A couple of questions regarding contest

Hi! 1) I am contesting vampire X, who has an Ivory Bow. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow. Does the Ivory Bow start to contest right away? My answer would be yes, based on a 2009 ruling by LSJ (groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7461e657dc9de612). 2) My vampire X, who has an Ivory Bow, gets banished to my uncontrolled region. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow. Does the Ivory Bow start to contest right away? My answer would be no, based on the RTR from May 2001 (groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6029edb7384bced4). Also based on that it would be really weird, in my mind. 3) I am contesting vampire X, who is Tremere Justicar. Another player's vampire Y becomes Tremere Justicar. Does the Tremere Justicar title start to contest right away? Loosely based on the first ruling refered to above, my answer would be yes. I would consider this a bit weirder than situation 1. 4) My vampire X, who is Tremere Justicar, gets banished to my uncontrolled region. Another player's vampire Y becomes Tremere Justicar. Does the Tremere Justicar title start to contest right away? I'd answer no here, same reasoning as situation 2. I do find these rulings possibly conflicting though, not sure if they really are (since out of play and uncontrolled is a bit different states).

> henrik wrote: > 1) I am contesting vampire X, who has an Ivory Bow. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow. Does the Ivory Bow start to contest right away? > Yes, as you cite. > henrik wrote: > 2) My vampire X, who has an Ivory Bow, gets banished to my uncontrolled region. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow. Does the Ivory Bow start to contest right away? > No, the ruling you cite and the card text of Banishment - the cards on your vampire are out-of-play. > henrik wrote: > 3) I am contesting vampire X, who is Tremere Justicar. Another player's vampire Y becomes Tremere Justicar. Does the Tremere Justicar title start to contest right away? > No. [RTR 980623] > That wrote: > Contesting: All card text on a contested card is ignored - including any > title. Contested vampires do not contest titles. > # > # The vampire will begin contesting his title when he returns to the > # controlled region, if the title is still held by another vampire > # at that time. > (This reversed an earlier position.) > henrik wrote: > 4) My vampire X, who is Tremere Justicar, gets banished to my uncontrolled region. Another player's vampire Y becomes Tremere Justicar. Does the Tremere Justicar title start to contest right away? > No, only if he comes back into the controlled region. A vampire in your uncontrolled region via Banishment behaves in the same way as a 'normal' vampire in your control region, for this purpose. (Note that if you had contested the title in normal play, yielded it and then been Banished, the Banished vampire does remember that he's yielded the title - again, in the Banishment RTR you cite.)

> henrik wrote: > Hi! > > 1) I am contesting vampire X, who has an Ivory Bow. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow. Does the Ivory Bow start to contest right away? > My answer would be yes, based on a 2009 ruling by LSJ (groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7461e657dc9de612). > This ruling is highly counter-intuitive. The rules don't say anything about cards on a contested card, but they do say that only cards in play can be contested. Therefore, logically (), if it is decided that cards that are on a contested card are out of play, they should not contest.

> Aaron wrote: > Therefore, logically (), if it is decided that cards that are on a contested card are out of play, they should not contest. > It was decided that the cards on a contested card are out of play except for the purposes of themselves being contested.

That's what I'm talking about.

> Aaron wrote: > That's what I'm talking about. > No, you're starting with the premise that the cards have been ruled out of play, therefore, logically. Instead, the actual premise is that the cards are out of play except... Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water, because your basic premise isn't true.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Aaron wrote: > > That's what I'm talking about. > > > No, you're starting with the premise that the cards have been ruled out of play, therefore, logically. > > Instead, the actual premise is that the cards are out of play except... Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water, because your basic premise isn't true. > Logically something either is or is not. The ruling is that the card is in play for certain effects, but out of play for others. To put it another way the card is, at the same time, both in play and not in play. This is not logical. It may be a fair, balanced, reasoned way for the game to play. That doesn't make it any more logical.

> Mael wrote: > Logically something either is or is not. > That's simply not true in various areas of V:TES. For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested. Sorry to break it to you, but the rules of V:TES are more nuanced than ME SAY YES or ME SAY NO.

jamesatzephyr's answers are correct (and all the referenced links are still valid).

