LSJ: Question about Self-Contesting

Hi L. Scott, Can you please re-post any official stuff you have about self-contesting vampires. I tried to convince people at the convention that you have to pay 1 to keep one copy even though you give up the other copy. It is my understanding that the card you wish to keep remains face-down until your next untap also. Thanks. Robert -- ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :LA Tourny Info -> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~ezix/other/rg/vtourn_1.html: :....................................................................: :Da pony run, he jump he pitch. He t'row my master in da ditch. : :He died and da jury wondered why. Da verdict was the blue tail fly.: :....................................................................:

Robert Goudie wrote: > > Hi L. Scott, > > Can you please re-post any official stuff you have about self-contesting > vampires. I tried to convince people at the convention that you have to > pay 1 to keep one copy even though you give up the other copy. It is my > understanding that the card you wish to keep remains face-down until > your next untap also. You are correct on both points. Subject: Re: Jyhad Questions From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Date: 1995/09/22 Message-Id: <43v170$5...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-Cards.jyhad [LSJ's lame argument deleted] The rule on getting back contested cards is: if all but one copy of the card is yielded, the "controller" of the last copy gets control of it again during his or her next untap phase, unless of course it becomes contested again in the meantime. Nice and simple, with no band-aid to hold the hand of someone who contests their own card. -- Subject: Re: Contesting Vampires From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Date: 1996/06/04 Message-Id: <4p06a9$d...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-Cards.jyhad 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. -- Subject: Re: Q: Self Contest -- Tom? From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Date: 1996/06/18 Message-Id: <4q6tj0$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-Cards.jyhad 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. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Washington, DC: http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | America's work-free Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | drug place

"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes: > 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. So this goes against the general ruling that you can order events in untap any way you want? We've always played that you don't get the now uncontested card until your next untap, but the pool thing is new to me. There is a general rule that you can order untap events, no? Or do I have this mixed up with something else. Mike

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Since neither Duck will be "won" during this untap phase, you have to pay to contest or yield each copy. You can order this in any way you want: 1) Pay to contest a copy 2) Yield the other copy or 1) Yield a copy 2) Pay to contest the other copy or 1) Yield a copy 2) Yield the other copy or 1) Pay to contest a copy 2) Pay to contest the other copy (I wouldn't recommend this last alternative :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5eesk9$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (michael charles bohlmann) writes: >>"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes: > >>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. > >>So this goes against the general ruling that you can order events in >>untap any way you want? We've always played that you don't get the now >>uncontested card until your next untap, but the pool thing is new to me. > >>There is a general rule that you can order untap events, no? Or do I have >>this mixed up with something else. > >No. Since neither Duck will be "won" during this untap phase, you >have to pay to contest or yield each copy. You can order this in >any way you want: > So, what in effect you are saying is: A) you can only yield during untap and B) the ordering doesn't matter since you have to be the only owner of Duck at the beginning of your untap to get him that turn? Thus, if you bring a second Duck into play during your influence on your second turn, you will have to pay one pool to keep a Duck on your third turn and the earliest you will be able to have a Duck back in play is the beginning of your fourth turn? I'm just clarifying, because my playgroup has been playing this totally wrong in a number of ways. Thanks :) -Scott ps - I would definitely say that Puzzler #3 is way harder than the ones before...

Scott Shaw wrote: > > In article <5eesk9$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, > L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >No. Since neither Duck will be "won" during this untap phase, you > >have to pay to contest or yield each copy. You can order this in > >any way you want: > > So, what in effect you are saying is: A) you can only yield during untap > and B) the ordering doesn't matter since you have to be the only owner > of Duck at the beginning of your untap to get him that turn? > > Thus, if you bring a second Duck into play during your influence on your > second turn, you will have to pay one pool to keep a Duck on your third > turn and the earliest you will be able to have a Duck back in play is the > beginning of your fourth turn? Correct. (if Begining = during untap). [ quoted text not captured ]

>There is a general rule that you can order untap events, no? Or do I have >this mixed up with something else. I believe there are no Magic Timing Games in V:TES. Everything that happens in one phase happens at once (except master/minion phase actions). So, no gaining from the edge then burning it to remove a threat counter. --- Liam Burke "Only a Malkavian would attack Cthulhu with laughing gas..." -overheard

JlB1925 (jlb...@aol.com) wrote: : >There is a general rule that you can order untap events, no? Or do I : have : >this mixed up with something else. : I believe there are no Magic Timing Games in V:TES. Everything that : happens in one phase happens at once (except master/minion phase actions). : So, no gaining from the edge then burning it to remove a threat counter. There is no MtG timing, true. So everything happens in sequence (not all at once, nor in a Last-in-first-out stack, etc.) The first thing that happens during your untap is that all of your cards must be untapped. Any other untap events may be applying in whatever order you choose. From the rulebook: 6.1 The Untap Phase Some cards in play may cause some or all players to perform actions during your untap phase. Any cards requiring you to take an action or actions during your untap phase take effect after you've untapped your cards. If more than one card requires you to take an action, you may choose the order in which these actions take place. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > [snip] > > The first thing that happens during your untap is that all of your > cards must be untapped. Any other untap events may be applying in > whatever order you choose. > > From the rulebook: [snip] So, CAN you yield one of your copies of a self-contesed card and get the other copy that turn without having to pay a pool (and/or wait a turn)? -- Steve "I Bled Someone for 14 Pool in One Turn Because of a Misdirection" Wampler, creator of the "Spend 29 Pool on Vampires and Get Bled for One and Die™" deck sjwa...@hotmail.com (ignore the above adress, its plain brown wrong)

Steve Wampler ("sek10"@cornellSHA.edu) wrote: : L. Scott Johnson wrote: : > The first thing that happens during your untap is that all of your : > cards must be untapped. Any other untap events may be applying in : > whatever order you choose. : So, CAN you yield one of your copies of a self-contesed card and : get the other copy that turn without having to pay a pool (and/or wait : a turn)? No. The key to this is in the VtES rules, section 15. 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. So, you may order the yielding and the contesting (paying one pool) any way you like, but (in the proposed case) yielding a copy first will not resolve the problem, since once the last copy is yielded (during your untap phase), you don't return the other copy to the active region until your *next* untap. So, during the current untap phase, you will still have to choose to yield or pay a pool for the second copy as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Wampler <"sek10"@cornell SHA.edu> wrote: > L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > The first thing that happens during your untap is that all of your > > cards must be untapped. Any other untap events may be applying in > > whatever order you choose. > > > > From the rulebook: > [snip] > > So, CAN you yield one of your copies of a self-contesed card and > get the other copy that turn without having to pay a pool (and/or wait > a turn)? As per the rulebook, you only get control of a contested card if all other copies have been yielded by the start of your turn. Nothing you do during your turn can change the fact that the card is contested at the start of your turn, so you can't gain control of it until the following turn (presuming you yield the duplicate copies during this turn's untap). --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)