If Methuselah A has an Anarch Convert in play can Methuselah A influence one more to convert a vampire???
I´m thinking that one cannot, since the change of making "the moving cards from the uncontrolled region into the ready region" optional and thereby not allowed if leading to an auto contest, which would be the case even if intended to be used for conversion.
[LSJ 20080526]
this ruling clearly statse "yes" but is from a time when you could not choose to delay the entering of a vampire (if rules memory serves me correct), so the questions is more:
Is [LSJ 20080526] still valid under current rules?
The LSJ ruling is still valid.
Already answered by Ankha: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77224-vampires-entering-play-triggered-effects-and-contesting?start=12#92435
The above ruling answers whether the ability can be used when it would lead to a contest situation, which has been ruled to be allowed as it happens before the actual contest and moving of the cards out of play...this is not being questioned here and that ruling is not affected by the outcome of this.
The question is if, since the rule change that it is optional to move cards from the uncontrolled region to the ready region, whether the check that prohibits auto contest would prevent one from moving a second Anarch Convert towards the ready region so that it can get to the state of "As the convert enters play" at all, or not?
You never contest when you use the ability, so I'm unsure how the change to the influence rule would have any affect. You have a way, even when you bring it into play that would prevent self-contestation, so you'd be forced to use it. If for some reason, there are no legal targets to convert and you control a Convert, then you'd be prohibited because the only possible outcome of influencing at that point is to self-contest, which is not allowed.
You are basically saying that because it has an optional ability that results in that the card gets removed from the game and thereby wouldn´t lead to a contest situation that the auto contesting rule wouldn´t be checked nor prevent one from deciding to bring the card into play.
You might be right... but it is not how I think it should logically work.
I believe this crypt card is different from all others which are playable even when there is one already in play, the other cards are explicitly worded either as "not unique", "non-unique" or "cannot be contested" making it a static trait if you wish...
Anarch Convert on the other hand has an optional ability that can be chosen to be used or not and that ability doesn't actually provide the ability to make auto contesting or regular contesting irrelevant which would occur when/if entering play. For the static traits, it makes sense, but for AC it doesn´t... because I think that the check of the auto contest, if I'm not mistaken, would be related to the decision of whether one is allowed to influence/move the card into play or not.
Found the answer to the question in the RTR 03/03/2018
> RTR_03/03/2018 wrote:
> As a consequence, you cannot self-contest a unique vampire or imbued anymore (per rule 4.1. Contested Cards): the crypt card has to stay in the uncontrolled region. Minions that have a replacement effect as they would come into play (eg., Anarch Convert) or that cannot be contested (eg., Jimmy Dunn) can still be played as before.
>
I must say that errata of the Anarch Convert would have been a much better solution than ruling that the optional "replacement effect" that it has is what makes the self contesting irrelevant....the "replacement effect" is only made available "as it enters play" and is not like library cards a "level"/function that the card is played at.
I find it illogical that the self contesting isn´t checked as part/at the time of deciding to move the card into play (where the optional "replacement effect" that it has is irrelevant), which would prevent it from being able to be played if one already had one in play.
Looks very much like one more of those rulings that are there siding with intent instead of following the written rules.
Similarly, Jimmy Dunn should also get errata to remove the two exceptions to the rule.
TOOOOO many exceptions to the written rules in this game......
> inm8 wrote:
> You are basically saying that because it has an optional ability that results in that the card gets removed from the game and thereby wouldn´t lead to a contest situation that the auto contesting rule wouldn´t be checked nor prevent one from deciding to bring the card into play.
>
Yes, because the card will not be contested. You cannot self contest, but since you won't it's ok.
See also paying costs with a Ravnos Carnival: a vampire with 1 blood can play an action card that costs 2 blood because you'll be able to pay for it at resolution (and you have to, you just can't say upon resolution that you don't).
Basically, all that matters is whether the course of action of the player leads to an illegal situation or not.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> kschaefer wrote:
> The LSJ ruling is still valid.
>
My problem was, that the ruling didn't seem based on the actual rules. It was just pulled out of a hat.
As far as I would see, whether a card contests or not is a static check that is constantly in effect, therefore a card entering play (as anarch convert text literally says that it enters play before its ability can be used) it would immediately contest. LSJ ruled that it doesn't contest, but didn't in my opinion give convincing arguments why not.
(fun fact: there is no rule about self-contesting in the BCP rulebook, its only mentioned in a "tip" as if the rule was already common knowledge)
The issue in my opinion is that anarch convert doesn't have the word "instead" on it.
In my opinion the best solution would be if its text read:
"As anarch convert enters play, instead you may choose to remove it from the game to... blabla.."
This way you could choose that it doesnt enter play, and does its thing. And we wouldn't have to argue whether or not it has opportunity to do its thing. If it doesn't enter play, it cannot contest.
I think this same "instead" wording could be used in a variety of different problematic cards, such as first tradition.
Sure, there are other cases where this wording cannot be used and still creates an issue, such as whether or not you get to use Erliks blood-dispensing ability before it enters contest.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech