self contesting clarification please
stubby
NEW offical self contesting rules work?
is it:
meth has card on table ie information highway
the same meth has information highway in hand
next master phase, plays second infomation highway
what happens next?
a) first version of information highway is burned immediatley
b) second version of information highway is burned immediatley
c) both are played, both contest, next uptap phase he burns the first
of information highway and gets the second information highway without
paying any contest pool
d) both are played, both contest, next uptap phase he burns the second
of information highway and gets the second information highway without
paying any contest pool
e) option c or d but pays the contest pool
this might make a diifference with ToR3 or Slave auction etc but I am
counting on LSJ or Mr. Coupe to clarify .....
as usual many thanks ...
anam
Robert Goudie
news:3b5605d7...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> can someone is plan step by step english please explaint he way the
> NEW offical self contesting rules work?
>
> is it:
> meth has card on table ie information highway
> the same meth has information highway in hand
> next master phase, plays second infomation highway
The same Methuselah *may not play* the second info hwy.
> what happens next?
If some odd occurrance forces a player to contest their own card then option
b) below comes into play and the second copy is burned immediately.
> a) first version of information highway is burned immediatley
> b) second version of information highway is burned immediatley
> c) both are played, both contest, next uptap phase he burns the first
> of information highway and gets the second information highway without
> paying any contest pool
> d) both are played, both contest, next uptap phase he burns the second
> of information highway and gets the second information highway without
> paying any contest pool
> e) option c or d but pays the contest pool
-Robert
Robert Goudie
rob...@vtesinla.org
www.vtesinla.org
Gomi no Sensei
stubby <vt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>can someone is plan step by step english please explaint he way the
>NEW offical self contesting rules work?
Sure!
>is it:
>meth has card on table ie information highway
>the same meth has information highway in hand
>next master phase, plays second infomation highway
>
>what happens next?
Methuselah gets a Warning from the tourney judge for violating the
rules, as he/she couldn't legally play the second Information
Highway.
But that's not really what you want to know. You want to know what
happens if I have Information Highway and somehow acquire a second
copy involuntarily.
>a) first version of information highway is burned immediately
>b) second version of information highway is burned immediately
Depends on which one you control already. You keep the one you already
had, you burn the one you're just getting now.
gomi
--
Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray
What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby
James Coupe
<vt...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>can someone is plan step by step english please explaint he way the
>NEW offical self contesting rules work?
>
>is it:
>meth has card on table ie information highway
>the same meth has information highway in hand
>next master phase, plays second infomation highway
He can't. Rules change in Final Nights.
You are prohibited from voluntarily contesting with yourself. If it
happens by accident, you burn the incoming copy.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6
faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D
Sorrow
> meth has card on table ie information highway
> the same meth has information highway in hand
> next master phase, plays second infomation highway
> what happens next?
None of the above. You can't contest with yourself so
that means you cannot even put the second copy into
play. Ever. Period. Well, not so long as you still
control the first copy.
This was a retarded rules change, IMO. It completely
removed valid strategies from the game. You can no
longer bring out a second copy of a vampire if the first
copy had some detrimental effect placed on it (ie Blood-
Hunt <the action card>, Been Haven'd and is in torpor,
etc).
Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden
Halcyan 2
>that means you cannot even put the second copy into
>play. Ever. Period. Well, not so long as you still
>control the first copy.
>This was a retarded rules change, IMO. It completely
>removed valid strategies from the game. You can no
>longer bring out a second copy of a vampire if the first
>copy had some detrimental effect placed on it (ie Blood-
>Hunt <the action card>, Been Haven'd and is in torpor,
>etc).
In addition, this is also really bad for cards like Unique Masters (Depravity,
Infernal Pact, Art of Pain, etc.). You have to be careful which vampire to
place it on because once you use it, it's hard to get rid of. In the old days,
if you first placed it on Minion A you could eventually play another copy on
Minion B and eventually yield the first copy. But now, the only way you can
deal with this is to lose control of the minion (through burning or stealing)
or trade control of the master via Succubus Club...
