LSJ / Apply the rules

Here is something that occured during the french open two weeks ago and still bugs me : Situation : at a 4 player's table, my prey has a full Arika + Matthias , 11 blood on her and 5 pool left. My grandprey ( and ally at that time) plays a Gangrel + !Gangrel political deck. My pred plays a nosfe vote deck. I play a malky + fleur du mal political deck. Yeah, politics everywhere. My ally has a small gangrel out, and 10 pool influenced on one vampire, 6 on another one. He taps his Ecoterrorists and bring up Stanislava, he then wants to use his remaining 4 transfers to bring his second vampire, Genevieve. That's where the nosfe player yells : "you just put Stanislava face up, that means your influence phase is over." He calls the judge, and a long discussion ensues : the point is he flipped up and moved Stanislava just for convenience. (this player was not familiar with tournament rule-lawyers) The discussion with the judge ended when he said " this is my decision, you can't use the remaining transfers. Go on to your discard phase." My ally and me were very upset since by doing so the judge knew the political balance on the table would be on the nosfe and Arika's side -the gangrel player choose to bring out titled vamps only to counter this. So when three minutes later my prey plays a car wrongly, i call the judge, decided to do my lawyering better (worst?) than the others. "Excuse me, mr judge, but this person, which happen to be my prey, played a card in a very wrong way. The only thing he said is "I play minion tap ? any sudden ? " He *wrongly* replaced the card. Then as we all said "no sudden", he started to move blood counters from his vampire to his pool *illegally*. As far as i remember, when you play a card, you must announce all terms. He played this card illegally : decency should make you let him reshuffle this minion tap in his library and forfeit his master phase." The judge didn't even think about it. He saw i was playing malky and had a prey at 5 pool. He said to my prey : " reshuffle the card *you replaced* in your library and play your minion tap as you would have done, just announce the total amount of blood you move from Arika". I was uber-upset. "Hey judge ! Where's equity ? to one guy you deny all transfers during the transfer phase, and you let another play cards in an illegal manner ?" "but this time it's different." "what's different ?" After a bit of non-gentleman arguing the game continued anyway... What do you think about this two kind of judging depending on a mystery factor ? I must admit i had personnal problem with that judge that may have biased his decision. When this kind of situation occurs and it is of public knowledge that a judge has a problem with me, can i ask for another judge ? what other judges would have done if they were judges on this game ? thanks for reading all the stuff =) reyda

reyda wrote: > My ally has a small gangrel out, and 10 pool influenced on one vampire, 6 on > another one. He taps his Ecoterrorists and bring up Stanislava, he then > wants to use his remaining 4 transfers to bring his second vampire, > Genevieve. That's where the nosfe player yells : "you just put Stanislava > face up, that means your influence phase is over." He calls the judge, [...] > The discussion with the judge ended when he said " this is my decision, you > can't use the remaining transfers. Go on to your discard phase." > [...] > So when three minutes later my prey plays a car wrongly, i call the judge, > decided to do my lawyering better (worst?) than the others. > "Excuse me, mr judge, but this person, which happen to be my prey, played a > card in a very wrong way. The only thing he said is "I play minion tap ? any > sudden ? " He *wrongly* replaced the card. Then as we all said "no sudden", > he started to move blood counters from his vampire to his pool *illegally*. > As far as i remember, when you play a card, you must announce all terms. He > played this card illegally : decency should make you let him reshuffle this > minion tap in his library and forfeit his master phase." > > The judge didn't even think about it. He saw i was playing malky and had a > prey at 5 pool. He said to my prey : " reshuffle the card *you replaced* in > your library and play your minion tap as you would have done, just announce > the total amount of blood you move from Arika". > [...] While I don't have all the facts, it sounds like the judge made decisions that fit with the facts you've provided. The judge might have sided with the EcoTerrorist controller if that player had convinced the judge that he was still in the middle of his influence phase (and therefore the readying of Stanislava was illegal, since it can only be done at the end of the influence phase). In which case the readying of Stanislava would have been undone, and the player would've continued with his influence phase as normal, readying Stanislava and Genevieve at the appropriate time. But, from your description, this was not the argument made. The "misplayed" Minion Tap was not misplayed at all - the call for suddens was. You cannot call for Suddens before announcing the terms of the Minion Tap. Regardless, the replacement was also "misplayed" - you cannot replace the Minion Tap before announcing the terms, so "undoing" the replacement seems to be the proper remedy. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb: [snip] >The "misplayed" Minion Tap was not misplayed at all - the call for suddens >was. You cannot call for Suddens before announcing the terms of the Minion >Tap. Regardless, the replacement was also "misplayed" - you cannot replace >the Minion Tap before announcing the terms, so "undoing" the replacement >seems to be the proper remedy. hi excuse me, but i don't quite get it lets have a look at the official rulebook 1.6.1.2 Drawing Cards: Whenever you play a library card from your hand, you immediately draw another from your library to replace it. Exceptions to this rule are cards played during a referendum (see The Referendum, sec. 6.3.2) and as noted on card text. If your library is empty, then you do not draw to replenish your hand, but you continue to play. If your hand size is changed by a card in play, immediately discard down to or draw up to your new hand size. where is it stated that you have to announce all the terms of a card played before you replace it, since the "immediately" in the above paragraph is IMHO quite clear. I also checked the official errata page, where nothing like this can be found. in search of enlightenment Chris.QJ

