Parmenides contesting Q
Joshua Duffin
You bring out Parmenides. By card text your predator gets control
of him until your next untap phase.
Your prey then brings out Parmenides. By card text you get control
of him until your prey's next untap phase, but he also becomes
contested.
Who's contesting Parmenides? I found a message [LSJ 22-Jun-2001]
that says this:
> Reyda wrote:
> > what happens when you transfer out two Parmenides during your influence
> > phase ? they go out simultaneously (illagal now) or one after another,
thus
> > making a contest with your predator ?
>
> You order them: Parmenides A comes out and goes to your predator. Parmenides
> B comes out, goes to your predator, and is burned.
>
> Or you bring them both out (buring the second).
The first part indicates to me that the control-transfer effect
precedes the becoming-contested effect (like with Jimmy Dunn, as
LSJ pointed out in a followup, although Parmenides' text, unlike
Jimmy Dunn's, doesn't specifically address contesting).
But I don't understand what the second part is saying. Is there
another option for how to handle this kind of situation available
to the person bringing out the copies of Parmenides?
The way it seems to me it should go, based on the above, is:
Your predator has Parmenides. Your prey brings out another copy
of Parmenides. You get your prey's copy and both become contested.
Your predator either pays to contest Parmenides or yields. If he
pays, do you still get that contested Parmenides back before your
next untap phase? If you don't get him back while he's contested,
will his cardtext returning control ever kick in?
Hmm. There are enough possible outcomes to iterate here (e.g. if
control *is* returned while still contested, you'd burn the incoming
copy that belonged originally to you, right? but if not, then you'd
get to choose whether or not to pay for your prey's copy...) that it
doesn't seem worthwhile to do so before finding out what really
happens there. LSJ? :-)
thanks,
Josh
LSJ
> What happens when:
>
> You bring out Parmenides. By card text your predator gets control
> of him until your next untap phase.
>
> Your prey then brings out Parmenides. By card text you get control
> of him until your prey's next untap phase, but he also becomes
> contested.
>
> Who's contesting Parmenides?
You "have" your Prey's Parm. Your predator "has" your Parm. So you and
your Predator "are" contesting him. Assuming your Predator pays the
cost to contest (why would she? I don't know), the contest continues...
Until your next untap phase, when your Parm comes back to you and is
burned (contesting with yourself isn't possible, so the incoming copy
is burned).
This occurs before you have a chance to yield your prey's Parm., so,
when you actually get around to untapping your cards, Parm. (owned
by your prey) is no longer contested and is turned face up again, ready
to take actions on your turn (and will go merrily back to your prey
after your turn).
> I found a message [LSJ 22-Jun-2001]
> that says this:
>
>>Reyda wrote:
>>>what happens when you transfer out two Parmenides during your influence
>>>phase ? they go out simultaneously (illagal now) or one after another, thus
>>>making a contest with your predator ?
>>
>>You order them: Parmenides A comes out and goes to your predator. Parmenides
>>B comes out, goes to your predator, and is burned.
>>
>>Or you bring them both out (buring the second).
>
> The first part indicates to me that the control-transfer effect
> precedes the becoming-contested effect [...]
Correct.
> But I don't understand what the second part is saying. Is there
> another option for how to handle this kind of situation available
> to the person bringing out the copies of Parmenides?
There is when *both* copies are your own and you attempt to influence
them both out in the same influence phase, yes - you can choose to
burn-via-self-contesting prior to the shift to your Predator, or
you can shift them to your Predator and have the second one
burn-via-self-contested after the shift.
> The way it seems to me it should go, based on the above, is:
>
> Your predator has Parmenides. Your prey brings out another copy
> of Parmenides. You get your prey's copy and both become contested.
> Your predator either pays to contest Parmenides or yields.
> If he pays, do you still get that contested Parmenides back before your
> next untap phase?
Yes.
> If you don't get him back while he's contested,
> will his cardtext returning control ever kick in?
Moot.
> Hmm. There are enough possible outcomes to iterate here (e.g. if
> control *is* returned while still contested, you'd burn the incoming
> copy that belonged originally to you, right? but if not, then you'd
> get to choose whether or not to pay for your prey's copy...) that it
> doesn't seem worthwhile to do so before finding out what really
> happens there. LSJ? :-)
:-)
--
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/
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E64D028...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > What happens when:
> >
> > You bring out Parmenides. By card text your predator gets control
> > of him until your next untap phase.
