[LSJ] Question on soul gem and copies of a ready vamp in the crypt
Nagaraja
I control two ready minions : Pochtli and let's say... The Baron. The Baron
is tapped, with only one blood on him. He's carrying the soul gem. I play
force of will with daring the dawn. The Baron dies in awful pain and the
soul gem activates.
The next vamp in the crypt is Pochtli. What happens ? Pochtli is 8 capacity,
the Baron is 9. So, the soul gem's effect should apply. But you can't
control two identical copies of a vamp.
1. Does the new Pochtli burn and I draw a new crypt card which would enter
play with the soul gem if its capacity is below the Baron's one ?
2. The same thing but with capacity inferior to Pochtli's one ?
3. Would the new vamp carry the soul gem ?
4. Or would nothing happen, the baron's dead, the new copy of Pochtli's dead
and my soul gem is in the ash heap ?
5. Something I haven't thought ?
Thanks in advance
Nagaraja
Ulugh Beg II
This one. Pochtli enters play with the Soul Gem. However, since he's now
contested and you're self-contesting, the incoming copy is burned.
At that point, the Soul Gem kicks in for your next Crypt card. The Gem
then checks for capacity lower than Pochtli's.
> 3. Would the new vamp carry the soul gem ?
Obviously, yes.
LSJ
> I control two ready minions : Pochtli and let's say... The Baron. The Baron
> is tapped, with only one blood on him. He's carrying the soul gem. I play
> force of will with daring the dawn. The Baron dies in awful pain and the
> soul gem activates.
>
> The next vamp in the crypt is Pochtli. What happens ? Pochtli is 8 capacity,
> the Baron is 9. So, the soul gem's effect should apply. But you can't
> control two identical copies of a vamp.
>
> 1. Does the new Pochtli burn and I draw a new crypt card which would enter
> play with the soul gem if its capacity is below the Baron's one ?
>
> 2. The same thing but with capacity inferior to Pochtli's one ?
This one. The incoming copy of Pochtli is burned (since you already control
him), activating the Soul Gem a second time.
> 3. Would the new vamp carry the soul gem ?
Yes, if younger than Pochtli.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Eric Simon
> Nagaraja wrote:
> > I control two ready minions : Pochtli and let's say... The Baron. The Baron
> > is tapped, with only one blood on him. He's carrying the soul gem. I play
> > force of will with daring the dawn. The Baron dies in awful pain and the
> > soul gem activates.
> >
> > The next vamp in the crypt is Pochtli. What happens ? Pochtli is 8 capacity,
> > the Baron is 9. So, the soul gem's effect should apply. But you can't
> > control two identical copies of a vamp.
> >
> > 1. Does the new Pochtli burn and I draw a new crypt card which would enter
> > play with the soul gem if its capacity is below the Baron's one ?
> >
> > 2. The same thing but with capacity inferior to Pochtli's one ?
>
> This one. The incoming copy of Pochtli is burned (since you already control
> him), activating the Soul Gem a second time.
>
> > 3. Would the new vamp carry the soul gem ?
>
> Yes, if younger than Pochtli.
This whole issue confuses me because of the following:
Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to being
contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being in
play is not activated prior to the contest. [RTR 20030519]
Combine with the rule against self-contesting (from 4.1):
You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and
you cannot 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).
I'll also re-quote Soul Gem text for reference:
Soul Gem of Etrius
Cardtype: Equipment
Unique equipment.
If the vampire with this equipment is burned, draw the top vampire
from your crypt. If that vampire 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 vampire
to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is
diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Soul Gem.
Isn't the "passing" of the Soul Gem from one vamp to another an effect
for being in play? Currently, I'm guessing it isn't exactly, because
we would put a Soul Gem on an incoming vampire even if that vampire
was being contested by another Methusaleh, right? But even so,
doesn't the self-contesting rule treat incoming vampires differently
(burning INSTEAD of contesting)? The way I read this it seems to me
that the incoming self-contested copy of Pochtli does not have a
chance to get the Soul Gem because it burns before it even comes into
play. (Essentially - and I know this is not necessarily a correct way
of viewing things, but it may be helpful - self-contested cards seem
to be considered "more" out of play than cards contested with other
Meths, because they don't even get to the point of being contested.)
So either the Soul Gem keeps looking for a legal vampire younger than
the one that just burned (The Baron), or the Soul Gem essentially
fails in its search and just goes away. Under current rules and card
text, I kind of think the former should be correct, but my game
balance bias really wants the latter to be true.
Ideally, what I would like to see is something like the following
statement added to the rules for self-contesting:
(My addition emphasized)
You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and
you cannot 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 AS IF YOU HAVE IMMEDIATELY YIELDED A CONTESTED
CARD).