LSJ wrote: > The judge might have sided with the EcoTerrorist controller if that > player had convinced the judge that he was still in the middle of > his influence phase (and therefore the readying of Stanislava was > illegal, since it can only be done at the end of the influence > phase). In which case the readying of Stanislava would have been > undone, and the player would've continued with his influence phase > as normal, readying Stanislava and Genevieve at the appropriate > time. But, from your description, this was not the argument made. The judge didn't want to hear any of our arguments. The player himself said he was still during his transfer phase but the judge did not agree. He did not propose some "friendly issue" to this argument and chose to block this particular player's progression in the game. What if on the next turn, Arika would have called a Might of the camarilla to get rid of Genevieve ? > The "misplayed" Minion Tap was not misplayed at all - the call for > suddens was. You cannot call for Suddens before announcing the > terms of the Minion Tap. Regardless, the replacement was also > "misplayed" - you cannot replace the Minion Tap before announcing > the terms, so "undoing" the replacement seems to be the proper > remedy. Understood =) Just want to insist on the fact that the minion tap was en entire misplay. No announce for which vampire and how much blood. Without speculation i can say that if i were the player misplaying the minion tap, this particular judge would have cancelled it. anyway, thanks for the answer and let's go back to the game...

"Chris.QJ" wrote: > lets have a look at the official rulebook > > 1.6.1.2 [...] > where is it stated that you have to announce all the terms of a card > played before you replace it, since the "immediately" in the above > paragraph is IMHO quite clear. See 1.6.1.1 [ quoted text not captured ]

