old cards, new questions

OK, LSJ, I searched this newsgroup, and I'm surprised I couldn't find the answers to these questions. Here we go: 1.) I bring out Marie Faucigny (cause I like doing that.) My grandprey brings out Ingrid Rossler, contesting the Geneva title. On my turn, I pay to contest, and then I draw into a Cardinal Benediction. I call it on Marie, it passes--am I no longer contesting? Or may I continue to pay to contest the archbishop title (because it is not in play), gaining (and yielding) one of my titles when Ingrid gives in? 2.) I play Major Boon on my grandprey when he's being bled for six, because I have a Protected Resources in play. Am I: --smart, because I can't be bled for more than 2 pool? --pretty dumb, because the vampire is bleeding someone else, even though I'm losing the pool for it? That's all, thanks. -- Brian

<islando...@aol.com> schreef in bericht news:1173775921.2...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > OK, LSJ, I searched this newsgroup, and I'm surprised I couldn't find > the answers to these questions. Here we go: > > 1.) I bring out Marie Faucigny (cause I like doing that.) My > grandprey brings out Ingrid Rossler, contesting the Geneva title. On > my turn, I pay to contest, and then I draw into a Cardinal > Benediction. I call it on Marie, it passes--am I no longer > contesting? Or may I continue to pay to contest the archbishop title > (because it is not in play), gaining (and yielding) one of my titles > when Ingrid gives in? IANLSJ, but I think becoming a Cardinal means you forfeit your Geneva title. No title to contest means no more contesting. > > 2.) I play Major Boon on my grandprey when he's being bled for six, > because I have a Protected Resources in play. Am I: > --smart, because I can't be bled for more than 2 pool? > --pretty dumb, because the vampire is bleeding someone else, even > though I'm losing the pool for it? > relevant parts of card text: PR: ...'You do not burn more than 2 pool when a minion bleeds *you*'... MB: ...'You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah'.... You're not being bled, you just burn pool for someone elses bleed, so the PR does nothing.

On Mar 13, 10:52 am, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: > OK, LSJ, I searched this newsgroup, and I'm surprised I couldn't find > the answers to these questions. Here we go: > > 1.) I bring out Marie Faucigny (cause I like doing that.) My > grandprey brings out Ingrid Rossler, contesting the Geneva title. On > my turn, I pay to contest, and then I draw into a Cardinal > Benediction. I call it on Marie, it passes--am I no longer > contesting? Or may I continue to pay to contest the archbishop title > (because it is not in play), gaining (and yielding) one of my titles > when Ingrid gives in? When you gain a new title you automatically yield all contests of the old title. Marie would become the Cardinal and Ingrid would gain her Prince of Geneva title in her controller's next untap phase. > 2.) I play Major Boon on my grandprey when he's being bled for six, > because I have a Protected Resources in play. Am I: > --smart, because I can't be bled for more than 2 pool? > --pretty dumb, because the vampire is bleeding someone else, even > though I'm losing the pool for it? Pretty dumb because the target of the bleed is the methuselah you play Major Boon on and Protected Resources protects only against bleeds targetting you.

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > <islando...@aol.com> schreef in bericht > news:1173775921.2...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> OK, LSJ, I searched this newsgroup, and I'm surprised I couldn't find >> the answers to these questions. Here we go: >> >> 1.) I bring out Marie Faucigny (cause I like doing that.) My >> grandprey brings out Ingrid Rossler, contesting the Geneva title. On >> my turn, I pay to contest, and then I draw into a Cardinal >> Benediction. I call it on Marie, it passes--am I no longer >> contesting? Or may I continue to pay to contest the archbishop title >> (because it is not in play), gaining (and yielding) one of my titles >> when Ingrid gives in? > > IANLSJ, but I think becoming a Cardinal means you forfeit your Geneva title. > No title to contest means no more contesting. Correct. Ingrdi would regain her (no longer contested) Geneva title on her next untap phase. >> 2.) I play Major Boon on my grandprey when he's being bled for six, >> because I have a Protected Resources in play. Am I: >> --smart, because I can't be bled for more than 2 pool? >> --pretty dumb, because the vampire is bleeding someone else, even >> though I'm losing the pool for it? >> > relevant parts of card text: > PR: ...'You do not burn more than 2 pool when a minion bleeds *you*'... > MB: ...'You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah'.... > > You're not being bled, you just burn pool for someone elses bleed, so the PR > does nothing. Correct. You burn six pool for the bleed.