By adding this simple phrase, we would apply the same sequence here as
we would if the Soul Gem brought out someone controlled by another
Methusaleh:
1. Soul Gem brings vampire out and goes on the vampire
2. Vampire is immediately flipped over, with Soul Gem, as it is now
contested
3. When the contested copy (with the Soul Gem) is burned, the Soul Gem
is also burned and not allowed to activate because it is considered
out of play
If we treat self-contesting as an immediate yield, this all happens at
once, and the Soul Gem simply goes away with the self-contested
vampire. Right now, the self-contest "chain" that is possible (though
somewhat unlikely) seems to be contrary to the purpose of the
self-contest rules.
I have a feeling this may be a larger discussion, but for the time
being I'll abide by whatever LSJ says on this, because I happen to
know it's going to be relevant for my Storyline this Sunday. So if
for now (or forever) we want to stick with the passing of the Soul Gem
down through decreasing capacities of self-contested vamps, I'll rule
that way. However, I personally would like to see some additional
clarification done on self-contesting.
Eric Simon
Prince of Chicago
Timlagor
> This whole issue confuses me because of the following:
>
> Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to being
> contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being in
> play is not activated prior to the contest. [RTR 20030519]
This would be better expressed as "incoming copies of cards already
being contested do not enter..." -at least that's what it means when I
read it and I think that was the intention when it was written. Thus
this RTR has no impact on the Soul Gem issue (unless you Soul Gem to a
Vamp you are already contesting with someone else).
This was discussed with reference to scarcity cost I think.
Here's my view on your argument:
The Soul Gem 'finds' a vampire the moment you turn it over from your
crypt -then it has to decide what to do with it. If younger you put the
SG on them *and then* move them to controlled region so they will have
the SG on them when they burn -SG doesn't say that the vampire with it
has to be in play ;P
I'm pretty sure LSJ has already said that you keep searching in the
'chain' fashion -can't see how it will upset anything myself.
LSJ
> This whole issue confuses me because of the following:
>
> Incoming copies of contested cards do not enter play prior to being
> contested. Any effect the new copy of the contested has for being in
> play is not activated prior to the contest. [RTR 20030519]
>
> Combine with the rule against self-contesting (from 4.1):
> You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and
> you cannot 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).
>
> I'll also re-quote Soul Gem text for reference:
> Soul Gem of Etrius
> Cardtype: Equipment
> Unique equipment.
> If the vampire with this equipment is burned, draw the top vampire
> from your crypt. If that vampire 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 vampire
> to your uncontrolled region (and burn the Soul Gem). If bearer is
> diablerized, the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Soul Gem.
>
> Isn't the "passing" of the Soul Gem from one vamp to another an effect
> for being in play? Currently, I'm guessing it isn't exactly, because
No. Card text: "put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to
your read region".
> we would put a Soul Gem on an incoming vampire even if that vampire
> was being contested by another Methusaleh, right? But even so,
> doesn't the self-contesting rule treat incoming vampires differently
> (burning INSTEAD of contesting)? The way I read this it seems to me
> that the incoming self-contested copy of Pochtli does not have a
> chance to get the Soul Gem because it burns before it even comes into
> play. (Essentially - and I know this is not necessarily a correct way
Soul Gem effect: grab top vampire from Crypt (Pochtli). Find that he
is younger than the vampire whose burning activated the Soul gem. Put
the Soul Gem on him and put him in your ready region.
Self-contesting rule changes that last sentence to: Put the Soul Gem on
him and burn him. (per the emphasized "INSTEAD" above).
> of viewing things, but it may be helpful - self-contested cards seem
> to be considered "more" out of play than cards contested with other
> Meths, because they don't even get to the point of being contested.)
> So either the Soul Gem keeps looking for a legal vampire younger than
> the one that just burned (The Baron), or the Soul Gem essentially
> fails in its search and just goes away. Under current rules and card
> text, I kind of think the former should be correct, but my game
> balance bias really wants the latter to be true.
The former could not possibly be correct - there is no mechanism anywhere
to supply a second draw from the Crypt for the Baron's burning. Card text
on Soul Gem: "draw the top vampire" (note the singular).
That latter would be supportable, but would be inconsistent with the
idea that, if another Methuselah controlled Pochtli, the incoming
Pochtli would be contested with the Soul Gem.
> Ideally, what I would like to see is something like the following
> statement added to the rules for self-contesting:
>
> (My addition emphasized)
> You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and
> you cannot 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 AS IF YOU HAVE IMMEDIATELY YIELDED A CONTESTED
> CARD).
>
> By adding this simple phrase, we would apply the same sequence here as
> we would if the Soul Gem brought out someone controlled by another
> Methusaleh:
> 1. Soul Gem brings vampire out and goes on the vampire
> 2. Vampire is immediately flipped over, with Soul Gem, as it is now
> contested
> 3. When the contested copy (with the Soul Gem) is burned, the Soul Gem
> is also burned and not allowed to activate because it is considered
> out of play
>
> If we treat self-contesting as an immediate yield, this all happens at
> once, and the Soul Gem simply goes away with the self-contested
> vampire. Right now, the self-contest "chain" that is possible (though
> somewhat unlikely) seems to be contrary to the purpose of the
> self-contest rules.
