Malkavian time Auction + Blood Doll/Villein

Okay, So I searched the old boards, and the new, and didn't really find an answer to this. If you Malkavian Time Auction and sell off a Blood Doll, does the winner get to move it to one of his minions? I can't remember where I read it, but I'm pretty sure Vessel/BD belong to whoever controls the minion (so you could take control of someone's vampire, and use the BD on them). So that would mean that you can't Own a BD on someone else's minion. What about Villein? Would they get to move it? Would moving it count as playing it on the new minion (and allow them to pull blood off)?

Not sure what the Time Auction does (card text would have been nice), but as a general rule, Master cards are controlled by the player who played them until an effect dictates a change of controller. As for Villein, unless MTA states "as if it was played from hand" or something to that effect, it is just moved to a new minion and will affect future Villeins and Minion Taps played by the new controller. > Edit: > Ignore the bit on Villein. According to this: > > groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qzKS4OGBgbo > > Villein stays on the current minion. It simply changes controllers and will affect future Minion Taps played by the new controller (no change to the cost of playing a new Villein on the current minion) > Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> Malkavian Time Auction > Type: Master > Requires: Malkavian > Master. > Choose a card you control. Starting to your left and proceeding clockwise, other Methuselahs may bid pool for control of that card. Highest bidder takes control of the card. You collect pool from the two highest bidders. > > Blood Doll > Type: Master > Master. > Put this card on a vampire you control. During his or her master phase, this vampire's controller may move 1 blood from this vampire to his or her pool or from his or her pool to this vampire. > > Vessel > Type: Master > Cost: 1 pool > Master: trifle. > Put this card on a vampire, and you may burn a Blood Doll in play (if any). During this vampire's controller's untap phase, he or she may move 1 blood from this vampire to his or her pool or from his or her pool to this vampire. > "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

> Malcolm wrote: > I can't remember where I read it, but I'm pretty sure Vessel/BD belong to whoever controls the minion (so you could take control of someone's vampire, and use the BD on them). So that would mean that you can't Own a BD on someone else's minion. > BD & Vessels (like all Master cards) are controlled by the player who played them. You can play a Vessel on someone else's vampire (card text), but he or she gets to decide whether or not to use the Vessel (also card text). You cannot play a BD on someone else's vampire (card text), but if can use a BD played by someone else that somehow ended up on a vampire you control. The BD and Vessel (like all other cards) leave play when the controller is ousted. For example: - You play Vessel on your predator's vampire and get ousted. Said Vessel leaves play - You play BD on your vampire, which subsequently gets stolen by your prey via Temptation of Greater Power, who then back-ousts you with Kindred Spirits. Said BD is leaves play but the vampire stay on the table Always remember that: - you control all Master cards you play - minion cards are controlled by either the controller of the minion it is on, or the player it is currently with (for cards like Army of Rats) - card text trumps all rules they contradict Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

This doesn't answer my question. To be clear, I am asking about what happens if you Auction off the Blood Doll, NOT the minion it's on. groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qzKS4OGBgbo This ruling covers the case for _Minion_ cards on minions; If you win an ivory bow in Malk Time Auction, you choose one of your minions to put it on. However, the ruling says nothing, one way or the other about what happens if you Malk Auction masters.

Since there is no ruling, by default the master stays put, although the control changes. According to rules section 1.6.3, a minion card is controlled by the controller of the minion it is on. Therefore, if another player takes control of a minion card that must be put on a minion (retainer, equipment, some locations), he would have to put it on a minion he controls in order to take control of it. LSJ's ruling just clarified what was already in the rulebook. There is no rule that connects the control of a master card with the controller of the minion it is placed upon. Therefore, logically, there is no reason why a player who takes control of such a master card through MTA would get to move it. Since there is no ruling to the contrary, that is the rule. No need for "official clarification", really. In some cases, taking control of a master card on another player's minion has little relevance, e.g., disciplines, Blood Doll. In other cases, it is substantive, like for cards that can be removed through a action, such as Pentex.

> Malcolm wrote: > This doesn't answer my question. To be clear, I am asking about what happens if you Auction off the Blood Doll, NOT the minion it's on. > groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qzKS4OGBgbo > > This ruling covers the case for _Minion_ cards on minions; If you win an ivory bow in Malk Time Auction, you choose one of your minions to put it on. > > However, the ruling says nothing, one way or the other about what happens if you Malk Auction masters. > Sure it does. If you open up one of LSJ's replies on the same page, he says > > Only for non-Equipment, non-Retainer, non-Location minion cards. > Changing control of Equipment, Retainers, or Locations on minions > results in the card being moved to a minion controlled by the new > controller. > Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

??? > Only for non-Equipment, non-Retainer, non-Location minion cards. > The next sentence refers to previous one, unless you think he was talking about master equipment and retainer cards that go on minions. The ruling does not mention master cards because it does not need to: masters on minions stay where they are, even if their controller changes.

> AaronC wrote: > ??? > > > Only for non-Equipment, non-Retainer, non-Location minion cards. > > > The next sentence refers to previous one, unless you think he was talking about master equipment and retainer cards that go on minions. > > The ruling does not mention master cards because it does not need to: masters on minions stay where they are, even if their controller changes. > I didn't think the inference was not obvious. My bad. Malcolm said the ruling says nothing about Master cards. I read the ruling as saying plenty about Master cards by not mentioning them. "Only...minion cards...". Is a Master card a minion card? No. Ergo, it does not move. That was what I read into the ruling. Does it mention Master cards? No. Does it say anything about Master cards one way or the other? I think it does. Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> the1andonlime wrote: > Does it say anything about Master cards one way or the other? I think it does. > ...and what would that be?