reyda wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > The judge might have sided with the EcoTerrorist controller if that > > player had convinced the judge that he was still in the middle of > > his influence phase (and therefore the readying of Stanislava was > > illegal, since it can only be done at the end of the influence > > phase). In which case the readying of Stanislava would have been > > undone, and the player would've continued with his influence phase > > as normal, readying Stanislava and Genevieve at the appropriate > > time. But, from your description, this was not the argument made. > > The judge didn't want to hear any of our arguments. The player himself said > he was still during his transfer phase but the judge did not agree. How did he come to "know" the game state then, if not from the report of the Methuselah whose activity is in question? > He did > not propose some "friendly issue" to this argument and chose to block this > particular player's progression in the game. What if on the next turn, Arika > would have called a Might of the camarilla to get rid of Genevieve ? What-if's aren't the issue. > Without speculation i can say that if i were the player misplaying the > minion tap, this particular judge would have cancelled it. If you feel that a judge is not judging impartially/fairly, please report it to vte...@white-wolf.com and vtess...@white-wolf.com. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb: >"Chris.QJ" wrote: >> lets have a look at the official rulebook >> >> 1.6.1.2 [...] >> where is it stated that you have to announce all the terms of a card >> played before you replace it, since the "immediately" in the above >> paragraph is IMHO quite clear. > >See 1.6.1.1 Playing Cards: There are two main types of library cards: master cards and minion cards. Master cards are played by Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (vampires and allies) the Methuselahs control. Any library card not explicitly named as a master card is a minion card. A card is played by placing it faceup in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it faceup in the ash heap. Your ash heap can be examined by any player at any time. aehm.. yes ???? this does not say anything about terms, replacing and suchlike. i obviously don't get it what i'm missing is a more precise definition of playing a card, like: to play a card: A card is played by placing it faceup in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it faceup in the ash heap, AND ANNOUNCING ALL TERMS, TARGETS AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE EFFECT OF THIS CARD. (the part i added could of course be formulated differently but i think the intent is clear) regards Chris.QJ p.s. i know i can be a little annoying sometimes, but all i'm striving for is a better understanding of this wonderful game!

"Chris.QJ" wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb: > > >"Chris.QJ" wrote: > >> lets have a look at the official rulebook > >> > >> 1.6.1.2 [...] > >> where is it stated that you have to announce all the terms of a card > >> played before you replace it, since the "immediately" in the above > >> paragraph is IMHO quite clear. > > > >See 1.6.1.1 > > Playing Cards: There are two main types of library cards: master cards > and minion cards. Master cards are played by Methuselahs; minion cards > are played by the minions (vampires and allies) the Methuselahs > control. Any library card not explicitly named as a master card is a > minion card. A card is played by placing it faceup in the playing area > or by showing it to the other players and placing it faceup in the ash > heap. Your ash heap can be examined by any player at any time. > > aehm.. yes ???? > this does not say anything about terms, replacing and suchlike. > i obviously don't get it > Note the last sentence of the actual 1.6.1.1 from the CE rules: 1. Playing Cards. There are two main types of library cards: master cards and minion cards. Master cards are played by Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (vampires and allies) the Methuselahs control. Master cards have no icon at the top of the attribute bar while each minion card has an icon there that indicates what type of minion card it is. A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Note the last sentence of the actual 1.6.1.1 from the CE rules: > > 1. Playing Cards. There are two main types of library cards: > master cards and minion cards. Master cards are played by > Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (vampires > and allies) the Methuselahs control. Master cards have no icon at > the top of the attribute bar while each minion card has an icon > there that indicates what type of minion card it is. A card is > played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to > the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The > player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > So in this case the Meth playing the Minion Tap, without terms, then asking for Sudden Reversals, has just minion Tapped nothing, for nothing. Or am I wrong? Raille

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message news:3DDC2F4F...@mich.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think your answer is in your question. If he played the card "without terms" then he hasn't "completely declared the effect". Rewind play to that point and have the player correctly play the Minion Tap. He'd reshuffle the card he replaced and possibly receive some sort of warning from the judge. Remedying the first error by deciding for that player the target and effect of the card would be a dangerous road to start down. For example, if a player replaces a Govern the Unaligned before declaring "Inferior" or "Superior" would you automatically default it to one or the other? The next batch of tournament rules will contain some additional guidance on how to resolve issues like this. -Robert -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