> >> 1.) I bring out Marie Faucigny (cause I like doing that.) My > >> grandprey brings out Ingrid Rossler, contesting the Geneva title. On > >> my turn, I pay to contest, and then I draw into a Cardinal > >> Benediction. I call it on Marie, it passes--am I no longer > >> contesting? Or may I continue to pay to contest the archbishop title > >> (because it is not in play), gaining (and yielding) one of my titles > >> when Ingrid gives in? > > > IANLSJ, but I think becoming a Cardinal means you forfeit your Geneva title. > > No title to contest means no more contesting. > > Correct. Ingrdi would regain her (no longer contested) Geneva title on her next > untap phase. So I am able to have one title, regardless of whether one of the titles is contested. Does this apply to other things you can only have one of? Example: If I have a vampire contesting the haven Zaire River Ferry, who I equip with a Body Bag, do I have to give up the Zaire River Ferry (since I can have only 1 haven)? Or do I still "have" a haven the way Marie still "has" a title, prohibiting me from getting a new haven anyway? Also, let's say instead of Cardinal Benediction, Marie (still contesting Geneva with Ingrid) calls and passes Crusade: Miami while Gilbert Duane is in play. Does she immediately give up contesting Geneva in order to contest Miami? Or give up Miami in order to contest Geneva? By strict wording of section 10 in the rulebook -- which I should have read before starting this thread -- she should give up both titles, since both are contested, but I don't think that makes sense. -- Brian

islando...@aol.com wrote: > So I am able to have one title, regardless of whether one of the > titles is contested. Correct. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec10 > Does this apply to other things you can only > have one of? > > Example: If I have a vampire contesting the haven Zaire River Ferry, > who I equip with a Body Bag, do I have to give up the Zaire River > Ferry (since I can have only 1 haven)? Or do I still "have" a haven > the way Marie still "has" a title, prohibiting me from getting a new > haven anyway? The contested haven is out of play, so doesn't count as having a haven. If the contest is won, one of the havens will have to be burned (controller's choice). Similarly, if an Ahrimane has a contested Mr. Winthrop, and she then gets the Wildebeest, Mr. Winthrop will remain contested. If the Ahrimane's controller wins the contest, the Mr. Winthrop will burn when he comes back into play, due to the Wildebeest's card text. > Also, let's say instead of Cardinal Benediction, Marie (still > contesting Geneva with Ingrid) calls and passes Crusade: Miami while > Gilbert Duane is in play. Does she immediately give up contesting > Geneva in order to contest Miami? Yes (card text). > Or give up Miami in order to > contest Geneva? By strict wording of section 10 in the rulebook -- > which I should have read before starting this thread -- she should > give up both titles, since both are contested, but I don't think that > makes sense. A strict reading of section 10 does not suggest both are lost.

LSJ wrote: > islando...@aol.com wrote: >> Example: If I have a vampire contesting the haven Zaire River Ferry, >> who I equip with a Body Bag, do I have to give up the Zaire River >> Ferry (since I can have only 1 haven)? Or do I still "have" a haven >> the way Marie still "has" a title, prohibiting me from getting a new >> haven anyway? > > The contested haven is out of play, so doesn't count as having a haven. > If the contest is won, one of the havens will have to be burned > (controller's choice). Really the controller's choice? I find this weird. While as far as I can tell there aren't any specific rules to cover this, thus defaulting to 'controller's choice', it feels like it would be more intuitive to align it with the self-contesting situation, wherein the incoming copy is burned (in the above example, this would be the Zaire River Ferry being burned when the contest is won). -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

