[LSJ] Self-contesting

. So, I have a vampire equip with the Rowan Ring. That vampire sends another vampire to torpor with the Rowan Ring, putting the Rowan Ring on the torpored vampire. Another of my vampires equips with the Rowan Ring, contesting it. Yet another of my vampires plays Graverobbing to take control of the torpored vampire with a contested Rowan Ring. During my untap phase, how do I resolve the self-contestation? As far as I can tell, neither copy is "incoming". - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

[ quoted text not captured ] When you Graverob the minion, the Ring he has (the incoming one, to you) is burned. -- 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 wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > >> So, I have a vampire equip with the Rowan Ring. That vampire >> sends another vampire to torpor with the Rowan Ring, putting the >> Rowan Ring on the torpored vampire. Another of my vampires >> equips with the Rowan Ring, contesting it. Yet another of my >> vampires plays Graverobbing to take control of the torpored >> vampire with a contested Rowan Ring. >> >> During my untap phase, how do I resolve the self-contestation? >> As far as I can tell, neither copy is "incoming". > > > When you Graverob the minion, the Ring he has (the incoming > one, to you) is burned. Why not simply let the controlling Methuselah choose which card to give up? The 'incoming' rule sure seems to be written for newly played cards, not cards that are already in a contest that are stolen... //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

>>> During my untap phase, how do I resolve the self-contestation? >>> As far as I can tell, neither copy is "incoming". >> >> >> When you Graverob the minion, the Ring he has (the incoming >> one, to you) is burned. > >Why not simply let the controlling Methuselah choose which card to give >up? The 'incoming' rule sure seems to be written for newly played cards, >not cards that are already in a contest that are stolen... Because it would be inconsistent to allow such a choice. Compare to the situation where a Methusaleh gains control of a Frozen Object when he already has one in play. It has previously been ruled that the incoming copy is burned (he does not get a choice). Having the incoming copy of Rowan Ring burn is consistent with previous precedent. Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Because it would be inconsistent to allow such a choice. It would not. It is consistent with having the option to either continue a contest or to give it up (standard option for contesting) :) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > Halcyan 2 wrote: > >> >> Because it would be inconsistent to allow such a choice. > > > It would not. It is consistent with having the option to either continue > a contest or to give it up (standard option for contesting) :) That would be consistent if self-contesting were allowed (The Meth would then get to choose which to yield during the untap phase). But self-contesting is not allowed. If an effect would cause you to self-contest, the incoming copy (consistently) is burned instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

I am unable to see LSJ's post, my NG reader says that it is no longer available. Does anyone else have this problem? David "The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40FF9639...@freemail.nl... [ quoted text not captured ]

David Wilson wrote: > I am unable to see LSJ's post, my NG reader says that it is no longer > available. Does anyone else have this problem? > > > David > > "The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message > news:40FF9639...@freemail.nl... > >>Halcyan 2 wrote: >> >>>Because it would be inconsistent to allow such a choice. >> >>It would not. It is consistent with having the option to either continue >>a contest or to give it up (standard option for contesting) :) I can still see it, but that may be because it's cached on my machine (and I'm not willing to clear my cache to test the theory :-). It's also available on Google: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HYMLc.122395%24OB3.56557%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net [ quoted text not captured ]