Hello,
Let's say i have a Nergal in play with a Discipline card on him, making a 11 cap vampire and a vampire named "Call the Great Beast" in play (previously put in play by another Baali).
¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action? ¿What happens if he can?
Thanks in advance.
Regards.
"¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action?"
Yes
"¿What happens if he can?"
It is burned once it resolves.
Warning: Spoiler!
DECK CONSTRUCTION
CAUTION: Be careful about putting duplicates of the same unique cards in your deck. You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card). On the other hand, you may wish to have a second copy handy in case the first is burned.
> Ashenbach wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Let's say i have a Nergal in play with a Discipline card on him, making a 11 cap vampire and a vampire named "Call the Great Beast" in play (previously put in play by another Baali).
>
> ¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action?
>
No, it would result in self-contest which is prohibited by the rules:
> rulebook wrote:
> You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card).
>
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/_AcH7GPTLJc/m/HBBg8QvG7kwJ
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> mipopo3 wrote:
> The card is not unique.
> It represents a unique vampire once condition is met.
> So can you update the text or the ruling?
>
You can have multiple Call the Great Beast as attached cards. It represents a unique vampire once it detaches from the vampire. It's all already written on the card.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> mipopo3 wrote:
> The card is not unique.
> It represents a unique vampire once condition is met.
> So can you update the text or the ruling?
>
Reading the card explains the card. Comparing Aranthebes vs Call the Great Beast shows this. One is unique, one is not, until by cardtext it becomes unique.
Name: Aranthebes, The Immortal [Anarchs:R, Third:PB, SoB:1, NB3:PR1] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 pool +1 stealth action. Unique. Put this card in play. You can lock Aranthebes to give a minion controlled by your predator -1 stealth. While Aranthebes is unlocked, vampires with capacity 4 or less get -1 bleed against you. Vampires with capacity 5 or more can shuffle Aranthebes into your library as a (D) action. Artist: Andrew Trabbold
Name: Call the Great Beast [BL:R1, KMW:PB, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Action Clan: Baali Cost: 1 blood +1 stealth action. Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali and choose three Disciplines; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, the chosen three Disciplines at the superior level and 9 blood who can enter combat with a minion as a (D) action and can prevent 1 damage each combat. Artist: Fred Hooper
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
On a question "¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action?"
I stated:
"Yes"
Anka stated:
"No"
My comment:
"So, can you update the text or the ruling?"
Is refering to his ruling, as it's not supported by the rules.
Where correction was made:
"You can have multiple Call the Great Beast as attached cards"
Thus, this comment is not answering any question, as it's a statement:
"Reading the card explains the card."
> mipopo3 wrote:
> On a question "¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action?"
> I stated:
> "Yes"
>
> Anka stated:
> "No"
>
> My comment:
> "So, can you update the text or the ruling?"
> Is refering to his ruling, as it's not supported by the rules.
>
> Where correction was made:
> "You can have multiple Call the Great Beast as attached cards"
>
> Thus, this comment is not answering any question, as it's a statement:
> "Reading the card explains the card."
>
Short: Read first Ankha reply again, see how it's not been modified.
Long; As per the www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/44519-how-to-make-a-rules-post-look-good
> 1 - Quote cardtext. As a remainder, the only official source for cardtext is the vekn website . Even though some other sources are updated, not all are, and I don't have a list of who has updated their list.
>
Is part that *all* posters before me forgot. We might change cardtext of Call the Great Beast two years from now, people search for rulings on it, they assume it's same as their version when in fact it might be greatly different. See how Derange text change affected many pre POD rulings on it.
Reading the card as it is now, non unique, allows playing multiples of it as long as they do not bring vampire into play that would contest. As there is existing ruling by LSJ that putting 11th counter (or more) on it would count as the an action to bring a vampire into play as it literally does that. That's in the link Ankha posted. It is so by merit of it's cardtext.
In that vein, if Nergal, as described in the OP, as 11 cap vampire tries to perform another Call the Great Beast it would result in 11 counters on it, which in turn means it's action to bring vampire into play, a vampire that is by cardtext on Call the Great Beast unique. That would result per OP stated gamestate to be self contesting the Call the Great Beast unique vampire in play. Per rulebook, you cannot voluntarily self-contest and per LSJ groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/cHdOwueG71I/m/BTBYvTZhrAUJ
>
> > Hmmmm, I don't agree with this. I don't see why you can't do this
> > action knowing it will very likely fail.