> > Also, let's say instead of Cardinal Benediction, Marie (still > > contesting Geneva with Ingrid) calls and passes Crusade: Miami while > > Gilbert Duane is in play. Does she immediately give up contesting > > Geneva in order to contest Miami? > > Yes (card text). Relevant Card Text: "This could lead to a contested title." Your "Yes" alone strikes me as a perfectly good answer, but I don't see how the card text would lead me to the idea that contesting a title would cause me to cease contesting another title. It may feel like an intuitive answer, but it is certainly not printed in the textbox. > > Or give up Miami in order to > > contest Geneva? By strict wording of section 10 in the rulebook -- > > which I should have read before starting this thread -- she should > > give up both titles, since both are contested, but I don't think that > > makes sense. > > A strict reading of section 10 does not suggest both are lost. Section 10 reads in part: If a vampire with a contested title (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2) gains a title, he immediately yields the contested title. So, strictly speaking, in the above example where Marie is contesting Geneva and becomes Archbishop of Miami: -- She is a vampire with a contested title -- She gained a title -- She must relinquish the contested title. Both of her titles are contested, so she must relinquish the one which is contested. Which in this case matches both. Now, I know that the sentence in the rulebook is referential text, rather like Jimmy Dunn's referential text ("burn the first Jimmy"). What I mean specifically is that I understand that the phrase "the contested title" does not mean whichever title happens to be contested, but rather "the contested title we were just talking about". So in English, she burns the title referenced earlier in the sentence, but strictly literally speaking, she yields "the contested title", which is either or both. I understand how the rule works, I think, and I don't suppose anyone could interpret the rule this literal way unless they were trying to be difficult--I was just pointing out that technically, if you only use logical rules and not English grammar, you come out with one or both titles being yielded. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it, except for the ruling years ago on some Necromancy card which returns an ally to play not being able to return Jake Washington, because he's not an ally in the discard pile, although by English rules where words can reference previous parts of the sentence, I felt the ruling was logical but not based on English rules of grammar. I guess its a desire for all cards to either follow English rules of grammar, or be strictly literal and logical, as I don't think they can always be both, and I don't want to have to guess when LSJ is allowing text to refer back to previous sentences and when he's not. -- Brian

islando...@aol.com wrote: >>> Also, let's say instead of Cardinal Benediction, Marie (still >>> contesting Geneva with Ingrid) calls and passes Crusade: Miami while >>> Gilbert Duane is in play. Does she immediately give up contesting >>> Geneva in order to contest Miami? >> Yes (card text). > > Relevant Card Text: > "This could lead to a contested title." > > Your "Yes" alone strikes me as a perfectly good answer, but I don't > see how the card text would lead me to the idea that contesting a > title would cause me to cease contesting another title. It may feel > like an intuitive answer, but it is certainly not printed in the > textbox. Card text says a new title is gained. Rule 10 has already been covered, so card text suffices to invoke the rule. >>> Or give up Miami in order to >>> contest Geneva? By strict wording of section 10 in the rulebook -- >>> which I should have read before starting this thread -- she should >>> give up both titles, since both are contested, but I don't think that >>> makes sense. >> A strict reading of section 10 does not suggest both are lost. > > Section 10 reads in part: > If a vampire with a contested title (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2) > gains a title, he immediately yields the contested title. > > So, strictly speaking, in the above example where Marie is contesting > Geneva and becomes Archbishop of Miami: > -- She is a vampire with a contested title > -- She gained a title > -- She must relinquish the contested title. > > Both of her titles are contested, so she must relinquish the one which > is contested. Which in this case matches both. No. The English does work that way. It says "the contested title.", which, in English, refers to the "a contested title" he had when gaining the new title. > Now, I know that the sentence in the rulebook is referential text, > rather like Jimmy Dunn's referential text ("burn the first Jimmy"). > What I mean specifically is that I understand that the phrase "the > contested title" does not mean whichever title happens to be > contested, but rather "the contested title we were just talking > about". So in English, she burns the title referenced earlier in the > sentence, but strictly literally speaking, she yields "the contested > title", which is either or both. Ah, you mean "strictly" as "loosely" -- that is, playing loose with the rules of English, rather than strictly following the English. > I understand how the rule works, I think, and I don't suppose anyone > could interpret the rule this literal way unless they were trying to > be difficult--I was just pointing out that technically, if you only > use logical rules and not English grammar, you come out with one or > both titles being yielded. As noted before, the cards use English. Both vocabulary and grammar. > I probably wouldn't have mentioned it, except for the ruling years ago > on some Necromancy card which returns an ally to play not being able > to return Jake Washington, because he's not an ally in the discard > pile, although by English rules where words can reference previous > parts of the sentence, I felt the ruling was logical but not based on > English rules of grammar. It still works there. He's not an ally in the ash heap. > I guess its a desire for all cards to either follow English rules of > grammar, or be strictly literal and logical, as I don't think they can > always be both, and I don't want to have to guess when LSJ is allowing > text to refer back to previous sentences and when he's not. That's fine. No guessing needed here. Just follow English grammar all the time.