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested. > That's quite irrelevant to the discussion, and not 100% accurate. He still has the title, he just "loses the benefit of the title". > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water ... > Aaron's statement that he finds the ruling to be counter-intuitive does not necessarily mean that he disagrees with it. To say something is not logical is not the same as saying it is incorrect. Your statement "Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water" is completely illogical, as you are trying to claim that something is logical because it has been ruled to be true. It does not in any way help Aaron (or other readers) to understand the ruling. Please note that I'm not arguing the ruling here at all, I just find your above quoted statement to be annoying and unhelpful. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Sorry to break it to you, but the rules of V:TES are more nuanced than ME SAY YES or ME SAY NO. > And this statement is not only unnecessary it is also quite deliberately insulting.

> Mael wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested. > > > That's quite irrelevant to the discussion, and not 100% accurate. He still has the title, he just "loses the benefit of the title". > Irrelevant or not it is 100% accurate. Rulebook 10.Vampire sects page 48 last paragraph last sentence, "....he immediately yields the old tittle."

> Smaul wrote: > > > Mael wrote: > > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested. > > > > > That's quite irrelevant to the discussion, and not 100% accurate. He still has the title, he just "loses the benefit of the title". > > > Irrelevant or not it is 100% accurate. > Rulebook 10.Vampire sects page 48 last paragraph last sentence, "....he immediately yields the old tittle." > The first (and less relevant) way in which it is not 100% accurate is that there are two cases in which he would yield the title, rather than just the one mentioned. Quoting that same sentence "If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested". The more relevant way is that the vampire still has the title (which is what makes the point not relevant to the discussion) he just gets no benefit from it. (See the sentence immediately before the one you quoted). Edit: The distinction is required because of abilities possessed by Jezebelle and Zane (and possibly others).

When I say the ruling is counterintuitive, that means that I am criticizing it, not saying that it doesn't exist. The other answers make sense to me and follow an easy-to-understand and intuitive principle: Cards and titles on a contested card are out of play. The exception adds unneeded complication to the game. Additionally it is a rules team ruling from 1995, and frankly the quality of many of the old RTR rulings is poor. For example they ruled in 1998 that superior Psyche! is not played during combat since "the end of combat is not technically during combat" Of course now the end of combat is indicated as step F of combat in the complete rules reference, but old precedents are stubbornly clung to. I also wonder why these rulings were never added to the rulebook proper. It seems unorganized to make substantive changes and additions to the rules on newsgroup postings, and then to only sometimes update the core rulebook to reflect those changes. I guess that's another discussion, though...

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > You control Queen Anne (Prince of London). She plays Clan Impersonation: Giovanni, and is Independent (her Prince title is inert). Jezebelle gets her extra vote, because you don't control a ready prince. > Yes you do. The quote you've taken from LSJ there even says "He doesn't lose the title completely". > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title - being inert means it's completely ignored, except for the specific exceptions. > That is indeed what you meant by inert. That is why you are incorrect. The rules say nothing about the title being inert, they say (as previously quoted by me) that the vampire "loses the benefit of the title". So for example you control Tara, she is Prince of San Diego, for whatever reason she changes sect. Your predator controls Zane, he can call a referendum using his special to become Prince of San Diego, contesting the title with Tara which she would then be forced to yield. The exact paragraph in the rules that deals with this is > > A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title. > Nowhere does it use the word "inert", nor does it say that "Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title". Nor for that matter do any of the quotes you've taken from LSJ actually address this question.

> Mael wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > You control Queen Anne (Prince of London). She plays Clan Impersonation: Giovanni, and is Independent (her Prince title is inert). Jezebelle gets her extra vote, because you don't control a ready prince. > > > Yes you do. The quote you've taken from LSJ there even says "He doesn't lose the title completely". > Right. It's there to be reactivated when the vampire changes back to an appropriate sect (or clan). The vampire isn't regarded as having a title, however, which is why they can take the inherent make-me-an-anarch action. > Mael wrote: > That is indeed what you meant by inert. > It's also what LSJ has repeatedly meant by it. > Mael wrote: > That is why you are incorrect. > I'm not. > Mael wrote: > The rules say nothing about the title being inert, they say (as previously quoted by me) that the vampire "loses the benefit of the title". > LSJ has repeatedly ruled on this issue. You are wrong. > Mael wrote: > So for example you control Tara, she is Prince of San Diego, for whatever reason she changes sect. Your predator controls Zane, he can call a referendum using his special to become Prince of San Diego, contesting the title with Tara which she would then be forced to yield. > Incorrect on several levels. 1) Tara is not seen as having a title, as LSJ confirms in his response to Salem. Salem: "they still have the title while in the wrong sect, it's just totally ignored for game purposes" "Right" 2) If a contestable title on a vampire of the wrong sect is claimed by another vampire, the title is not contested. Instead, the vampire with the inert title immediately yields it instead of contesting it. > Mael wrote: > Nowhere does it use the word "inert", nor does it say that "Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title". Nor for that matter do any of the quotes you've taken from LSJ actually address this question. > Except that LSJ confirms that a vampire with an inert title can take the go anarch action - which isn't possible for titled vampires. So the vampire isn't being treated as titled. Similarly, he confirms Salem's direct statement that the title isn't there for game purposes (except gaining a new title, or would-be contestations). So, in fact, LSJ squarely addresses the points head-on.