> >
> > Your prey then brings out Parmenides. By card text you get control
> > of him until your prey's next untap phase, but he also becomes
> > contested.
> >
> > Who's contesting Parmenides?
>
> You "have" your Prey's Parm. Your predator "has" your Parm. So you and
> your Predator "are" contesting him. Assuming your Predator pays the
> cost to contest (why would she? I don't know), the contest continues...
Yeah, no reason for your predator to pay, if not paying yields the
same outcome. If the return-control text didn't apply while contested
(which would be another sensible possibility since contested cards
aren't controlled), it might be worthwhile to pay to make you either
pay for or yield the prey-owned Parm. Maybe.
> > But I don't understand what the second part is saying. Is there
> > another option for how to handle this kind of situation available
> > to the person bringing out the copies of Parmenides?
>
> There is when *both* copies are your own and you attempt to influence
> them both out in the same influence phase, yes - you can choose to
> burn-via-self-contesting prior to the shift to your Predator, or
> you can shift them to your Predator and have the second one
> burn-via-self-contested after the shift.
I'm not clear on this. Why can you order "burn because they become
contested" in front of "control shifts" if they're both coming out
on your turn, but not if there's one in play already and a new one
is coming out on your turn? It seems like if applying the card text
control-shift effect vs applying the rules become-contested effect
can be ordered as the active player chooses, the active player could
still choose even if only one Parmenides of her own is involved.
thanks again,
Josh
Sascha Neumayr
the second Parmenides triggers. This makes sense, since if it wouldn't
trigger, the text on Jimmy Dunn would be useless as well.
Hmm...
Since a contested card is considered out of game, woudn't the
come-into-play-effect trigger again once the contest is over and the
remaining copy of Parmenides comes into play again?
What happens if, say, Jan Pieterzoon is in play and a player plays a second
copy? Do all affected players discard an additional card before both
Pieterzoons leave play?
Best regards,
Sascha Neumayr,
Prince of Wels
James Coupe
Sascha Neumayr <sascha....@gmx.net> writes:
>So although one copy of Parmenides in in play, the come-into-play-effect of
>the second Parmenides triggers. This makes sense, since if it wouldn't
>trigger, the text on Jimmy Dunn would be useless as well.
Sure.
>Hmm...
>
>Since a contested card is considered out of game, woudn't the
>come-into-play-effect trigger again once the contest is over and the
>remaining copy of Parmenides comes into play again?
Yes, but...
When you move Parmenides from your uncontrolled region to your
ready region
Parmenides isn't in the uncontrolled region during contestation. So he
never moves from there back to the ready region.
>What happens if, say, Jan Pieterzoon is in play and a player plays a second
>copy? Do all affected players discard an additional card before both
>Pieterzoons leave play?
According to [4.1]:
If an additional copy of an already-contested card is brought
into play, it is immediately contested and turned face down as
well.
i.e. it does come into play, briefly. This would also tally with the
Parmenides ruling.
I think, briefly, everyone would have their hand-size reduced by 1
(again), followed by both going out of play - so your hand sizes go back
up.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
James Coupe
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> You "have" your Prey's Parm. Your predator "has" your Parm. So you and
>> your Predator "are" contesting him. Assuming your Predator pays the
>> cost to contest (why would she? I don't know), the contest continues...
>
>Yeah, no reason for your predator to pay, if not paying yields the
>same outcome.
The same reason everyone else might pay pool: Parity Shift. :)
LSJ
>>>But I don't understand what the second part is saying. Is there
>>>another option for how to handle this kind of situation available
>>>to the person bringing out the copies of Parmenides?
>>
>>There is when *both* copies are your own and you attempt to influence
>>them both out in the same influence phase, yes - you can choose to
>>burn-via-self-contesting prior to the shift to your Predator, or
>>you can shift them to your Predator and have the second one
>>burn-via-self-contested after the shift.
>
> I'm not clear on this. Why can you order "burn because they become
> contested" in front of "control shifts" if they're both coming out
> on your turn, but not if there's one in play already and a new one
> is coming out on your turn?
?
If *you* already have one in play and *you* get another one, then
the incoming copy is burned. No contesting.