The self-contest rule's purpose is to avoid self-contesting, not to
simulate self-contesting and subsequent yielding.
> I have a feeling this may be a larger discussion, but for the time
> being I'll abide by whatever LSJ says on this, because I happen to
> know it's going to be relevant for my Storyline this Sunday. So if
> for now (or forever) we want to stick with the passing of the Soul Gem
> down through decreasing capacities of self-contested vamps, I'll rule
> that way. However, I personally would like to see some additional
> clarification done on self-contesting.
>
> Eric Simon
> Prince of Chicago
--
Eric Simon
> Eric Simon wrote:
> > Isn't the "passing" of the Soul Gem from one vamp to another an effect
> > for being in play? Currently, I'm guessing it isn't exactly, because
>
> No. Card text: "put the Soul Gem on him or her and move him or her to
> your read region".
I see that.
> > we would put a Soul Gem on an incoming vampire even if that vampire
> > was being contested by another Methusaleh, right? But even so,
> > doesn't the self-contesting rule treat incoming vampires differently
> > (burning INSTEAD of contesting)? The way I read this it seems to me
> > that the incoming self-contested copy of Pochtli does not have a
> > chance to get the Soul Gem because it burns before it even comes into
> > play. (Essentially - and I know this is not necessarily a correct way
>
> Soul Gem effect: grab top vampire from Crypt (Pochtli). Find that he
> is younger than the vampire whose burning activated the Soul gem. Put
> the Soul Gem on him and put him in your ready region.
>
> Self-contesting rule changes that last sentence to: Put the Soul Gem on
> him and burn him. (per the emphasized "INSTEAD" above).
I can see that as well. I'm just not sure this effect is desirable.
> > If we treat self-contesting as an immediate yield, this all happens at
> > once, and the Soul Gem simply goes away with the self-contested
> > vampire. Right now, the self-contest "chain" that is possible (though
> > somewhat unlikely) seems to be contrary to the purpose of the
> > self-contest rules.
>
> The self-contest rule's purpose is to avoid self-contesting, not to
> simulate self-contesting and subsequent yielding.
I understand this, but would the rule be necessary if there hadn't
been useful applications of self-contesting that bypass game
mechanics? (eg - yielding the copy of Arika with Fame and Haven
Uncovered on her) Self-contesting titles is perfectly legal, not only
because the contest is paid by vampires rather than the Methusaleh
(flavor reasons), but also because there aren't any applications of
doing so that would break or otherwise bypass game mechanics. It
seems to me that the spirit of the self-contest rule is to convince
the player that self-contesting is not at all useful, and yet here we
see a use for it. This is a quick way outside of conventional game
mechanics to potentially cycle multiple vampires into one's ash heap,
a resource that can then be accessed by several strategies. I'm not
saying it's easy to abuse this, but the burning of a card to avoid
self-contesting should not (in my opinion) be able to be considered a
useful strategy in any way.
Perhaps, as an alternative, self-contested cards could be "removed
from game" after being burned. If that were the case, I would
certainly mind much less that the Soul Gem was able to cascade down
like this. It would also eliminate other similar potential "uses" of
self-contesting.
So, I'll go with it for now, but that's where my complaint lies. I
hope it doesn't seem too unreasonable.
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F6A027A...@white-wolf.com>...
>>simulate self-contesting and subsequent yielding.
>
> I understand this, but would the rule be necessary if there hadn't
> been useful applications of self-contesting that bypass game
> mechanics? (eg - yielding the copy of Arika with Fame and Haven
Too far removed from reality for me to say.
> Uncovered on her) Self-contesting titles is perfectly legal, not only
Self-contesting titles is impossible.
A vampire (not a Methuselah) contests a title.
A vampire cannot self-contest a title - if he gains a new title that
would contest his current, the current is lost without being contested
as the new title is gained.
> because the contest is paid by vampires rather than the Methusaleh
> (flavor reasons), but also because there aren't any applications of
> doing so that would break or otherwise bypass game mechanics. It
> seems to me that the spirit of the self-contest rule is to convince
> the player that self-contesting is not at all useful, and yet here we
> see a use for it. This is a quick way outside of conventional game
> mechanics to potentially cycle multiple vampires into one's ash heap,
> a resource that can then be accessed by several strategies. I'm not
> saying it's easy to abuse this, but the burning of a card to avoid
> self-contesting should not (in my opinion) be able to be considered a
> useful strategy in any way.
Players are free to use any "disadvantage" to their favor if they can.
See Noal and Uriah.
I would be very surprised to see any "use" of the self-contesting rule
turn into abuse, but, as always, if it turns out that it is too strong
in V:EKN tournaments, tournament organizers should include notes to that
effect in their reports.
> Perhaps, as an alternative, self-contested cards could be "removed
> from game" after being burned. If that were the case, I would
> certainly mind much less that the Soul Gem was able to cascade down
> like this. It would also eliminate other similar potential "uses" of
> self-contesting.
If it were "remove from game", then Soul Gem would not cascade, since
it only triggers on "burn".