>
> Because you can't attempt something you cannot do.
> ....
>
See my multitude of rambles how you cannot attempt to sneak 30 more pool or arrange cards in hand while your table is looking elsewhere as it's something you cannot do, even if some try-hard players have attempted similar shenigans lately.
Hence you also cannot attempt Call the Great Beast action in the situation OP described;
>
> Ashenbach wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Let's say i have a Nergal in play with a Discipline card on him, making a 11 cap vampire and a vampire named "Call the Great Beast" in play (previously put in play by another Baali).
>
> ¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action? ¿What happens if he can?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards.
>
Reading the card explains the card is reply to your question on
>
> mipopo3 wrote:
> The card is not unique.
> It represents a unique vampire once condition is met.
> So can you update the text or the ruling?
>
They are up to date and the original ruling made at 24 Jun 2026 09:33 www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/83053-call-of-the-great-beast-and-self-contest#117261 is in line with the existing rulings. Those per www.vekn.net/forum/news-and-announcements/80782-the-line-pack-alpha?start=6#109157
>
> Ankha wrote:
> ... BTW, all LSJ/Floppy rulings are valid, unless there's a more recent official ruling saying otherwise. I'm not sure why we would need a further confirmation.
>
are still valid as there's not been more recent official ruling saying otherwise. Note how there's been no REVERSAL's in this topic.
The follow up you quoted as "correction" I read as attempt to clarify your misunderstanding on what's unique and what's not when it comes to that card. It's referring to a situation where multiple below 11 cap Baalis can have Call the Great Beast as the card is not unique and as the amount of counters when the action is performed is not 11 (or more) it is not action to put vampire into play... as it does not put vampire into play. They can perform those actions even if there is 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire made by Call the Great Beast in play as long as they do not result in 11 (or more) counters the card their action targets.
I hope that clarified the situation. Unless you're referring to some other Ankha ruling that is elsewhere then in this post, if so, please include the link to that ruling.
EDIT: This btw is the Ankha quoted LSJ ruling on second Call the Great Beast in case people still cannot click and read it. Please note "whichever" Use dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/whichever if you do not understand it.
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/_AcH7GPTLJc/m/NNsA5ODSTl0J
> > I would say that you can play a Call the Great Beast with a cap 11
> > Baali even though you have unique vampire in play that is a Great
> > Beast. Since the action is to put the card in play and put the
> > counters on the card. Then after you have put the card in play the
> > card checks the amount of counters on the card and transforms it into
> > a vampire.
> >
> > I would say that you aren´t allowed to take an action to put the
> > eleventh counter on a Call the Great Beast in play if you already have
> > a unique vampire in play named the Great Beast.
>
> Whichever action puts the 11th (or more) counter on the card would
> count as the an action to bring a vampire into play, ...
>
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
This need to be reflected in the current rulebook.
Thus amended text from:
"You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)."
Needs to be:
"You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily play a card that would trigger a contest with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)."
as this covers all similar situations including trying to play "The, Coven" form your hand, while you have "The, Coven" that is from other player in your control,*edit* Summoning History on minor, the, Summoning, Split the Veil, ... that will put an unique ally in play that is in your control already *edit*
As 11 cap Baali with Call the Great Beast (that is a vampire) on the field cant play a card that would trigger a contest scenario.
OR
We can clearly see that the issue comes from card not being unique, and that triggers effect constitutes vampire recruitment: "action to bring a vampire in to play", witch is not defined in the card text, thus it needs to be updated. If we are to rely on the old ruling.
Warning: Spoiler!
+1 stealth action. Recruitment
Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali and choose three Disciplines; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, the chosen three Disciplines at the superior level and 9 blood who can enter combat with a minion as a Ⓓ action and can prevent 1 damage each combat.
This would apply to Summoning History superior, Creation Rites, The, Embrace, Third Tradition: Progeny, ...
Thus we are back at this topic, so rule change or text change.
> mipopo3 wrote:
> This need to be reflected in the current rulebook.
> Thus amended text from:
> "You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)."
>
> Needs to be:
> "You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily play a card that would trigger a contest with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)."