Further: - a Prince with a capacity-inreasing title (e.g. Praxis Seizure: Paris) does not receive the extra capacity while Sabbat-but-Toreador. Card text: "If the prince is Toreador, his or her capacity increases by 1." Title inert, not seen as a Prince, no extra capacity. [LSJ 20091014] > > LSJ wrote: > Similarly, if a Toreador with Praxis Seizure: Paris goes Into the Fire, the > capacity increase from the inert title is also inert (xe no longer has the extra > capacity, until the Praxis title is again in effect). > A Deranged (to Malkavian Antitribu/Sabbat) Prince is not a Prince until they change back. [LSJ 19980818] > > LSJ wrote: > > I assume that a Sabbat vampire holding the title of a Prince would > > > - holds the title of Prince > > Well, "holding a title" is a little ambiguous - typically implying > the priviledges of the title. He would hold the title if he were > Camarilla, but he's not. If his sect changes back to Camarilla, then > he will again hold the title. > > ... > > He is not a Prince in any way until he becomes Camarilla again. > (And only if no one else has laid claim to his title while > he was away.) > A Prince of the wrong sect "no longer counts as a Prince". [LSJ 20010716] > > LSJ wrote: > Similarly, if Anson gets Deranged, you can hit him with a Blood Hunt > action, since he no longer counts as a Prince. > An indepedent vampire who becomes Liaison (an independent-only title) "loses it" if they become another sect - until they go back to Independent (or are forced to yield it). [LSJ 20040704] > > LSJ wrote: > >> c) If a camarilla vampire became liason (See "Rise of Nepthtali") > >> under "fall of the camarilla", when it is removed and he becomes > >> camarilla again, I guess he loses the liason title? > > > Yes. Liaison is an Independent title, by card text. > > Correct. He would lose it until he becomes Independent again. > Using Clan Impersonation (or the burning thereof) to change clan (and sect) lets you lose a title and take the cardless go-anarch action (which isn't available to titled vampires). [LSJ 20031221] > > LSJ wrote: > Oscar Garza wrote: > > Can only use Clan Impersonation once as per restriction. So instead he takes > > an action to remove the > > Clan Impsersonation, then must go Out of the Frying Pan to lose the title, > > and then takes the cardless action to go anarch. Banner, good catch. > > Well, burning the Clan Impersonation makes him Salubri and Independent, > so that's enough. > A vampire with an inert title can be regarded as having the title "disappear". (Note that I'm the person LSJ responds to in the following quote.) [LSJ 20061203] > > LSJ wrote: > > However, the reason that "Inner Circle" disappears is not because it's > > an "actual title." It's because that title is tied to a particular sect > > - Camarilla, in this instance. Similarly, Primogen, Prince, Bishop, > > Archbishop, Cardinal, Priscus, Regent, and Magaji titles are tied to > > specific sects. See section 10 of the rulebook. Kholo and Justicar are > > also titled to clan, as well as sect. > > > Note also that the title doesn't entirely disappear. It's inert, and > > will come back if the vampire changes sect again, assuming the title > > hasn't been claimed by another vampire in the mean-time (in which case, > > the inert title is yielded immediately instead of constesting it). > > > The reason that the "Thetmes has 2 votes" title is not lost is that it > > is not tied to clan or sect. It is simply tied to Thetmes being > > Thetmes. If Thetmes plays Clan Impersonation: Toreador Antitribu, he > > still has 2 votes. If he plays Mozambique Allure, he still has 2 votes. > > If he plays Writ of Acceptance, he still has 2 votes. And so if he > > becomes Anarch, he still has 2 votes. > > Correct. >

