Contesting Vampires

My problem with the Duck and Dimple deck... "What are we going to do tonight, Duck?" "Same thing we do every night: Take over the Camarilla!" ...was apparently solved when someone mentioned that you can contest your own vampires. So if I have a Duck in torpor, in my influence phase I can bring out a new Duck (Contested), and immediately choose to burn the other one? This sounds too sweet to be true. What's the hitch?

[ quoted text not captured ] The hitch? Well, while the rules don't specifically say you can contest your own vampire, they also do not specifically say that cannot. There is only a warning that if you do contest your own cards you will be subject to the payment for keeping them. So you get people who attempt this type of action. Hopefully this will be clarified in future updates to the rules. We (those who exist in the same gaming circle as I, minus one) consider this another form of "weenieism" and find an effective counter with "Vinnie" (Vinnie is the aluminum bat which I keep behind my door for late night visitors) but seriously folks we find this kind of action to be very much against the spirit of the rules, and have enacted a house rule that if you are stupid enopugh to contest your own cards (or slimy enough to attempt such a degenerate trick) then you give up both copies when you decide to stop contesting. Sort of takes care of that problem rerally quick. -- R. Brian Smith tam...@nurk.com "To date, your phone tips have led to the capture of 400 dangerous fugitives ã not one alien, not one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . . GET WITH IT PEOPLE!" -Gillian Anderson

In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960530...@tubby.pacificcoast.net>, Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net> wrote: >My problem with the Duck and Dimple deck... > >"What are we going to do tonight, Duck?" >"Same thing we do every night: Take over the Camarilla!" > >...was apparently solved when someone mentioned that you can contest your >own vampires. So if I have a Duck in torpor, in my influence phase I can >bring out a new Duck (Contested), and immediately choose to burn the >other one? This sounds too sweet to be true. What's the hitch? > The hitch is that you can only yield of pay for a contest during your untap. The second hitch is that you must pay a pool for the contest if you wnat to end up with a Duck under your control. So when you bring out a second copy of Duck, he will remain contested until your next untap at wich point you can: 1. Yield both. 2. Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (who will become controlled if no one else has yet another copy of Duck in contest). 3. Pay two pool (one for each) to continue contesting both of them. (Note that 3. isn't possible if one of the Ducks is in torpor - the torpored one must yield during your untap).

On 31 May 1996, R. Brian Smith wrote: [Re: Contesting with yourself] > we find this kind of action to be very much against the spirit of the > rules, and have enacted a house rule that if you are stupid enopugh to > contest your own cards (or slimy enough to attempt such a degenerate > trick) then you give up both copies when you decide to stop contesting. > Sort of takes care of that problem rerally quick. Where do you see the degeneracy? If you contest with yourself you are paying _quite_ a price: - the action/influence to bring out the unique thing - the blood/pool cost - the one turns uselessness of the unique thing - 1 pool to keep up the contestment of the one you want to control - wasting deck/crypt space with multiple copies of uniques I'm not sure if I see how this can lead to abuse... "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) z*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

On 31 May 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: [Re: contesting against yourself, options during untap] > 1. Yield both. > 2. Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (who will become controlled > if no one else has yet another copy of Duck in contest). > 3. Pay two pool (one for each) to continue contesting both of them. > (Note that 3. isn't possible if one of the Ducks is in torpor - the torpored > one must yield during your untap). Are you certain about that note to 3? I know that vampires must yield if in torpor (for titles and such) but where does it say that Methuselahs must yield if what they are contesting is in torpor? On another note, are you certain that contested cards return during your untap? I played that way and was recently "corrected"(?) into playing that as soon as someone yields, you get your card (in its previous state) during _their_ untap. Thanks. [ quoted text not captured ]

Malcolm McCallum wrote: > > My problem with the Duck and Dimple deck...[CLIP] > > ...was apparently solved when someone mentioned that you can contest your > own vampires. So if I have a Duck in torpor, in my influence phase I can > bring out a new Duck (Contested), and immediately choose to burn the > other one? This sounds too sweet to be true. What's the hitch? The first "hitch" is that if you contest your own vampire during your influence phase both vampires will be turned face down until your next untap phase. The untap phase is where you must decide to pay a pool to continue contesting or give up a contested vamp. This probably won't hurt your deck much though. It is still easier to bring out a new Duck than to try to rescue the torpored one. See my Nosferatu Politics deck titled "Go, Duck, Go" in The Corrupter's Deck Archive! Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com