If someone else already has a copy, then whatever. Contest and shift
or shift and contest. It doesn't matter. The result is the same.
> It seems like if applying the card text
> control-shift effect vs applying the rules become-contested effect
> can be ordered as the active player chooses, the active player could
> still choose even if only one Parmenides of her own is involved.
Whenever you get a second copy of a unique card you already control
(or are contesting), the incoming copy is burned. You don't get to
tap it or activate its special before it is burned.
If you like, this can lead to the shift above always occurring after
the contesting. But it doesn't produce any different results, that
I can see.
LSJ
> Sascha Neumayr <sascha....@gmx.net> writes:
>>What happens if, say, Jan Pieterzoon is in play and a player plays a second
>>copy? Do all affected players discard an additional card before both
>>Pieterzoons leave play?
>
>
> According to [4.1]:
>
> If an additional copy of an already-contested card is brought
> into play, it is immediately contested and turned face down as
> well.
>
> i.e. it does come into play, briefly. This would also tally with the
> Parmenides ruling.
>
> I think, briefly, everyone would have their hand-size reduced by 1
> (again), followed by both going out of play - so your hand sizes go back
> up.
I'm inclined to follow the other "burn as it is played" effects (Sudden
Reversal, et al.) and say that self-contesting burns the incoming card
as it is played (or as it is incoming). For the usual, "as it is played"
variations (e.g., not when retrieving a contested Parmenides from your
Predator when you have a second one from your Prey), the card that
was being played is burned with no effect.
Seems simpler and more intuitive than the alternative. I'll put this
on the RT list for review.
Joshua Duffin
> >>There is when *both* copies are your own and you attempt to influence
> >>them both out in the same influence phase, yes - you can choose to
> >>burn-via-self-contesting prior to the shift to your Predator, or
> >>you can shift them to your Predator and have the second one
> >>burn-via-self-contested after the shift.
> >
> > I'm not clear on this. Why can you order "burn because they become
> > contested" in front of "control shifts" if they're both coming out
> > on your turn, but not if there's one in play already and a new one
> > is coming out on your turn?
>
> ?
> If *you* already have one in play and *you* get another one, then
> the incoming copy is burned. No contesting.
Still confused.
If you had two uncontrolled Parmenides and are bringing them out in
the same influence phase, you have to decide which one comes into
play first, don't you? At least, that's what I took away from the
"order Scarce vampires coming into play" discussion, e.g. in
[LSJ 09-Apr-2002].
Shouldn't the first Parmenides come into play and immediately go
to your predator? Then, the second Parmenides comes into play,
and immediately goes to your predator, then becomes contested,
then gets burned? Basically I don't see why there's a choice
involved even if you're bringing out both copies of Parmenides
"near-simultaneously", if the rule is, as I think you're saying,
that the control shift happens (in the normal case where another
Meth controls the original Parm) before Parmenides would become
contested.
If you're saying that the "burn a self-contesting card" rule
can be ordered ahead of "transfer Parmenides' control", then I
think I see what you're getting at, but I didn't think that's
the situation we were talking about. Anyway - "burn a card
that would contest with yourself" takes the place of "the card
becomes contested", right? So you're saying that if you had
a Parm already under your control, from a previous turn (or
from having one that's owned by your prey, doesn't matter) and
you influence out a new one, the new one burns (or you can
choose to burn it?) instead of getting transferred to your
predator.
But I don't get why you can order "burn instead of contesting"
before "transfer control" (when you had a Parm in play and
bring out a new one) but couldn't order "becomes contested"
ahead of "transfer control" (when someone else had a Parm in
play and you bring one out), to preempt the "transfer control"
effect and keep it from happening at all (since contested
cards are out of play, his text wouldn't apply). It seems to
me like either effect that takes place when a second copy of
a unique card comes into play should have the same timing.
> If someone else already has a copy, then whatever. Contest and shift
> or shift and contest. It doesn't matter. The result is the same.
Well, the result's the same if you assume that the shift effect
can take place after Parm becomes contested (ie it wouldn't be
avoided by the fact that he and all his text is out of play once
he becomes contested). It's not real obvious to me that this
should be possible; the rulebook only says that contested cards
are out of play.
> > It seems like if applying the card text
> > control-shift effect vs applying the rules become-contested effect
> > can be ordered as the active player chooses, the active player could
> > still choose even if only one Parmenides of her own is involved.
