalty).
ta
B
On Nov 24, 10:47 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Ok, I can see the distinction there, just.
> I'm still struggling to see why placing the final counter isn't an
> effect forcing you to self contest (and suffer the penalty).
To a certain extent, I think it's designer clarification on intent.
It's an outgrowth, or parallel, or something, to the ruling that it's
the 11th-counter-placing-action that puts a vampire into play, and
thus a Sterile Vampire can't finish a CTBG but can play the card as
long as the Sterile vamp doesn't have an 11 capacity. (They can start
dialing, but they're not allowed to finish.)
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually I think there are two things running at the same time:
Putting into play two unique minions with the same name
and
Taking an action which would result in an illegal play (the illegal
play being a Self Contest)
You cannot own two minions with the same name, hence in the influence
phase it is dealt with by removing the NEW copy and leaving you with
the original. That is because you have not made an illegal card play,
or taken an illegal action. In addition, it reveals to other players
secret information (i.e. which vampires are in your uncontrolled
region). That means that in a tournament situation, it would
basically be 'unreversible'... you can't properly un-know
information. So the solution is to get rid of the vampire.
In every other situation where you would have two unique cards enter
play they require: a) an action directly from the Methuselah (Master
Cards) or b) an action by a minion to put a card into play. Since you
cannot attempt an illegal action (again because it would result in
revealing secret information about your hand if the action was undone)
the solution is to ban the card play or action. So you can have 5
Call the Great Beast Cards in your library, and only one can be a
Vampire and you may have any number of others on 10 or less Ritual
Counters in play. You cannot take any action to create another Unique
Minion named 'The Great Beast'.
[ quoted text not captured ]> Minion named 'The Great Beast'.- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Hi LSJ,
Would really like to hear a ruling on this.
Is the post Floppy refers to the present ruling?
I would say that you can play a Call the Great Beast with a cap 11
Baali even though you have unique vampire in play that is a Great
Beast. Since the action is to put the card in play and put the
counters on the card. Then after you have put the card in play the
card checks the amount of counters on the card and transforms it into
a vampire.
I would say that you aren´t allowed to take an action to put the
eleventh counter on a Call the Great Beast in play if you already have
a unique vampire in play named the Great Beast.
Additional question: Is it legal to use the action from Vast Wealth to
equip with the next item if you know that the deck only 5 copies of a
unique equipment card as the only equipment and you already have one
of them in play and more copies in your deck. I would guess that it is
an illegal play due to self contest rule.
cheers
Tomas W
[ quoted text not captured ]
?
Yes.
> I would say that you can play a Call the Great Beast with a cap 11
> Baali even though you have unique vampire in play that is a Great
> Beast. Since the action is to put the card in play and put the
> counters on the card. Then after you have put the card in play the
> card checks the amount of counters on the card and transforms it into
> a vampire.
>
> I would say that you aren´t allowed to take an action to put the
> eleventh counter on a Call the Great Beast in play if you already have
> a unique vampire in play named the Great Beast.
Whichever action puts the 11th (or more) counter on the card would
count as the an action to bring a vampire into play,
> Additional question: Is it legal to use the action from Vast Wealth to
> equip with the next item if you know that the deck only 5 copies of a
> unique equipment card as the only equipment and you already have one
> of them in play and more copies in your deck.
Yes.
> I would guess that it is
> an illegal play due to self contest rule.
The action doesn't necessarily violate self-contesting; the contents
and order of your library is not part of the equation. Besides, your
memory of your deck's contents could be wrong.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Vast Wealth provides an action that is not illegal (You are going to
equip with the first equipment) assuming that the vampire can have and
use equipment. However, just like the case of influencing out a
vampire you already have, the result of your legal action produces a
self-contest. For the self-contest to occur you have to equip with the
equipment (paying the cost) and then the new copy is sent to the ash-
heap because if it wasn't you would self-contest.
Vamp X uses Vast Wealth
Finds a Eye of Hazimel and you already control one.
You pay for the equip cost of the Eye.
You put the Eye from the Vast Wealth action into the ash-heap as the
successful action resolves (allowing you to play any other cards that
check for successful actions)