On Thursday 21 November 2002 01:01 in message <9F_C9.1817$It3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie mumbled something about: > The next batch of tournament rules will contain some additional guidance > on how to resolve issues like this. Slap the FUCK out of the player attempting to be a rules lawyer, remove one counter from his pool, and continue on with the game. [1.3.1.6 DSR 112002] I'm all for not giving takebacks and the idea of "card laid is a card played", especially in tournaments, but this particular story sets my teeth on edge. It's not even like the guy discarded and said "Done" or anything; he simply made the transfers he needed to bring the vampire to full. He wasn't intending to cheat; he hadn't forgotten that he had four normal transfers and wasn't trying to go back; he just flipped up a vampire, who, by the rules, must enter the ready region as it now had its capacity in blood on it. We had a saying for this in pool tournaments; we called it "trying to win from his chair, since he can't win at the table." While the wording doesn't have the same ring to it when applied to V:TES, I think the intent still carries the same weight; if someone can't win against someone else's best game, then who's the REAL weak player, eh? -- Derek

Derek Ray wrote: > On Thursday 21 November 2002 01:01 in message > <9F_C9.1817$It3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Robert > Goudie mumbled something about: > >> The next batch of tournament rules will contain some additional >> guidance on how to resolve issues like this. > > Slap the FUCK out of the player attempting to be a rules lawyer, > remove one counter from his pool, and continue on with the game. > [1.3.1.6 DSR 112002] (snip) Unfortunately, as tournament rules prohibits physical violence, i had to fight with their own weapons =) but i'm obviously no good at that =/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DDBA9A0...@white-wolf.com>... > reyda wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > The judge might have sided with the EcoTerrorist controller if that > > > player had convinced the judge that he was still in the middle of > > > his influence phase (and therefore the readying of Stanislava was > > > illegal, since it can only be done at the end of the influence > > > phase). In which case the readying of Stanislava would have been > > > undone, and the player would've continued with his influence phase > > > as normal, readying Stanislava and Genevieve at the appropriate > > > time. But, from your description, this was not the argument made. > > > > The judge didn't want to hear any of our arguments. The player himself said > > he was still during his transfer phase but the judge did not agree. > > How did he come to "know" the game state then, if not from the report > of the Methuselah whose activity is in question? > > > He did > > not propose some "friendly issue" to this argument and chose to block this > > particular player's progression in the game. What if on the next turn, Arika > > would have called a Might of the camarilla to get rid of Genevieve ? > > What-if's aren't the issue. > > > Without speculation i can say that if i were the player misplaying the > > minion tap, this particular judge would have cancelled it. > > If you feel that a judge is not judging impartially/fairly, please report > it to vte...@white-wolf.com and vtess...@white-wolf.com. The time when a player calls a judge because someone has "moved his vampire from uncontrolled to controlled before the end of his influence phase" is the time when i leave the tournament, because someone has definitely missed the fact that this game is about fun, or at least should be about fun too.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<PqGdnW99u4A...@News.GigaNews.Com>... > On Thursday 21 November 2002 01:01 in message > <9F_C9.1817$It3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie > mumbled something about: > > > The next batch of tournament rules will contain some additional guidance > > on how to resolve issues like this. > > Slap the FUCK out of the player attempting to be a rules lawyer, remove one > counter from his pool, and continue on with the game. [1.3.1.6 DSR 112002] > > I'm all for not giving takebacks and the idea of "card laid is a card > played", especially in tournaments, but this particular story sets my teeth > on edge. It's not even like the guy discarded and said "Done" or anything; > he simply made the transfers he needed to bring the vampire to full. He > wasn't intending to cheat; he hadn't forgotten that he had four normal > transfers and wasn't trying to go back; he just flipped up a vampire, who, > by the rules, must enter the ready region as it now had its capacity in > blood on it. I agree entirely with this. The action taken by the transferring player in this example was hardly a malicious attempt to breach the rules was it? In friendly play (which yes, I know is not the same as tournament play) it is quite common to see people transfer blood onto one vamp, flip it over and then put down the rest of their transfers. It's not that they're trying to cheat - it's probably just instinctual ("He's on full - he's in play"). There's a big difference between what happened here and someone saying "Ooh! I forgot to transfer last turn - anyone mind if I do it now?". Mind you, if, as Reyda says, the judge had personal issues with one of the players at the table it probably sheds more light on the situation... Iain Wilson - Prince of Milton Keynes