>
> Whenever you get a second copy of a unique card you already control
> (or are contesting), the incoming copy is burned. You don't get to
> tap it or activate its special before it is burned.
OK... this sounds like you're saying that an influenced-out Parm
that would contest with the one you already have will always burn;
you can't choose to transfer control first and let your predator
have him, contested?
> If you like, this can lead to the shift above always occurring after
> the contesting. But it doesn't produce any different results, that
> I can see.
I think my brain may melt. :-)
Josh
they gave me head-explody!
LSJ
> I think my brain may melt. :-)
I was in the process of composing an answer to your post when I came across
a ruling from RTR 01-MAY-2000:
QUOTE:
In a similar vein, leaving play (via Contesting, Banishement, or
whatever) is ruled/errata'ed to break any lingering *temporary*
change-of-control effects (like Mind Rape, Malkavian Dementia, and
Temptation), but not any permanent change-of-control effects (like
Grave Robbing and Corruption).
END QUOTE.
Which renders much of this thread moot.
When Parmenides is contested, he is contested by his two permanent
controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
one not currently controlled by her is burned).
(Reverses the earlier ruling about contesting-shifting)
That should keep your brain on ice for a while. :-)
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes:
[switched order]
>Seems simpler and more intuitive than the alternative. I'll put this
>on the RT list for review.
Noted, but I'll make a point or two anyway.
>I'm inclined to follow the other "burn as it is played" effects (Sudden
>Reversal, et al.) and say that self-contesting burns the incoming card
>as it is played (or as it is incoming). For the usual, "as it is
>played"
>variations (e.g., not when retrieving a contested Parmenides from your
>Predator when you have a second one from your Prey), the card that
>was being played is burned with no effect.
I'm not sure that would entirely deal with the question being posed.
[Aside: Though the idea of incoming being burned before arriving makes a
certain amount of sense. If they *did* arrive, from the
uncontrolled region, say, you'd have to contest them. So having
it burn immediately makes sense. In the interests of
conformity, having this happen before 'arrival' for self-
contestation makes sense.]
Assuming you and I are playing against each other. You control Jan
Pieterzoon. I decide to bring out *my* copy, because I think that'll be
good for me - maybe your copy has a praxis seizure and I want to disrupt
your vote lock.
So, ignoring self-contesting, does *my* Jan Pieterzoon screw up our hand
sizes as well, before going into contestation? Or does he just turn up
into the playing area, already contested?
My reading of:
"If more than one copy of a unique card is brought into play,
that means control of the card is being contested."
suggests that Jan *is* brought into play. And *then* contested.
Joshua Duffin
[snip]
> Which renders much of this thread moot.
I like it when great confusingness becomes moot.
> When Parmenides is contested, he is contested by his two permanent
> controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
> one not currently controlled by her is burned).
>
> (Reverses the earlier ruling about contesting-shifting)
>
> That should keep your brain on ice for a while. :-)
Oh yes, I feel better already. :-)
Josh
i think i'll go for a walk...
Kevin M.
>
> When Parmenides is contested, he is contested by his two permanent
> controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
> one not currently controlled by her is burned).
I assume that your contested Parmenides will sit there, contested and
useless, in your Predator's play area, for his entire turn, and you will
decide to pay (i.e. continue to contest w/your Prey) during *your* Untap
phase, as per [4.1]?
> 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/
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
The Horror
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:S3nhRK3c...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3E6502C3...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> My reading of:
>
> "If more than one copy of a unique card is brought into play,
> that means control of the card is being contested."
>
> suggests that Jan *is* brought into play. And *then* contested.
>
What happens if a copy of Visit from Capuchin is contested. Does the second
person putting out the Visit draw four cards, then immediately discard them
for contesting? Or does that person never draw the four cards and go
straight into contesting?
Thalles
The Horror
For example, can you play another of the same hunting ground, contest them
both and relent the incoming copy?
Thalles
Halcyan 2
>For example, can you play another of the same hunting ground, contest them
>both and relent the incoming copy?
No you cannot. You cannot intentionally contest with yourself by playing a
card. (With vampires it's different since an effect such as moving from to the
ready region at the end of your influence phase is causing this).
So no, you cannot contest your own Hunting Ground (in order to cycle or lose
pool for a Parity Shift).