> Card text says a new title is gained. > > Rule 10 has already been covered, so card text suffices to invoke the rule. Oh, OK. > > Both of her titles are contested, so she must relinquish the one which > > is contested. Which in this case matches both. > > No. The English does work that way. > > It says "the contested title.", which, in English, refers to the "a contested > title" he had when gaining the new title. Good, we both agree that the English text here references other text. > > Now, I know that the sentence in the rulebook is referential text, > > rather like Jimmy Dunn's referential text ("burn the first Jimmy"). > > What I mean specifically is that I understand that the phrase "the > > contested title" does not mean whichever title happens to be > > contested, but rather "the contested title we were just talking > > about". So in English, she burns the title referenced earlier in the > > sentence, but strictly literally speaking, she yields "the contested > > title", which is either or both. > > Ah, you mean "strictly" as "loosely" -- that is, playing loose with the rules of > English, rather than strictly following the English. Then we agree standard English should be used over another interpretation, meaning "the contested title" refers to the previously- mentioned title. Similarly, on Compel the Spirit, standard English should be used, meaning "the ally" refers to the previously-mentioned ally. Remember the change in Ian Forestal's interaction with Infernal Familiar? "If he does so" used to mean, literally, "if he plays a card which requires a discipline he does not have," so using his ability would put counters on the Infernal Familiar. Later, Infernal Familiar was reinterpreted to be self-referential: If he does so (as previously mentioned), put a counter on the Familiar. It's not really that important for normal gameplay (how often do you want an Infernal Familiar on Forestal anyway?) but technically I think it's better for text which is worded in a self-referential manner to function as such. > > I probably wouldn't have mentioned it, except for the ruling years ago > > on some Necromancy card which returns an ally to play not being able > > to return Jake Washington, because he's not an ally in the discard > > pile, although by English rules where words can reference previous > > parts of the sentence, I felt the ruling was logical but not based on > > English rules of grammar. > > It still works there. He's not an ally in the ash heap. If Compel the Spirit said "move the ally card," then I think that statement would be relevant. But since it does not--it merely says "move the card", referencing the previous "ally or retainer who was burned"--it has to be assumed that the reference means "move [the ally or retainer which was burned since your last turn]" into your hand/ into play at basic/superior. It does happen to specify that it has to be a card, but it does not specify that it had to be an ally or a retainer at any point other than when it was being burned. If the card "Jake Washington" was an ally who died since my last turn, then it's just an application of English over card text to determine that moving "the card" to play moves "the Jake Washington card" from my ash heap to play. > > I guess its a desire for all cards to either follow English rules of > > grammar, or be strictly literal and logical, as I don't think they can > > always be both, and I don't want to have to guess when LSJ is allowing > > text to refer back to previous sentences and when he's not. > > That's fine. No guessing needed here. > Just follow English grammar all the time. So, since we're in agreement that English grammar should determine cards' functions based on their texts, instead of some other way of reading them, then all we would need is some way of determining what way that sentence structure functions. I personally think the precedents above are enough, but you disagree, so let's see if there's a reasonable source for understanding English. What would it take to convince you that Compel the Spirit is ruled differently from the way it is worded? I would gladly go ask a random sample of native English speakers, or a random sample of English professors, or just all of the local English professors, or whatever you would accept as "sufficient" in order to determine this issue one way or the other, and if the results came up in favor of your way OR came up inconclusive, I would be willing to concede the point. I will seriously go do this if you tell me what sample of the populace you think would be appropriate to ask in order to determine the "proper" function of the sentence in question. -- Brian

islando...@aol.com wrote: > Similarly, on Compel the Spirit, standard English should be used, > meaning "the ally" refers to the previously-mentioned ally. Yes. And if Sir Dingus isn't an ally at all, he can't be "the ally". > If Compel the Spirit said "move the ally card," then I think that > statement would be relevant. But since it does not--it merely says > "move the card", The current official card text is "move the ally or retainer card".