>
> as this covers all similar situations including trying to play "The, Coven" form your hand, while you have "The, Coven" that is from other player in your control,*edit* Summoning History on minor, the, Summoning, Split the Veil, ... that will put an unique ally in play that is in your control already *edit*
>
> As 11 cap Baali with Call the Great Beast (that is a vampire) on the field cant play a card that would trigger a contest scenario.
> ...
>
I feel this is moot as your suggested new wording is just a subsect from the existing text in the rulebook. What's more, it opens people up to questions "what happens when I voluntarily influence out a second copy of a vampire I already own, it is not playing a card as cards playing are clearly defined in rulebook to come from hand. Neither is it forced as I have freedom to bring it out or not, so therefore it is allowed. Your examples of search and put into play are moot in same vein as one can fail their search whereas one cannot fail putting the counters on Call the Great Beast when conditions demand it. See playing Summoning or similar cards that search when you as a player *know* there are no valid targets left. For Split the Veil, it does not force you to burn the counter on it. You *can* burn counter on it. See www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/voluntarily to refresh what voluntarily means. See First Tradition: The Masquerade as a refresh how VTES handles things that are not voluntarily done and must be done.
> mipopo3 wrote:
> ...
> OR
>
> We can clearly see that the issue comes from card not being unique, and that triggers effect constitutes vampire recruitment: "action to bring a vampire in to play", witch is not defined in the card text, thus it needs to be updated. If we are to rely on the old ruling.
>
> Warning: Spoiler!
>
> +1 stealth action. Recruitment
> Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali and choose three Disciplines; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, the chosen three Disciplines at the superior level and 9 blood who can enter combat with a minion as a Ⓓ action and can prevent 1 damage each combat.
>
> This would apply to Summoning History superior, Creation Rites, The, Embrace, Third Tradition: Progeny, ...
>
> Thus we are back at this topic, so rule change or text change.
>
This I also see as moot, as the action when performed with low cap vampire does not put a vampire in play, the card is placed on the baali. If you have hard time grasping how same card can have different effects depending what capacity is in question see for example Nosferatu Performance Art. By your logic quoted, it should have "stealth action" or something like that on it, just because it happens to trigger in certain conditions as stealth action. Another easy example is Soul Gem of Etrius, which depending on the capacity might result in a forced contest, burn and cycle. Checking a vampire's capacity and having certain effects based on it is not new thing, in fact the wording on Call the Great Beast has remained remarkably unchanged from the first printing. It's still similar in relevant portions when the ruling was first made, and it works logically when playing the game, as you resolve the action, sometimes due to cardtext you put a vampire in play if conditions match the cardtext.
If we've been able to play it correctly for... 25 years... how it or rules regarding it suddenly need more obscuring masquerading as "corrections"? Or is it your inability to conform to a existing ruling and cardtext because your first reply was incorrect? It has been released on POD, it has received checkup to be viable in modern play. If you cannot comprehend how card that puts vampire into play when certain conditions are met is a card that puts vampire into play, I seriously cannot help and I doubt no amount of cardtext aside from something along the lines of " move this card to your ready region ... this card becomes ... a vampire."
Those topics and possible help needed are however not relevant to the OP, I recommend you make a suggestion topic and raise the issue for people proofreading the rulebook to see if they align with your viewpoint.
Name: First Tradition: The Masquerade AKA: The First Tradition: The Masquerade [Jyhad:R2, VTES:R, CE:R, KoT:R] Cardtype: Political Action Requires a prince or justicar. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each Methuselah must burn 2 pool during his or her unlock phase. A Methuselah can choose to skip his or her entire turn. Burn this card when the controller has either skipped 3 turns or burned a total of 6 pool by this effect. Artist: Pete Venters; Mike Danza
Name: Nosferatu Performance Art [DS:U, CE:PN] Cardtype: Action Clan: Nosferatu Cost: 2 blood (D) Send a Toreador into torpor or burn a location that requires a Toreador. If this acting Nosferatu has a capacity above 5, this action is at +1 stealth. Artist: Mark Tedin
Name: Soul Gem of Etrius [Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R, Third:R, KoT:R] Cardtype: Equipment Unique equipment. If this vampire is burned, draw the top card from your crypt. If it is younger, put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to your ready region with blood from the blood bank equal to his or her capacity; otherwise, move that card to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Soul Gem. Artist: Jim Nelson; Pete Burges; Dave Roach
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> ... what happens when I voluntarily influence out a second copy of a vampire I already own ...