On 21 Nov 2002, Angus, the Unruled wrote: > The time when a player calls a judge because someone has "moved his > vampire from uncontrolled to controlled before the end of his > influence phase" is the time when i leave the tournament, because > someone has definitely missed the fact that this game is about fun, or > at least should be about fun too. Apologies if this is fuzzy. Had knee surgery, drugged up. In one game of the North Atlantic championship my predator called for a judge because I picked up four counters, flipped over Salbatore (4 cap Ravnos), and placed the counters on him. His complaint was that the counters have to go "on" the vampire before it is considered ready and wanted me to lose my influence phase. Judge ruled otherwise. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb: [snip] > >Note the last sentence of the actual 1.6.1.1 from the CE rules: > >1. Playing Cards. There are two main types of library cards: >master cards and minion cards. Master cards are played by >Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (vampires >and allies) the Methuselahs control. Master cards have no icon at >the top of the attribute bar while each minion card has an icon >there that indicates what type of minion card it is. A card is >played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to >the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The >player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. got me. sorry, i thought the online rules were already updated to the CE rulebook. regards Chris.QJ

[ quoted text not captured ] Wrong. Absence of declaring terms is not the same as declaring the terms to be zero. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The time when a player calls a judge because someone has "moved his >vampire from uncontrolled to controlled before the end of his >influence phase" is the time when i leave the tournament, because >someone has definitely missed the fact that this game is about fun, or >at least should be about fun too. > Then you probably don't want to play in L.A. (or perhaps the U.K. for that matter) any time soon... Halcyan 2

Robert Goudie wrote: > Remedying the first error by deciding for that player the target and effect of > the card would be a dangerous road to start down. For example, if a player > replaces a Govern the Unaligned before declaring "Inferior" or "Superior" would > you automatically default it to one or the other? > > The next batch of tournament rules will contain some additional guidance on how > to resolve issues like this. > I'm glad to hear that. Helps out the Judge in sticky situations. Raille

LSJ wrote: > Raille wrote: > >>LSJ wrote: >> >>>Note the last sentence of the actual 1.6.1.1 from the CE rules: >>> >>>1. Playing Cards. There are two main types of library cards: >>>master cards and minion cards. Master cards are played by >>>Methuselahs; minion cards are played by the minions (vampires >>>and allies) the Methuselahs control. Master cards have no icon at >>>the top of the attribute bar while each minion card has an icon >>>there that indicates what type of minion card it is. A card is >>>played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to >>>the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The >>>player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. >>> >> >>So in this case the Meth playing the Minion Tap, without terms, then >>asking for Sudden Reversals, has just minion Tapped nothing, for nothing. >> >>Or am I wrong? > > > Wrong. Absence of declaring terms is not the same as declaring the terms > to be zero. > Damn! Used the wrong word sequence. Now I can't say. "I may not be right, but I'm never wrong." Raille ruined for Life.

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20021121102244...@mb-md.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] every group has it's black sheeps I hope not everyone in the U.K. or L.A would call a judge because someone has moved a vampire to controlled and then gives the blood on him, or similar.

"Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> wrote in message news:690c2085.02112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] In L.A., we do require players to put their blood on their vampires and then bring them into the controlled region as oppossed to bringing them up and then doing the influence. "Calling the judge" doesn't need to happen because someone politely explains the rule and then we proceed. No one needs to scream out an "AHA!" and there's no big deal made. But here's why we ask people to play by the rules in this respect... Have you ever influenced the wrong vampire up, or accidentally contested another vampire? These errors never happen when you first flip and then influence. Since we don't allow players to change their minds and redo their influence if they accidentally contest or accidentally influce the wrong vamp we'd be, in effect, penalizing the players who play correctly. As Halcyan says, it only takes one black sheep. And rather than have to argue with any black sheep about why they can or cannot redo their influence phases, we choose to require that players influence as required by the rulebook. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