Halcyan 2
Kevin M.
"The Horror" <tdem...@anhb.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:b43t7k$tdk$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
Try reading the rulebook. You'll find that most of your questions are
answered in there. I know that everyone will make fun of you because
you *actually* read the rules, but it really helps. ;)
[4.1] Contested Cards
"Be careful about putting duplicates of the same unique cards in your
deck. You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a
time, and you cannot contest cards with yourself..."
>
> Thalles
LSJ
The latter.
Similarly: If you play a second Elder Library to contest mine, you don't
draw up and then discard when the Library becomes contested - it is simply
contested (and I discard down).
REVERSAL:
This contradicts a former ruling concerning contesting the High Museum of
Art, Atlanta. That ruling drew precedent from targeting a to-be-contested
Rack, which is slightly different (i.e., cards are completely declared
when played, regardless of the fact that they may not have any effect due
to contesting or being Suddened or whatever). [LSJ 15-NOV-2000] Consider
this a reversal of that ruling.
> My reading of:
>
> "If more than one copy of a unique card is brought into play,
> that means control of the card is being contested."
>
> suggests that Jan *is* brought into play. And *then* contested.
A parallel to the Sudden Reversal timing of "as that card is played"
suggests equally that, say, an Aggressive Tactics would have the same
effect. Or that a contested Elder Library would have the other controller
of the Elder Library discard and then draw back up with the second
Elder Library was Suddened.
But the current rulings are that the thing being burned as it is played
doesn't have that effect. That ruling base is being used as a precedent
to the parallel case of being contested as it is played (since both
result in the thing being put into play winding up out of play instead).
LSJ
> What happens if a copy of Visit from Capuchin is contested. Does the second
> person putting out the Visit draw four cards, then immediately discard them
> for contesting? Or does that person never draw the four cards and go
> straight into contesting?
The latter.
LSJ
>>controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
>>one not currently controlled by her is burned).
>
> I assume that your contested Parmenides will sit there, contested and
> useless, in your Predator's play area, for his entire turn, and you will
> decide to pay (i.e. continue to contest w/your Prey) during *your* Untap
> phase, as per [4.1]?
Abby brings out the first Parmenides (P1).
She passes control of him to her predator, Denise.
Then Abby's prey, Brigette, plays a second Parmenides (P2).
Contest.
P2 is contested by Brigette.
P1 is contested, so Denise's temporary control is broken.
P1 is contested by Abby.
If instead Abby tried to bring out two copies of Parmenides
in the same influence phase:
Abby brings out the first Parmenides (P1).
She passes control of him to her predator, Denise.
Abby brings out the second Parmenides (P2).
P2 is contested by Abby.
P1 is contested, so Denise's temporary control is broken.
P1 is contested by Abby.
Since self-contesting is not allowed, one of the two
Parmenides is burned. Since both are simultaneously
"incoming" to Abby, she chooses which is burned. She
keeps the other face up. Effectively paying 4 pool and
4 transfers and a crypt draw to overcome Parmenides'
special "shift control" effect.
--
Jozxyqk
> Abby brings out the first Parmenides (P1).
> She passes control of him to her predator, Denise.
> Then Abby's prey, Brigette, plays a second Parmenides (P2).
> Contest.
> P2 is contested by Brigette.
> P1 is contested, so Denise's temporary control is broken.
> P1 is contested by Abby.
Whoa, there are three female VTES players at the same table?!
What's this world coming to?
[ Sorry :) ]
Halcyan 2
Don't some of the ladies in the U.K. occasionally have a "girl's night out" for
VTES?
Halcyan 2
The Lasombra
wrote:
>Whoa, there are three female VTES players at the same table?!
>What's this world coming to?
>[ Sorry :) ]
It happened at the Total Con event on Friday of that weekend.
You'd have to get the names from Robyn Tatu or Todd Richter though as
the only one I knew was Robyn.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Jozxyqk
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:37:22 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
> wrote:
>>Whoa, there are three female VTES players at the same table?!
>>What's this world coming to?
>>[ Sorry :) ]
> It happened at the Total Con event on Friday of that weekend.
> You'd have to get the names from Robyn Tatu or Todd Richter though as
> the only one I knew was Robyn.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound obnoxious with my comment.
Just pointing out something you don't see every day.