A few questions on self-contesting:
1. Is it possible?
2. Can you yield one copy at the start of your turn and then gain the
use of the other copy for that turn, or do you have to wait a full
time around the table?
3. When you yield to yourself, do you play 1 blood for the copy you
keep?
--George
In article <GFINK.96J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>A few questions on self-contesting:
>
>1. Is it possible?
Yes. (Errata to the VtES Rulebook).
>2. Can you yield one copy at the start of your turn and then gain the
>use of the other copy for that turn, or do you have to wait a full
>time around the table?
If, during your untap (after you've yielded/contested all of your
contested cards) you have the only reaining copy of a contested card,
then you gain control of that card. You do not have to wait
for another trip around the table.
>3. When you yield to yourself, do you play 1 blood for the copy you
>keep?
Yes. (Or you could yield both copies).
lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> In article <GFINK.96J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
> George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >
> >A few questions on self-contesting:
> >
[deleted]
>
> >2. Can you yield one copy at the start of your turn and then gain the
> >use of the other copy for that turn, or do you have to wait a full
> >time around the table?
>
> If, during your untap (after you've yielded/contested all of your
> contested cards) you have the only reaining copy of a contested card,
> then you gain control of that card. You do not have to wait
> for another trip around the table.
>
As I recall, according to Tom's answer to this same question on this
thread, you _do_ have to wait until the following untap to gain access to
the card. I can see arguments either way -- it's really a timing question.
One could say that since the card hadn't been yielded at the start of the
untap phase then it remains face down until the following untap. On the
other hand, one could argue that since the contesting card is yielding at
the start of the untap, the other card should become available at the same
time, since it is still the "start" of the untap.
What I really suggest is that you and Tom agree on what the correct answer
is! :-)
---
Eric Pettersen
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)
The rules state that if all but one copy of a contested card is yielded,
the remaining copy comes back during its controller's *next* untap phase.
Whether it's currently that player's untap phase is unimportant; the
card still can't come back until the next untap phase.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote:
: In article <GFINK.96J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
: George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >
: >A few questions on self-contesting:: >
: >3. When you yield to yourself, do you play 1 blood for the copy you
: >keep?: Yes. (Or you could yield both copies).
Why? The moment the first copy is yielded, the second is no
longer contested. In addition, except for a few cases, and in
Jyhad at least, you can order the events in any given phase
however you wish, yielding one card and then another, for
instance, rather than dealing with both simultaneously. Under
these assumptions, then, one copy would be yielded and the
second would be instantly usable with no cost.
-Dave Green
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) writes:
>lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:>> In article <GFINK.96J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
>> George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >A few questions on self-contesting:
>> >>[deleted]>>
>> >2. Can you yield one copy at the start of your turn and then gain the
>> >use of the other copy for that turn, or do you have to wait a full
>> >time around the table?
>>
>> If, during your untap (after you've yielded/contested all of your
>> contested cards) you have the only reaining copy of a contested card,
>> then you gain control of that card. You do not have to wait
>> for another trip around the table.
>>>As I recall, according to Tom's answer to this same question on this
>thread, you _do_ have to wait until the following untap to gain access to
>the card. I can see arguments either way -- it's really a timing question.
>One could say that since the card hadn't been yielded at the start of the
>untap phase then it remains face down until the following untap. On the
>other hand, one could argue that since the contesting card is yielding at
>the start of the untap, the other card should become available at the same
>time, since it is still the "start" of the untap.>What I really suggest is that you and Tom agree on what the correct answer
>is! :-)
Hopefully, Tom and I already agree. You have to wait until all
other copies are yielded. If you are contesting with yourself
(only), then this should be at your next untap. When you yield
(and pay one for the other), you do *not* have to wait for yet
another untap to come around before you get control of the card
you just wrested from yourself.
Your turn T1: influence phase: contest a card with yourself.
Your next turn T2: untap: pay one contest and yield the other.
At the end of your untap phase, turn the copy you paid to
contest face-up and place it in your controlled area.