And yet I cannot find (and I'm assuming neither can you as you would have quoted it) any ruling which directly addresses how other peoples effects interact with a title which has been temporarily rendered inert in this manner. The only one which comes close is the 1998 Derange ruling "He is not a Prince in any way ....". This significantly predates any Zane type effect so could be seen as simple brevity on the part of LSJ. Similarly when he wrote "Correct" to a statement that Thetmes retains his two votes I would not assume that he is considering every possible consequence of every part of your preceding statements that led to that conclusion. Given the lack of a specific ruling, and indeed before looking for a specific ruling, we should look at the primary source, the rulebook. The phrase "he loses the benefit of the title" is from the most recent version of said book. This phrase is quite clear, and does not in any way prevent other interactions that come from outside sources. I'm going to open a new thread for this as we've diverted quite a bit from the initial point of this discussion (and Pascal has already answered the initial question so might not come back to this thread).

> Mael wrote: > And yet I cannot find (and I'm assuming neither can you as you would have quoted it) any ruling which directly addresses how other peoples effects interact with a title which has been temporarily rendered inert in this manner. > The "in any way" ruling addresses this. The Blood Hunt ruling addresses this - he doesn't count as a Prince when someone else plays a card. > Mael wrote: > Given the lack of a specific ruling, > LSJ's rulings are very specific about this! > Mael wrote: > The phrase "he loses the benefit of the title" is from the most recent version of said book. > The rulings supplement the rulebook. A new version of a rulebook does not repeal all previous rulings! Note that the same text on this issue has been in the rulebook before and after various of these rulings. > Mael wrote: > I'm going to open a new thread for this > Please don't. LSJ's statements on the issue are *completely clear*. The Prince with an inactive Prince title is not a Prince in any way.

Further: [LSJ 20080702] > LSJ wrote: > > I am pretty sure that, for example Marcel de Breau (Archbishop of > > Paris) with 2 No Confidence cards does not have 2 votes from his title > > and cannot play cards such as Eternal Vigilance. > > ... > > > Does Count Germaine advanced (+2 bleed when bleeding a titled non > > Independent vampire) still gets his bleed bonus when bleeding Marcel's > > controller ? > > No, just as if Marcel had changed to a sect inappropriate for his title. > That is, Count Germaine's ability does not see a Camarilla Marcel (inert Archbishop) as having a title and so doesn't give him a bleed bonus. Further, No Confidence works in the same way. Its (relevant) card text is: "A vampire with two No Confidence cards loses the benefit of his or her title." It works in the same way. But the title can come back if the No Confidences are burned. Also, the 1998 Derange ruling comes from a time when a similar effect did exist. [LSJ 19990628] > LSJ wrote: > > Suppose I control Vasantasena, and she Deranges my prey's only titled > > vampire, Anvil. Does she now get +1 stealth when bleeding my prey? > > Yes. > Card text: "Vasantasena gets +1 stealth when bleeding a Methuselah who does not control a ready titled vampire." Deranged. Not seen as being titled. Sabbat card image: nekhomanta.h2.pl/pics/games/vtes/sabbat/vasantasena.jpg (Linked via www.vtes.pl) And from that same 1999 ruling: > > LSJ wrote: > > "If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects (by means of Clan > > Impersonation, for example) to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, > > he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes > > appropriately." > > > For clarification, does "benefit of the title" really mean "title?" > > It can be treated that way, yes. > Except that - obviously - it can come back when you change back appropriately. And you yield it completely if it would be contested. That is, you can treat it as being "loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately". And that's based on the same rulebook text, and all later rulings follow it.

You know, you and I seem to have completely divergent views on what constitutes a benefit. Immunity to the 'blood hunt' card is a benefit, denying Vasantasena her +1 stealth is a benefit. This on the other hand: > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Further: > > [LSJ 20080702] > > > LSJ wrote: > > > I am pretty sure that, for example Marcel de Breau (Archbishop of > > > Paris) with 2 No Confidence cards does not have 2 votes from his title > > > and cannot play cards such as Eternal Vigilance. > > > > ... > > > > > Does Count Germaine advanced (+2 bleed when bleeding a titled non > > > Independent vampire) still gets his bleed bonus when bleeding Marcel's > > > controller ? > > Is actually relevant. So kudos for finding it because I certainly couldn't (didn't think of searching for answers related to 'No Confidence'). I guess this is an example of where the rulings contradict the rulebook.