> AaronC wrote: > > > the1andonlime wrote: > > Does it say anything about Master cards one way or the other? I think it does. > > > ...and what would that be? > That it doesn't move because it is not a minion card. Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

I'm searching for adequate rulings. The most appropriate, so far, is this one: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/3N7thHoSNvE/bX2wPL4hKeEJ which, pretty inconveniently, links to nothing. I think going for Design Intent on Malkavian cards is too difficult, so the ruling that will be given will try to follow common sense. And existing rulings, but I'm still looking for those.

Thanks! If the ruling could include a clear delineation of whether masters stay put, magically move without doing any of the stuff they would normally do when getting played on a vampire, or do everything like new (e.g. villein take blood off, vessels pop a blood doll), that would be great!

> Pascal wrote: > The most appropriate, so far, is this one: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/3N7thHoSNvE/bX2wPL4hKeEJ > which, pretty inconveniently, links to nothing. > groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EE0C831.3010601%40white-wolf.com is this post: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qzKS4OGBgbo/ST8O8A0s-JMJ which says that equipment, retainers and locations on a minion are moved to something appropriate controlled by the new controller, and anything else that changes control that is on a minion stays put (without explicit card text).

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > which says that equipment, retainers and locations on a minion are moved to something appropriate controlled by the new controller, and anything else that changes control that is on a minion stays put (without explicit card text). > Could you quote that directly? I do not see any text that says that. LSJ's post deals only and specifically with minion cards. It does not mention masters, or "anything else". "Kulaid" in the following post says that you can auction masters that you control that are played on other players' minions (Haven Uncovered), but no one discusses whether that master gets moved. Of course I agree that the master doesn't move based on my reading of the rules, but the OP seems to need something "official" to be satisfied.

> AaronC wrote: > Could you quote that directly? I do not see any text that says that. LSJ's post deals only and specifically with minion cards. It does not mention masters, or "anything else". > Ah, true, sorry, I was overly-hasty in reading the text. Succubus Club is relevant, though. [LSJ 20010904] > > LSJ wrote: > > Both Malkavian Time Auction and the Succubus Club allow you to auction > > or trade control of a "card"? What is a "card"? > > The green-backed or amber-backed paper things. > > > Certainly, both the London Evening Star and Dre, Leader of the Cold > > Dawn would fit this definition. How about Children of Osiris? I > > would think so, but the effect would be small (it would just change > > who could block any attempt to burn the card, I'd guess). > > Correct. > > > I would also guess you could auction or trade off a Form of > > Corruption, couldn't you?? Some interesting possibilities there! > > Yes. > > > What about cards like Depravity or a Dominate master card? Would this > > have any effect?? > > Change of control (which would matter if the new controller were ousted, > for example). > Which implies that the Depravity or Dominate stays put, and more specifically: > LSJ wrote: > > What about a Flamthrower or Mr. Winthrop?? I > > Equipment or retainers would be moved to a minion controlled by the new > controller. These are the only two things that do so. > In [LSJ 20030606] (the one I cited earlier), that gets expanded to include locquipment too. (As it's specifically about minion-card locations, not master-card locations, or hypothetical other locations.)

Good research. I have to wonder why such research is even necessary. These aren't rulings - they are what I would call "clarifications." Neither the rulebook nor the text of MTA implies that the placement of a master-on-a-minion would get moved by MTA. It is already established that a player can control a master placed on another player's minion. Ergo, logic dictates that the master-on-a-minion whose controller changes does not get moved. A "clarification"/"ruling" is nice for those who dare not read and analyse the rules themselves, but it shouldn't be necessary. It's like everyone wants to make sure that LSJ didn't make some exception to the rules that he hid in some obscure newsgroup posting. I really don't like this "common law" approach to rules, which I guess is odd since I live in a common law country. Maybe someday we'll get a "civil code" approach.

> AaronC wrote: > I have to wonder why such research is even necessary. > Often, it goes like this. Player wants to win. Player sees an opportunity to do devious things to help themself win. Player asks if it's legal. Depending on your perspective, this inevitably involves a certain amount of rules-lawyering / anally-retentive attention to card text / creative-yet-competitive card play.

More to the point, the natural instinct (at least mine), is that if you buy a card, and gain control of it... it would go to your controlled region by default. You don't go to the store and pay for a gallon of milk, and then put a sticker on it that says "I own this milk"... and leave the milk. It may turn out that's how it works, but seeing as how it's a very unusual card, I don't feel "rules lawyery" for asking for a complete ruling.

> Malcolm wrote: > More to the point, the natural instinct (at least mine), is that if you buy a card, and gain control of it... it would go to your controlled region by default. You don't go to the store and pay for a gallon of milk, and then put a sticker on it that says "I own this milk"... and leave the milk. > > It may turn out that's how it works, but seeing as how it's a very unusual card, I don't feel "rules lawyery" for asking for a complete ruling. > Is your natural instinct to place Pentex Subversion in your controlled region when you pay for it? Snarky question, I know, but it's not bad to learn to use an analytical approach along with an instinctual one.

To answer your snark: Pentex is a card that get's played on any minion. The cards I'm asking about (mostly) are cards that only get played on your minion. Since one such master card (secure haven) behaves as expected, due to being a location, it is not unreasonable to ask about the other ones.

Thought I'd bump this. Pascal, did you ever come to a concrete ruling on the details? I have a deck I'd like to try out, but I should know all the ins and outs of the card since no one else at a table will