> Where do you see the degeneracy? > > If you contest with yourself you are paying _quite_ a price: > - the action/influence to bring out the unique thing > - the blood/pool cost > - the one turns uselessness of the unique thing > - 1 pool to keep up the contestment of the one you want to control > - wasting deck/crypt space with multiple copies of uniques > > I'm not sure if I see how this can lead to abuse... Sorry, at times I forget that the rest of the world doesn't share my memories, funnny that. It has to deal with a small vamp/fame combo. Joe sixpack puts fame on a 3 capacity vampire. Joe manages to get the vamp into torpor (not terribly difficult) Joe then plays enchant Kindred or Govern the Unaligned to put blood counters on a second, uncontrolled copy of the vamp in torpor. During his influence phase, joe brings out the second copy of the vamp in torpor. Contesting his first. At any time before his next turn, Joe gives up the copy in torpor so he doesn't have to pay to contest. Joe then plays Fame on the second copy that is now uncontested. Joe finds a way to send that copy to torpor, repeat ad nauseum All in all, Joe has paid MAYBE one pool, and has lost one minion's action for one turn. That is not a big deal for that is what Joe's deck does. If you know what Joe's deck does, it is easier to deal with. But sometimes Joe's deck surprises you and you don't see what's coming until it has hit you right in the nose. and that is where I see the degeneracy. If I have overlooked some very important point, please let me know. -- R. Brian Smith tam...@nurk.com "To date, your phone tips have led to the capture of 400 dangerous fugitives ‹ not one alien, not [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 Jun 1996, R. Brian Smith wrote: [Re: self contesting "degeneracy'] I wrote: > > Where do you see the degeneracy? > > If you contest with yourself you are paying _quite_ a price: > > - the action/influence to bring out the unique thing > > - the blood/pool cost > > - the one turns uselessness of the unique thing > > - 1 pool to keep up the contestment of the one you want to control [Do note, that this particular one may be incorrect] > > - wasting deck/crypt space with multiple copies of uniques > > I'm not sure if I see how this can lead to abuse... [snip] > It has to deal with a small vamp/fame combo. > Joe sixpack puts fame on a 3 capacity vampire. Joe manages to get the vamp > into torpor (not terribly difficult) > Joe then plays enchant Kindred or Govern the Unaligned to put blood > counters on a second, uncontrolled copy of the vamp in torpor. > During his influence phase, joe brings out the second copy of the vamp in > torpor. Contesting his first. At any time before his next turn, Joe gives > up the copy in torpor so he doesn't have to pay to contest. > Joe then plays Fame on the second copy that is now uncontested. > Joe finds a way to send that copy to torpor, repeat ad nauseum Good luck with the repeat ad naseum. > All in all, Joe has paid MAYBE one pool, and has lost one minion's action > for one turn. That is not a big deal for that is what Joe's deck does. If > you know what Joe's deck does, it is easier to deal with. But sometimes > Joe's deck surprises you and you don't see what's coming until it has hit > you right in the nose. Joe has wasted one card in his crypt, one master phase, one action, one blood on an acting vampire, one action card, and the trouble to get one vampire into torpor to do 3 pool. 3 pool. Add to this the fun of running out of uncontrolled vampires and having to spend 4 influences and a pool to get a new vampire out. Add to this the problem of having enough vampires of small capacity to do this, _and_ having enough older vampires to do the Govern the Unaligned/Enchant Kindred, _and_ since you will be contesting, not doing early contesting (mostly the same vampires in your opening uncontrolled region). For 3 pool. > and that is where I see the degeneracy. If I have overlooked some very > important point, please let me know. I don't see any degeneracy. I see deck design that would be difficult to pull off, and if actually successful, elegantly done or done to naive opponents. [ quoted text not captured ]

>My problem with the Duck and Dimple deck... >"What are we going to do tonight, Duck?" >"Same thing we do every night: Take over the Camarilla!" >...was apparently solved when someone mentioned that you can contest your >own vampires. So if I have a Duck in torpor, in my influence phase I can >bring out a new Duck (Contested), and immediately choose to burn the >other one? This sounds too sweet to be true. What's the hitch? This is just a guess, but I think that you are not allowed to burn a contested card until the untap phase of your turn. That means that both Ducks will be flipped over until the untap phase of your next turn comes around.

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >The hitch is that you can only yield of pay for a contest during >your untap. The second hitch is that you must pay a pool for the contest >if you wnat to end up with a Duck under your control. The third hitch is that you don't get the other Duck back until your next untap phase, i.e., your next turn, and only if he is uncontested at that time. >So when you bring out a second copy of Duck, he will remain >contested until your next untap at wich point you can: > >1. Yield both. >2. Yield one and pay one pool to contest the other (who will become controlled > if no one else has yet another copy of Duck in contest). >3. Pay two pool (one for each) to continue contesting both of them. > >(Note that 3. isn't possible if one of the Ducks is in torpor - the torpored >one must yield during your untap). Vampires in torpor can be contested normally. The autoyield rule is only for contested titles. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

We thought you could contest with yourself for a long time, and believe me it led to many degenerate weanie decks. Luckily a few weeks ago someone finally found in the vtes rulebook that you *cannot* contest cards with yourself. -- ++ "Yes, I think 'toast' is an appropriate description." - Jaya ++ ++ Ballard, Task Mage ++

In article <4p1sep$j...@gozer.inri.com>, Johnny Tullner <j...@inri.com> wrote: >We thought you could contest with yourself for a long time, and believe >me it led to many degenerate weanie decks. > >Luckily a few weeks ago someone finally found in the vtes rulebook that >you *cannot* contest cards with yourself. > > If you're referring to the passage in 15: "You can't bring out more than one of the same unique card into your active region.", then you have a valid point, but not an official one. This section is merely warning you that you won't have two of the smae vampires in your active region - they'll both be out of play . When you try to bring out the second copy, it doesn't go into the active region - it goes out of play (along with the first coppy). This is clarified in the "CORRECTIONS TO THE V:TES RULEBOOK" <44dlot$1...@acorn.acorn.co.uk>: Section 15, Contested Cards Third paragraph should say "You can't bring out more than one of the same unique card into your active region without contesting them."

tam...@nurk.com (R. Brian Smith) writes: >During his influence phase, joe brings out the second copy of the vamp in >torpor. Contesting his first. At any time before his next turn, Joe gives >up the copy in torpor so he doesn't have to pay to contest. You can only "give up" (yield) a contested card during your untap, so you will have to pay to contest the other copy (unless you yield both). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Make it idiot proof and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | someone will make a better Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | idiot.