You do not have to wait until the following untap (of turn T3)
to regain control of the vampire.
I interpretted Tom's "next untap phase" statement to refer to
the untap phase of T2. If this is not the case, and it is
easy to interpret it the other way, the I appologize for the
confusion. TOM?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Surly to bed,
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | surly to rise.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Zaphod Beeblebrox <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Why? The moment the first copy is yielded, the second is no
>longer contested. In addition, except for a few cases, and in
>Jyhad at least, you can order the events in any given phase
>however you wish, yielding one card and then another, for
>instance, rather than dealing with both simultaneously. Under
>these assumptions, then, one copy would be yielded and the
>second would be instantly usable with no cost.
That would work if the rule about recently-contested cards was "If a
card is no longer contested during your untap, it returns to play."
But the rule is actually "When a card is no longer contested, it
returns to play during its controller's next untap phase." If you're
currently in your untap phase, then the card doesn't return until the
untap of your next turn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <4ptkm8$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:
>
> That would work if the rule about recently-contested cards was "If a
> card is no longer contested during your untap, it returns to play."
> But the rule is actually "When a card is no longer contested, it
> returns to play during its controller's next untap phase." If you're
> currently in your untap phase, then the card doesn't return until the
> untap of your next turn.
>
>
> Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
I've been searching the rule book high and low and cannot find any
text that states exactly when one must give up contestion. The second
paragraph of chapter 15. states, ".... Each turn the cards are contested,
you lose one blood from your blood pool during your untap phase. ...
However you have the option of discarding your contested cards to avoid
losing any further blood.
It seems the assumption from Tom's responses(es) is that one can only
yield during their untap phase and that once you do yield it is to late to
regain the contested card but not to late to avoid paying pool. That's
seem o.k., if the assumption is true but the rule book does not support
the assumption. I'm inclined to believe that I've simple missed an errat
of some sorts and if so could someone reprint it. If there has'nt been
errat then the assumption needs some kind of support in order to hold.
--
Phaedrus *Deep in the human unconsciousness is a
*pervasive need for a logical universe that
e-mail: *makes sence. But the real universe is always
Herbe...@osu.edu *one step beyond logic.
*
*Shit happens is deeper than it sounds.
page 37, Vampire rulebook:
"If a previously contested card ceases to be contested, you return the card
to the active region, face up and untapped, during your next untap phase."
Note "at the end of an untap phase", but during one. No exception for
the card being yielded during your untap phase. If a card stops being
contested, you *must* wait until your *next* untap phase; if you're currently
in your untap phase, that means the untap phase of your next turn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>In article <4q6tj0$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:> page 37, Vampire rulebook:
> "If a previously contested card ceases to be contested, you return the card
> to the active region, face up and untapped, during your next untap phase."
Ah, but I can't find anywhere in the rulebook that says the only time
you may yield is your untap phase. If you yield one copy during your
predator's turn, then couldn't you get the use of the other copy for
free during your next turn, without waiting all the way around the
table?
--George
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) writes:>>lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:>>> In article <GFINK.96J...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>,
>>> George Fink <gf...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >A few questions on self-contesting:
>>> >
Hate to show up late for this dance, but I understood that it was not
only silly but illegal to contest your own cards.
LIke I have a Sarah Cobbler in play with a nasty master card (like
Vampiric Disease or something) so I want to get rid of that one. I
have another Sarah in my crypt and bring her into play.
Since "controlling" the vampires in your crypt is like recruiting and
there is only _one_ Sarah, how can I recruit her twice? This is like
saying, "Yes, I know you play for the St. Louis Cardinals, but we want
you to play for the St. Louis Cardinals!"
I understand the process of bringing a vampire from your uncontrolled
region to your controlled region to be the application of a certain
amount of influence of the Methuselah to a particular individual. I
further understand how another Methuselah may use her influence to
give that individual doubts and make the individual "working for
nobody."
I fail to understand how I can convince somebody working for me that
they should work for me...again. And thereby actually work for nobody.
If this isn't cloning, I don't know what is.