> Mael wrote: > You know, you and I seem to have completely divergent views on what constitutes a benefit. Immunity to the 'blood hunt' card is a benefit, denying Vasantasena her +1 stealth is a benefit. > V:TES historically avoids using subjective interpretation for terms like this, because players often find a way to turn a negative into a positive. (Not a very good positive, but a positive.) The history of rulings on what constitutes a "special ability" for Seeds of Corruption is littered with fun involving Uriah Winter as a Trojan horse, using his "special ability". Precisely because people have divergent views - and views which would vary depending on the situation - about what's a good thing or a bad thing, V:TES avoids that pitfall wherever possible.

Thanks jamesatzephyr for gathering all these. I'm adding this one (just in case some people start searching for it over here): [LSJ 20081207] wrote: > > Malone wrote: > > My question for LSJ: Is a vampire's immunity from being chosen in > > Veles' Hunt a "benefit of his or her title", for the purposes of No > > Confidence? > > Yes. The vampire is effectively non-titled. > For all those not convinced, "losing the benefit of a title" makes a vampire non-titled.

> Pascal wrote: > For all those not convinced, "losing the benefit of a title" makes a vampire non-titled. > Would it be possible to get this updated in the online rulebook somehow? I'm in favour of only needing to reference the rulings if something is unclear in the rulebook. In this case a plain English read of the rulebook runs contrary to the ruling. Thank you.

> Mael wrote: > The exact paragraph in the rules that deals with this is > > > > A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title. > > > Nowhere does it use the word "inert", nor does it say that "Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title". Nor for that matter do any of the quotes you've taken from LSJ actually address this question. > Please explicit contradiction. Is it in the understanding of the word "benefit" ? If I say "benefit of a title" == "considered as holding the title", does this make it clear enough? It would remove the possibility of any contradiction, I guess, but then, if it does, then the contradiction wasn't there in the first place, right?

> Pascal wrote: > > > Mael wrote: > > The exact paragraph in the rules that deals with this is > > > > > > A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title. > > > > > Nowhere does it use the word "inert", nor does it say that "Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title". Nor for that matter do any of the quotes you've taken from LSJ actually address this question. > > > Please explicit contradiction. > Is it in the understanding of the word "benefit" ? > If I say "benefit of a title" == "considered as holding the title", does this make it clear enough? It would remove the possibility of any contradiction, I guess, but then, if it does, then the contradiction wasn't there in the first place, right? > You could say that, but it is not a standard English definition of the word benefit. (Also, if you're not considered as holding the title you wouldn't contest it, which you do, so also not a perfect solution). The benefit of a title would mean the advantageous effects you can get by having a title. So by the rule as written in the rulebook, you would lose any effects that would be of benefit (including the associated votes), but any effects that are not advantageous would stay. Benefits would include the ability to play cards as though you had the title, not being targetable by the Blood Hunt action, giving the Ayo Igoli you control an additional vote, getting +1 intercept against Dirk, etc. Effects such as Jezebelle (controlled by you) losing her bonus vote, another Methuselah's Zane being able to claim and contest your title, Count Germaine having a bleed boost against you, those are all hindrances rather than benefits. I can't think of a neat rulebook solution. The best is probably to say that his title is inert and then to define (in the next line) what an inert title is.

> Mael wrote: > I can't think of a neat rulebook solution. The best is probably to say that his title is inert and then to define (in the next line) what an inert title is. > I'll add this to the RT list for review. But it looks like this is the first time the issue is raised in at least 13 years - see Revised Rulebook 08/10/1998 for an instance of "benefit of a title". > Mael wrote: > Also, if you're not considered as holding the title you wouldn't contest it, which you do > Do you have a link supporting this? We currently have: [LSJ 20080602] wrote: > > > I'd like to have a confirmation about the card "No Confidence" and the > > effects on the game of "losing the benefits of one's title" (compared > > to "losing one's title"). > > "losing the benefit" happens, for example, when one changes to a sect > inappropriate for a title. (See section 10). > > > I am pretty sure that, for example Marcel de Breau (Archbishop of > > Paris) with 2 No Confidence cards does not have 2 votes from his title > > and cannot play cards such as Eternal Vigilance. > > Correct, just as if he changed to a sect inappropriate for. > > > Can he play a Templar or a Red List card (wich require a Titled > > vampire and not specifically an Archbishop) ? > > No, just as if he changed to a sect inappropriate for thhe title. > > > Does he contest a merged Dominique's Baron of Paris title ? > > He yields immediately instead, just as if... > and Rulebook 10.0 Sects > > If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title. >