>
It's not like the first line of the current rule is answering that, is it not?
"You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time"
and "then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card"
But it can be am reading that part wrong.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> ... 25 years ..
>
The card is, yes, made in 2001, but the ruling, as you indicated, is from 2010.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> ... I recommend you make a suggestion topic and raise the issue for people to proofread the rulebook to see if they align with your viewpoint. ..
>
Before we get in that direction, I would like to have a new ruling update here.
I will not point out that the current rulebook is the same as in 94, and it was not corrected at any point from then to today.
Regarding the use of The, Summoning, and other cards, I was referring to the recruitment of a copy of a unique ally, if I must quote myself:
"That will put an unique ally in play that is in your control already"
As the flow goes, I play the summoning, find a copy, and that is the only ally I find; thus, it (the ally) can't be played. This would fail The Summoning like there was no ally in the deck.
Thus, a clear change in the rulebook covers that case.
Regarding wording "action to bring a vampire in to play", I would like to call BS on this, as I have not seen this used in any card text (excluding Summoning History) and the rulebook in any shape or form, thus making this ruling from 2010 moot in today's game.
There is no added ruling on Hatchling, Embrace, Becoming, ... to refer to this "action to bring a vampire in to play", not sure how it came to be, was there some new ruling in the works, but for now, let's put it under the old ruling, and do what we can, and update the rulebook to cover the case better, so any new player can refer to the rulebook.
Its morning and theres a wall of text to read. I didnt read it all, but I generally agree with Mipopo3 here. The action card "call the great beast" is not unique. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't be able to perform call the great beast action as per game rules. The "You cannot attempt what you cannot do" does not qualify here because you can actually do the action. The action is not an action to put a vampire directly into play, but instead it would do it in the form of a delayed trigger. This shouldn't count as an action to put a vampire into play. The trigger is completely separate.
Also, the way I would interpret this (obviously Im not a judge), is that you could perform the action even if it resulted in 11 counters on the card, but call the great beast simply couldn't transform into Great beast, because its unique and there is already one in play. The card would just sit there with the counters until it would no longer contest. That's how I would do it in a way that also satisfied all the rules.
ps. for simplicity, the card should read "This card becomes... named great beast". That it would change its name would further implicate that the action and the vampire are two separate things.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> mipopo3 wrote:
> ...
>
> Regarding wording "action to bring a vampire in to play", I would like to call BS on this, as I have not seen this used in any card text (excluding Summoning History) and the rulebook in any shape or form, thus making this ruling from 2010 moot in today's game. ...
>
Except it is not moot is it not, we have
> Ankha wrote:
> ...
> BTW, all LSJ/Floppy rulings are valid, unless there's a more recent official ruling saying otherwise. I'm not sure why we would need a further confirmation.
>
There are no recent official rulings saying it is no longer valid. You can see the first Ankha reply on this topic has not been changed or edited. The 2010 ruling stands until it no longer does thanks to it receiving a REVERSAL. That won't happen by arguing in a rules question thread.
Just because you did not realize what making a vampire action is, does not mean it's not a thing that's been in the game ever since you could make vampires with actions. The Whole sterile mechanic is dependent on being restrictive over that action type. groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/3jinbBVvqIE/m/9QaMi2N1VeoJ
>
> Call the Great Beast is doable. But the Sterile vampire cannot take the
> final action that would make a vampire, so it's kinda pointless.
> (Which keeps the ickyness of the prohibition on 11-cap steriles).
>
www.vekn.net/rulebook
>
> Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot perform actions to put other vampires in play.
>
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> www.vekn.net/rulebook
> >
> > Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot perform actions to put other vampires in play.
> >
Thanks for making my case for me.
All other cards regarding sterile vampires were updated, to contain "Requires a non-sterile".
And "actions to put other vampires in play" is only there as a reminder, not any real explanation, what i was referring to. That there is no explanation for what is an action to put a vampire in play is.
In this regard, Summoning History on superior cant be played by sterile vampire!?
Warning: Spoiler!
Search your crypt (shuffle afterward) and/or ash heap for a non-scarce vampire card with capacity X or less and put that vampire in play (with no blood).