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Scoundrel "Omni mutantur, nihil interit."
a.k.a. Chuck Kallenbach II Everything changes,
scou...@inlink.com but nothing is truly lost.
http://www.inlink.com/~scoundrl --"Exiles," Neil Gaiman, Sandman #74
=============================== =======================================
On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, Scoundrel wrote:
> Date: Sun, 23 JUN 1996 14:18:08 GMT
> From: Scoundrel <scou...@inlink.com>
> Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> Subject: Re: Q: Self Contest -- Tom?[ quoted text not captured ]
That is typical Methuselah behavior in my opinion. If you knew how
powerful 4th generation vamps (Methuselahs) were you would think so too.
**********************************************************************
"...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world."
-Catwoman (Issue #30)
***************************************
Dharia McGrew
damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu
and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew
**********************************************************************
[ quoted text not captured ]
You have to remember that in this game you are playing the role of a
vampire that is , quite possibly, over a thousand years old. Say Sarah
Cobbler had a vampiric disease. Say you, the methuselah had a cure for it
but she wouldn't take it because she didn't trust you anymore after you
sent her to block that brujah that ended up putting her in torpor. So now
you play with you influence and pose as ANOTHER Methuselah and start
giving her a little gift here a little power there and offer her a cure
much better than THAT Methuselah can give her because you know much
better than him. Can you see where this is going? In V:tM 4th generation
vampires (Methuselahs) have access to abilities of subversion and
subtlety that allow them to pull these kind of games with younger
vampires on a regular basis. I remember the first time I read the V:tM
players guide and saw what high level disciplines can do. There are some
vampires that can simply say a persons name and where ever that person is
anywhere in the world they will do thier damndest to get to the vampire
no matter what. even if they don't know who the vampire is!
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, Scoundrel wrote:
> Hate to show up late for this dance, but I understood that it was not
> only silly but illegal to contest your own cards.
Its legality has already been answered. It's silliness is something I
disagree with.
> LIke I have a Sarah Cobbler in play with a nasty master card (like
> Vampiric Disease or something) so I want to get rid of that one. I
> have another Sarah in my crypt and bring her into play.> Since "controlling" the vampires in your crypt is like recruiting and
> there is only _one_ Sarah, how can I recruit her twice? This is like
> saying, "Yes, I know you play for the St. Louis Cardinals, but we want
> you to play for the St. Louis Cardinals!"
I see influence as just that, influence. You, as a mighty Methuselah,
directly step into the affairs or sets into motion events that effect
that minion. If you want to consider the idea of self-contestment, your
Methuselah is paying _especially_close_attention_ to a particular card.
In the case of the Vampirically Diseased Sarah Cobbler, the Methuselah
perhaps spent personal attention making sure that Sarah would be cured.
In the case of controlling a vampire for the first time, the Methuselah
embroils that vampire into its plots.
[snip]
> I fail to understand how I can convince somebody working for me that
> they should work for me...again. And thereby actually work for nobody.
> If this isn't cloning, I don't know what is.
I consider it more like what it is called, influence. If you look at it
in this way, it makes sense.
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?
**I think you folks know what this thread is about by now...**
Come on people, vampires in your crypt are "minions who you hope to control" (from
Darkness Unveiled.) As a Methuselah I highly think it would be utterly stupid and
completely daft to think "Hmm, Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric Disease. Maybe, I'll go out
and use my Dominate powers again, and get a Sarah Cobbler without a disease." Or, "Hmm,
Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric Disease, maybe I'll go ask her to join me again, that
oughta get rid of her disease." Or, "Hmm, Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric Disease, she
doesn't want this miracle cure I can give her, so I'll pose as another Methuselah,
because I need her to kill off all these other Methuselahs." As a Methuselah, if a pawn
of theirs contracted or came into the posession of something that would harm the
Methuselah, that Methuselah would probably say: "Hmm, Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric
Disease, well, she can't do me much good, now, better send her off to Alamut to stir up
some trouble with them Assamite fellas," and go about his business as Sarah was
slaughtered.