> Pascal wrote: > > Does he contest a merged Dominique's Baron of Paris title ? > > He yields immediately instead, just as if... > and Rulebook 10.0 Sects > > If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title. > Just a quick question about the immediate yielding. Does that still make the (new, not inert) title be considered contesting until the next untap phase? As in, my vampire X is Prince of Seattle and gets a sect change to independent. Anson (Prince of Seattle) enters play. X immediatly yields the Prince of Seattle title, but does Anson get the title right away or does he have to wait until his controllers untap phase (assuming no other contests or weird stuff)? I guess the question is whether "the other" vampire's title is considered contested in these cases.

It looks like this immediate yielding part is awkwardly ruled. I'll add the "immediate" word to the RT for review. Current available (and recent) rulings: [LSJ 20090430] seems to indicate that, while in torpor, you don't "immediately" yield, but will have to yield if you're there when you would have to choose to contest or to yield. But then, some "immediately yields" are clearly immediate: Rise of the Nephtali, and quite likely Victor Pelletier.

I think the difference might be that Rise of the Nephtali and Victor Pelletier both states that the title is yielded instead of contesting while that part is missing from the inert title part in the rulebook. [LSJ 20080602] does have that text though. With that part added it seems rather clear that the incoming contester of an inert title doesn't need to wait until the controllers untap phase to fully have the title (uncontested and all).

> Pascal wrote: > I'll add this to the RT list for review. But it looks like this is the first time the issue is raised in at least 13 years - see Revised Rulebook 08/10/1998 for an instance of "benefit of a title". > I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is because for a long time having a title was strictly beneficial with no downsides, by the time downsides to having titles were introduced the rule had been there long enough not to be considered for review. > Pascal wrote: > > > Mael wrote: > > Also, if you're not considered as holding the title you wouldn't contest it, which you do > > > Do you have a link supporting this? > From a logic point of view that you have to be in a contest in order to yield it, even if you are only in it for an infinitesimally short duration of time. It's mostly a point of semantics, probably only relevant because I hadn't assumed the word 'instead' in the rule (see Henrik's post for how I thought it worked).

> Mael wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > I'll add this to the RT list for review. But it looks like this is the first time the issue is raised in at least 13 years - see Revised Rulebook 08/10/1998 for an instance of "benefit of a title". > > > I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is because for a long time having a title was strictly beneficial with no downsides, by the time downsides to having titles were introduced the rule had been there long enough not to be considered for review. > Chas Giovanni Tello's printed version (Final Nights, 2001) reads "Chas gets +1 strength when in combat with a titled vampire." The Treatment, Wrath of the Inner Circle and Command of the Harpies (Dark Sovereigns, 1995) produce drawbacks to being a Prince / Justicar, which don't affect you anymore once you're not Prince / .. : [LSJ 19980209]

> Mael wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > I'll add this to the RT list for review. But it looks like this is the first time the issue is raised in at least 13 years - see Revised Rulebook 08/10/1998 for an instance of "benefit of a title". > > > I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is because for a long time having a title was strictly beneficial with no downsides, by the time downsides to having titles were introduced the rule had been there long enough not to be considered for review. > But both having and not having the title could bring additional downsides. 1) Can you play Blood Hunt on a vampire with an inert title? (Possible ever since Writ of Acceptance was added in Ancient Hearts, and Clan Impersonation in the same release.) 2) Does Vasantasena get her plus to stealth if my only potentially 'titled' vampire is of the wrong sect? (She gets stealth if you have no titled vampires.) 3) Does Suhailah get her plus to stealth if my only potentially titled vampire (Prince or Justicar) is of the wrong sect or clan? Suhailah gets extra stealth if there is a ready Prince or Justicar. (Suhailah added in Ancient Hearts.) As listed earlier in this thread, Vasantasena was explicitly considered back in 1999.

> Pascal wrote: > The Treatment, Wrath of the Inner Circle and Command of the Harpies (Dark Sovereigns, 1995) produce drawbacks to being a Prince / Justicar, which don't affect you anymore once you're not Prince / .. : [LSJ 19980209] > Fair enough, I don't think I've ever seen any of those cards before. I withdraw my previous speculation for how this discrepancy came to exist. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > But both having and not having the title could bring additional downsides. > Agreed. That is what the rulebook says though. That complication is why I'm more in favour of changing the rulebook than the ruling.