This is a clear case on text update for Call the Great Beast in needed.
Like i mentioned, it was a rule that was not finished, or it was reworded and lost. Thus it need a ruling update and as we can see, card text update.
> mipopo3 wrote:
>
> > Kilrauko wrote:
> > www.vekn.net/rulebook
> > >
> > > Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot perform actions to put other vampires in play.
> > >
> > >
> >
> Thanks for making my case for me.
>
> All other cards regarding sterile vampires were updated, to contain "Requires a non-sterile".
> And "actions to put other vampires in play" is only there as a reminder, not any real explanation, what i was referring to. That there is no explanation for what is an action to put a vampire in play is.
> In this regard, Summoning History on superior cant be played by sterile vampire!?
>
> Warning: Spoiler!
>
> Search your crypt (shuffle afterward) and/or ash heap for a non-scarce vampire card with capacity X or less and put that vampire in play (with no blood).
>
> This is a clear case on text update for Call the Great Beast in needed.
>
> Like i mentioned, it was a rule that was not finished, or it was reworded and lost. Thus it need a ruling update and as we can see, card text update.
>
What case?
Me and Raw Recruit, that is literally in the all important *context*, along others stare in awe on how inability to read somehow results in me making some case for you? You're clearly not familiar with Undue influence and I wonder how you can imagine cards like The Portrait if you're unable to grasp how same action can have multiple outcomes and depending what their outcome is and when it is known in turn are used to determine what that action is and if it happens or can be attempted at all.
No matter how hard you try you cannot equate Summon history with it's search to this situation. How many "search" words are there in Call the Great Beast? See my first reply for the cardtext. Just because something happens first time for you and you have not heard it before does not mean it warrants rule and card text changes. Like I said earlier, this has quarter century behind it, it's been put to POD and received a checkup before that. Same with Undue Influence. Same with many other cards with rulings. It's how this Chain of Command works.
Name: Raw Recruit [HttB:R/A2] Cardtype: Action Clan: Gargoyle +1 stealth action. Requires a slave. (D) Put this card in play and move a vampire in torpor to this card, face up and out of play. A vampire you control to whom this Gargoyle is enslaved can remove that vampire from the game as a +1 stealth action to turn this card into a Gargoyle with the same capacity, Fortitude [for], Potence [pot], Visceratika [vis] and flight [FLIGHT], enslaved to the acting vampire's clan and of the same sect as this Gargoyle. Artist: Jim Pavelec
Name: Undue Influence [KMW:C, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Chimerstry/Presence/Quietus +1 stealth action. Requires an Anarch. Choose a vampire in your uncontrolled region. [chi] (D) Move 1 blood from a crypt card in any uncontrolled region to the chosen vampire. [pre] (D) Bleed. If the bleed is successful, add 1 blood to the chosen vampire. [qui] Add 1 blood to the chosen vampire. If the amount of blood equals or exceeds their capacity, move them to your ready region. Artist: Alexander Dunnigan
Name: The Portrait [AH:R2, CE:R] Cardtype: Action Clan: Toreador Cost: 1 blood (D) Show the top card of your prey's crypt to all players. If it is a Nosferatu, this vampire burns 2 blood. If its cost is below 7, this vampire gains 2 blood (ignore excess blood); if it is from 7 to 10, this vampire unlocks and bleeds your prey with +1 bleed as a +1 stealth (D) action; if it is above 10, this vampire burns 1 blood. Artist: Pete Venters
Name: Chain of Command [Gehenna:C, KoT:C] Cardtype: Action Cost: X blood Discipline: Dominate +1 stealth action. [dom] Put X younger vampires from your uncontrolled region in play with 1 blood from the blood bank each (and with any blood they already have). You cannot choose any unique vampires already in play. Those vampires must bleed. When one of them bleeds successfully, or when all that can bleed have, move them all to the bottom of your crypt. [DOM] As above, but move X+1 younger vampires. Artist: Joel Biske
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> ... this has quarter century behind it ...
>
So did Pentex(TM) Subversion, and we all can see how it ended up.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> ... you cannot equate Summon history ...
>
Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot perform actions to put other vampires in play.
Summoning History on superior (a bit shorter wording, but no change in location)
Search your crypt/ash heap for a vampire card and put that vampire in play.
I don't get it?