Point being, Methuselahs are vampires with tremendous resources (as vampires go). And,
when one of their minions becomes a liability, they don't go out of their way to help
them, they send them on a suicide mission on which they have no chance of coming back.
Then go out and find a suitable replacement for Sarah.
It ain't that important people, why don't we just drop it and move on to bigger and
better things?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Assamite |
| (assa...@inlink.com) |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| http://www.angelfire.com/pages0/assamite/index.html |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| If there were a Cell Z, I'd be a member of it... |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Brian Kallenbach wrote:
> Point being, Methuselahs are vampires with tremendous resources (as vampires go). And,
> when one of their minions becomes a liability, they don't go out of their way to help
> them, they send them on a suicide mission on which they have no chance of coming back.
> Then go out and find a suitable replacement for Sarah.
If the Methuselah felt Sarah was important, it would use its influence on
her to make her better. Influence doesn't necessarily mean recruitment.
In a Jyhad game-world sense, Influence has nothing to do with
recruiting. These vampires might not even believe you exist, so how do
you recruit them? Simple. You don't. You put into play mechanizations
so that they do what you want, whether they know you are their
puppetmaster or (more likely) not. One of those mechanizations
(contesting your own) means, in game terms, that you are taking a much
more serious interest in that minion. If your interest result in the
curing of a vampiric disease, this is not a big surprise.
When talking about game balance, this too is not a problem. You are
spending to bring out the card (whether in pool, influence, master
phases, or actions), do not have use of the card for a full turn, and
then have to spend a pool on your next untap to keep it. There is no way
this can be considered abusive.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Brian Kallenbach wrote:
> Date: Thu, 27 JUN 1996 22:14:30 -0700
> From: Brian Kallenbach <assa...@inlink.com>
> Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> Subject: Re: Game World Justification of Self-Contesting (was Q: Self Contest...)>
> **I think you folks know what this thread is about by now...**
>
> Come on people, vampires in your crypt are "minions who you hope to control" (from
> Darkness Unveiled.) As a Methuselah I highly think it would be utterly stupid and
> completely daft to think "Hmm, Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric Disease. Maybe, I'll go out
> and use my Dominate powers again, and get a Sarah Cobbler without a disease." Or, "Hmm,
> Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric Disease, maybe I'll go ask her to join me again, that
> oughta get rid of her disease." Or, "Hmm, Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric Disease, she
> doesn't want this miracle cure I can give her, so I'll pose as another Methuselah,
> because I need her to kill off all these other Methuselahs." As a Methuselah, if a pawn
> of theirs contracted or came into the posession of something that would harm the
> Methuselah, that Methuselah would probably say: "Hmm, Sarah Cobbler has a Vampiric
> Disease, well, she can't do me much good, now, better send her off to Alamut to stir up
> some trouble with them Assamite fellas," and go about his business as Sarah was
> slaughtered.
>> Point being, Methuselahs are vampires with tremendous resources (as vampires go). And,
> when one of their minions becomes a liability, they don't go out of their way to help
> them, they send them on a suicide mission on which they have no chance of coming back.
> Then go out and find a suitable replacement for Sarah.
>> It ain't that important people, why don't we just drop it and move on to bigger and
> better things?
>
> --
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
> | Assamite |
> | (assa...@inlink.com) |
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
> | http://www.angelfire.com/pages0/assamite/index.html |
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
> | If there were a Cell Z, I'd be a member of it... |
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
The simple fact is Methuselahs DON'T have huge enough resources to
simply dispose of vampires whenever they get screwed up. What you
described is more like Antediluvian behavior. Finding a suitable
replacement isn't always as easy (or as quick) as just fixing the problem
in whatever roundabout way the methuselah decides. Observing (drawing
from your crypt) and recruiting (influence) a brand new vampire is slow,
wasteful, and expensive. An efficient and prudent Meth. would either take
the time to resolve the condition of a useful vampire that has been
victimized by your rival or would find a way to make the most of the
situation if nothing could be done.
[ quoted text not captured ]