Robert Goudie wrote: > In L.A., we do require players to put their blood on their vampires and then > bring them into the controlled region as oppossed to bringing them up and then > doing the influence. "Calling the judge" doesn't need to happen because someone > politely explains the rule and then we proceed. No one needs to scream out an > "AHA!" and there's no big deal made. But here's why we ask people to play by > the rules in this respect... > > Have you ever influenced the wrong vampire up, or accidentally contested another > vampire? These errors never happen when you first flip and then influence. Flipping (exposing the vampire to the other players) would imply making the transfers to that vampire (unless there's some other mechanism to do so). The only thing to be gained here would be "protection" against over-influencing him. > Since we don't allow players to change their minds and redo their influence if > they accidentally contest or accidentally influce the wrong vamp we'd be, in > effect, penalizing the players who play correctly. If the player changes her mind, she has then illegally shown a card in her uncontrolled region to the other players. Penalize that appropriately, and the problem is likewise solved. Flipping the vampire up to place counters on it isn't playing incorrectly any more than placing the Blood Doll card under rather than on top of the vampire is. > As Halcyan says, it only takes one black sheep. And rather than have to argue > with any black sheep about why they can or cannot redo their influence phases, > we choose to require that players influence as required by the rulebook. Flipping up and moving counters isn't "redoing" the influence phase. Flipping up and then down again is. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message > Then you probably don't want to play in L.A. (or perhaps the U.K. for that > matter) any time soon... I have never seen anyone call for a judge in the UK because someone flipped over a vampire in the middle of the influence phase. I hope I never do. No wonder Redya is miffed, I would be too, and also thinking about getting my coat... -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DE0E06C...@white-wolf.com... > Robert Goudie wrote: > > In L.A., we do require players to put their blood on their vampires and then > > bring them into the controlled region as oppossed to bringing them up and then > > doing the influence. "Calling the judge" doesn't need to happen because someone > > politely explains the rule and then we proceed. No one needs to scream out an > > "AHA!" and there's no big deal made. But here's why we ask people to play by > > the rules in this respect... > > > > Have you ever influenced the wrong vampire up, or accidentally contested another > > vampire? These errors never happen when you first flip and then influence. > > Flipping (exposing the vampire to the other players) would imply making the transfers > to that vampire (unless there's some other mechanism to do so). That'd work, sure. > The only thing to be gained here would be "protection" against over-influencing him. If there's a gain to be made by using this particular method of influencing, players would be wise to use it. Should I now encourage players to use this new method since it is safer? I prefer to just ask players to influence using the method described in the rulebook. In fact, in these parts, everyone already does it so it's much easier to deal with. > Flipping the vampire up to place counters on it isn't playing incorrectly any more than > placing the Blood Doll card under rather than on top of the vampire is. Except that no advantage is gained in the case of the Blood Doll. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

Robert Goudie wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Robert Goudie wrote: > > Flipping (exposing the vampire to the other players) would imply making the > transfers > > to that vampire (unless there's some other mechanism to do so). > > That'd work, sure. > > > The only thing to be gained here would be "protection" against over-influencing him. > > If there's a gain to be made by using this particular method of influencing, > players would be wise to use it. How is flipping it over to put counters on it any different than the player looking at the card, putting it back facedown, moving counters to it, and then moving the counters back off of it to flip it up into the ready region and move the counters back onto the card? A: It saves time. That's all. > Should I now encourage players to use this new > method since it is safer? I prefer to just ask players to influence using the > method described in the rulebook. In fact, in these parts, everyone already > does it so it's much easier to deal with. Ask them to do so by all means if it helps the rest of your group. But accept their actions when taken in the spirit of the rules as well. > > Flipping the vampire up to place counters on it isn't playing incorrectly any > more than > > placing the Blood Doll card under rather than on top of the vampire is. > > Except that no advantage is gained in the case of the Blood Doll. OK. So we agree that it is OK to follow the spirit of the rules for convenience's sake. [ quoted text not captured ]