Name: Raw Recruit [HttB:R/A2] Cardtype: Action Clan: Gargoyle +1 stealth action. Requires a slave. (D) Put this card in play and move a vampire in torpor to this card, face up and out of play. A vampire you control to whom this Gargoyle is enslaved can remove that vampire from the game as a +1 stealth action to turn this card into a Gargoyle with the same capacity, Fortitude [for], Potence [pot], Visceratika [vis] and flight [FLIGHT], enslaved to the acting vampire's clan and of the same sect as this Gargoyle.
Can't seem to find "actions to put other vampires in play" in here, wordin is, put this card, then move the existing vampire, then this card is transformed into a Gargoyle, and if you tell me that it's under the same sterile ruling, where a sterile vampire can't play this card, it's not a good look for you. In terms of what I would like to submit this card for rewording.
At the end of the day, as much as I do like to continue this back and forth, we still need to address the Call the Great Beast with new text
Warning: Spoiler!
+1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile Baali.
Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali, and choose three superior level Disciplines for this vampire; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, put 9 blood on this card, this vampire can enter combat with a minion as a Ⓓ action and can prevent 1 damage each combat.
And
"You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily play a card that would trigger a contest with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)." added in the rulebook
> mipopo3 wrote:
> ...
>
> I don't get it?
>
> ....
>
That much is obvious, allow me try to spell it out for you as much as I'm able given the limited time.
You are methusaleh A at 15 pool, your only vampire in play is 11 cap anarch Call the Great Beast who has chosen superior Presence, Temporis and Quietus. They have five blood on them. In addition your prey Methusaleh B has played Barrenness at Maleficia level on your controlled Call the Great Beast, they have no minions in play and are at 25 pool. You have played four master disciplines on your controlled Call the Great Beast, they are 2 Obfuscate, 2 Dementation. In your uncontrolled region is vampire banished by methuselah C.That vampire is Call the Great beast with superior presence, temporis and quietus chosen but without the disciplines played on them and they have 8 blood on them. Your crypt is empty as all the other vampires you had have been Graverobbed across the table to methuselah D who has then played The Name Forgotten equally on them and used one to diablerize another resulting in your crypt becoming empty. In your ash heap you have 4 Call the Great Beasts and other cards there have been burned away by Trochomancy by your predator methuselah E who has attempted to bleed you but can no longer do that due to having no minions.
1) You have Summon history in your hand, you decide to play it at superior at 0 blood, what happens? You complete the action successfully and search for 0 capacity vampire but as there is no targets you can find, you can not put vampire to play.
2) You have Undue Influence in your hand, you decide to play it at quietus, what happens?
You are trying to put vampire into play with sterile vampire. Despite your arguments how Sterile is just a word on Barrenness and it does not say anything about not being able to put vampire into play judge rules you are cheating as you have been in argument over it at VEKN forum, clearly know the rules and are deliberately mispotraying the rules, you get 163. Cheating - Fraud and disqualification without Prize as there should be zero tolerance for this type of activity.
3) You have Call the Great Beast at hand, you decide to play it, what happens?
You are trying to put vampire into play that self contests. Despite your arguments how you are not putting vampire into play judge rules you are cheating as you have been in argument over it at VEKN forum, clearly know the rules and are deliberately mispotraying the rules, you get 163. Cheating - Fraud and disqualification without Prize as there should be zero tolerance for this type of activity.
4) You have Undue Influence in your hand, you decide to play it at presence, what happens? You bleed successfully and add 1 blood to the chosen vampire.
Compare the end results and you might see how they are not similar and in fact different. You can also see why it's important that rules questions are not left with what if or mayhaps answers as their consequences to new players during tournament play might be quite harsh, hence Ankha has not changed their first reply to the question and if there is a change, it will be clearly marked and announced.
Feel free to ponder the difference of the above scenario if there was no Barrenness on your vampire and if the vampire in your uncontrolled region was instead Annazir at 8 blood that escaped the Name Forgotten due to being only copy you own.
How would Undue Influence work at quietus?
How would Call the Great Beast?
Notice the difference and what is the limiting factor. Now take the discipline cards away but change the Banished vampire back to Call the Great Beast at 8 blood.
How would Undue Influence work at quietus?
How would Call the Great Beast when the calling vampire is at 9 capacity?
Notice what actions put vampires into play, when and how.
Please read this reply carefully, use proxy cards to play it out if you have hard time following what is happening in the example. Read the card texts, as there are multiples I have put them behind spoiler this time, they are paramount to understanding this. Do not attempt to shorten them, change their locations or invent your own layouts while going through the scenario outlines as this is not suggestions thread, but a rules question thread that deals with the game as it is now.
Warning: Spoiler!
Name: Call the Great Beast [BL:R1, KMW:PB, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Action Clan: Baali Cost: 1 blood +1 stealth action. Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali and choose three Disciplines; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, the chosen three Disciplines at the superior level and 9 blood who can enter combat with a minion as a (D) action and can prevent 1 damage each combat. Artist: Fred Hooper
Name: Barrenness [HttB:R] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Maleficia Burn Option +1 stealth action. [mal] (D) Put this card on a vampire and unlock this acting vampire. This vampire is sterile and his or her capacity decreases by 2 (to a minimum of 1.) [mal] is not a Discipline. [MAL] (D) Burn a vampire whose capacity is 1. Artist: Veronica Jones
Name: Maleficia [HttB:C] Cardtype: Master Master: trifle. Put this card on an infernal vampire. This vampire may play cards that require Maleficia [mal] (not a Discipline). With two of these cards, he or she may play cards that require superior Maleficia [MAL]. Burn this card if this vampire is not infernal. Artist: Aaron Acevedo
www.vekn.net/rulebook
>
> Sterile: Sterile vampires cannot perform actions to put other vampires in play.
>
Name: Obfuscate [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:C, FN:PS, CE:C, KMW:PB, Third:PM/SKM1, KoT:PM2, NB2:PMi1] Cardtype: Master Discipline. Put this card on a vampire. This vampire gets +1 level of Obfuscate [obf] and +1 capacity. Cannot be put on a vampire with superior Obfuscate [OBF]. Artist: Lawrence Snelly; John Bridges
Name: Dementation [Sabbat:C, SW:C, CE:C/PM2, Third:PM/SKM1, KoT:PM, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Master Discipline. Put this card on a vampire. This vampire gets +1 level of Dementation [dem] and +1 capacity. Cannot be put on a vampire with superior Dementation [DEM]. Artist: Alan Rabinowitz; Brian LeBlanc
Name: Graverobbing AKA: Grave Robbing [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U/PTr, KMW:PAl, Third:PTr, LotN:PG, KoT:U, HttB:PSal, NB3:PL1, SV5:PDeath2] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Dominate [dom] (D) Steal a vampire in torpor controlled by another Methuselah. [DOM] As above, and this acting vampire can burn 2 blood to move the stolen vampire to your ready region. Artist: Edward Beard, Jr.; Mike Danza
Name: The Name Forgotten [KMW:R] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Thaumaturgy [tha] (D) Put this card on a ready unique vampire. If the vampire with this card is burned, he or she is removed from the game instead, and all Methuselahs remove all other vampires with the same name in their crypts, uncontrolled regions and ash heaps from the game as well (shuffle all crypts afterward). [THA] As above, but this action is at +1 stealth. Artist: John Bridges
Name: Trochomancy [LotN:C, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Action Modifier Discipline: Auspex & Necromancy Only usable during a bleed action. [nec] Remove thirteen cards in the target Methuselah's ash heap from the game to get +1 bleed (limited). [aus][nec] As [nec] above, but remove only seven cards. [AUS][NEC] As [aus][nec] above, but for +2 bleed (limited). Artist: Imaginary Friends Studios
Name: Summon History [HttB:R, Anthology:3, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Action Cost: X blood Discipline: Temporis [tem] Search your library (shuffle afterward) and/or ash heap for an ally, retainer or equipment card costing X or fewer blood or pool and put that card in play, on this vampire and with life equal to its starting life if applicable. [TEM] Search your crypt (shuffle afterward) and/or ash heap for a non-scarce vampire card with capacity X or less and put that vampire in play (with no blood). Artist: Andrew Hepworth
Name: Undue Influence [KMW:C, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Action Discipline: Chimerstry/Presence/Quietus +1 stealth action. Requires an Anarch. Choose a vampire in your uncontrolled region. [chi] (D) Move 1 blood from a crypt card in any uncontrolled region to the chosen vampire. [pre] (D) Bleed. If the bleed is successful, add 1 blood to the chosen vampire. [qui] Add 1 blood to the chosen vampire. If the amount of blood equals or exceeds their capacity, move them to your ready region. Artist: Alexander Dunnigan
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/TTTcFJZ_lXo/m/nMQq7DhyQvsJ
>
> LSJ
> Nov 5, 2009, 3:19:50 PM
> to
> Morgan Vening wrote:
> > What if Jibade goes Into the Fire, is given a Quietus Skill card. Does
> > he gain stealth for Undue Influence?
>
> Only if that Undue Influence action will put a vampire into play.
>
www.vekn.net/judges-guide
>
> 163. Cheating - Fraud
>
> Definition:
>
> A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information.
>
> Example:
>
> A player uses a fake name and V:EKN number when registering for a tournament.
>
> Philosophy:
>
> There should be zero tolerance for this type of activity.
>
> Penalty:
>
> Disqualification without Prize.
>
Name: Annazir [HttB:U/A2, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Baali Group: 5 Capacity: 9 Discipline: DAI OBF POT PRE Independent. 2 votes (titled): Annazir can burn a location or steal an equipment as a (D) action. Infernal. +1 bleed. Artist: Nicolas Bigot
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> mipopo3 wrote:
> At the end of the day, as much as I do like to continue this back and forth, we still need to address the Call the Great Beast with new text
>
> Warning: Spoiler!
>
> +1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile Baali.
> Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali, and choose three superior level Disciplines for this vampire; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, put 9 blood on this card, this vampire can enter combat with a minion as a Ⓓ action and can prevent 1 damage each combat.
>
> And
>
> "You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily play a card that would trigger a contest with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)." added in the rulebook
>
Ankha, what is the final ruling on this?
> mipopo3 wrote:
>
> > mipopo3 wrote:
> > At the end of the day, as much as I do like to continue this back and forth, we still need to address the Call the Great Beast with new text
> >
> > Warning: Spoiler!
> >
> > +1 stealth action. Requires a non-sterile Baali.
> > Put this card with X ritual counters on this Baali, where X is this Baali's capacity. This Baali can put 1 ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. If this card has 11 or more ritual counters, move this card to your ready region, burn this Baali, and choose three superior level Disciplines for this vampire; this card becomes a 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire with 4 strength, 3 bleed, put 9 blood on this card, this vampire can enter combat with a minion as a Ⓓ action and can prevent 1 damage each combat.
> >
> > And
> >
> > "You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily play a card that would trigger a contest with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card)." added in the rulebook
> >
> Ankha, what is the final ruling on this?
>
Ruling hasn't changed, it's given here: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/83053-call-of-the-great-beast-and-self-contest?start=0#117261
"you cannot voluntarily contest cards with yourself" (rulebook) already covers this case. Nergal is 11-cap, so taking the CtGB action will result in putting in play a unique vampire you already control, which is forbidden.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> ... "you cannot voluntarily contest cards with yourself" (rulebook) already covers this case. ....
>
The wording is vague; it needs to be updated, as we can see from this original question.
(edit) I have had this question regarding how you can't contest yourself put to me a couple of times, as it's not translating well. (edit)
What is the ruling regarding the card update to match the existing ruling for sterile vampires?
I know this is not gonna change anything. But at least once (maybe more) I have had LSJ rule the oppersit. As the action is to put a card into play and the card is not unique. What happens after that point the card do not know.
Same as 'back in the days' I could govern down on a vampire I already had in play. Even the action would cause a self contest later in the influence phase.
> Jesper wrote:
> I know this is not gonna change anything. But at least once (maybe more) I have had LSJ rule the oppersit. As the action is to put a card into play and the card is not unique. What happens after that point the card do not know.
>
It is known when you play the card.
> Jesper wrote:
> Same as 'back in the days' I could govern down on a vampire I already had in play. Even the action would cause a self contest later in the influence phase.
>
The vampire wouldn't go out during the resolution of Govern the Unaligned, it isn't the same at all.
You couldn't play Undue Influence at [qui] that would cause self-contest.
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/-k869Xz4rj8/m/keDevivx8UMJ
About the old influence rules:
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/Tg9ur6DcuYs/m/WkhE45LNnZoJ
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director