Halcyan 2
LSJ
>In addition, this is also really bad for cards like Unique Masters
(Depravity,
>Infernal Pact, Art of Pain, etc.). You have to be careful which vampire to
>place it on because once you use it, it's hard to get rid of. In the old
days,
>if you first placed it on Minion A you could eventually play another copy on
>Minion B and eventually yield the first copy. But now, the only way you can
>deal with this is to lose control of the minion (through burning or stealing)
>or trade control of the master via Succubus Club...
Trading a master card on a minion via the Succubus Club won't move the
Master Card - it just changes control.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Halcyan 2
>(Depravity,
>>Infernal Pact, Art of Pain, etc.). You have to be careful which vampire to
>>place it on because once you use it, it's hard to get rid of. In the old
>days,
>>if you first placed it on Minion A you could eventually play another copy on
>>Minion B and eventually yield the first copy. But now, the only way you can
>>deal with this is to lose control of the minion (through burning or
>stealing)
>>or trade control of the master via Succubus Club...
>
>Trading a master card on a minion via the Succubus Club won't move the
>Master Card - it just changes control.
Sorry. I forgot to mention that after you trade the master card, you can *then*
play a new one (since you don't contest with yourself). And then your "friend"
across the table can be gracious enough to yield. That's what I meant though I
suppose it came out wrong. Sorry 'bout the confusion. I guess one's mind is
always faster than one's fingers at the keyboard...
Halcyan 2
LSJ
> This was a retarded rules change, IMO. It completely
> removed valid strategies from the game. You can no
> longer bring out a second copy of a vampire if the first
> copy had some detrimental effect placed on it (ie Blood-
> Hunt <the action card>, Been Haven'd and is in torpor,
> etc).
Most rules changes alter the tactics that are legal.
That's the nature of change.
It's no longer legal to target your predator with a
Computer Hacking, although some feel that that was a
"valid" tactic.
Vote pushing is no longer a "valid" strategy.
Tossing three copies of Fame on Uriah and then using
him to bleed your prey with Day Operation is no longer
a "valid" tactic.
etc.
IMO, the change to self-contesting restricts players in
a very minimal way - no one built a deck around the
concept of self-contesting.
Raille
LSJ wrote:
> IMO, the change to self-contesting restricts players in
> a very minimal way - no one built a deck around the
> concept of self-contesting.
>
I did once. But it was inefficient.
I used the contesting rule to bring into play new copies of old, now
bloodless vampires.
Anyhow, the deck sucked, and thats why no one self contests, normally.
So why the new ruling?
raille
LSJ
>Anyhow, the deck sucked, and thats why no one self contests, normally.
>So why the new ruling?
The old ruling made no sense as a concept (contesting with yourself for
control of a minion), was largely pointless as a strategy (as you found)
or even a tactic, was uninituitive (contest on one turn, pay on the next,
and get it back on the third). In short: too complicated for such a
corner case.
See also paralyze and city contesting.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Jason Bell
"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote:
> >Anyhow, the deck sucked, and thats why no one self contests, normally.
> >So why the new ruling?
>
> The old ruling made no sense as a concept (contesting with yourself for
> control of a minion), was largely pointless as a strategy (as you found)
> or even a tactic, was uninituitive (contest on one turn, pay on the next,
> and get it back on the third). In short: too complicated for such a
> corner case.
I understand all of this except the last part.
Self-contesting was definitely not a corner case.
I can't even count the number of times I've seen
Information Highway self-contested in mid to late
game to move an extra card, and I've
occasionally seen any number of other free or
cheap masters contested, such as Elysium.
Torporized vampires occasionally self-contested,
especially if it was that Methuselah's only minion
at the time, or if blood on vampires was more scarce
than blood in pool.
Unintuitive and non-sensical were probably plenty
enough reasons for the rule change. But if those are
the standards, I'm just waiting for a new rule saying
that a vampire cannot be controlled if a copy is in any
player's ash heap. I distinctly remember one game
where I went through 2 copies of Basil. Hey, didn't
Milicent burn him last turn?
- Jason Bell
James Coupe
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>I can't even count the number of times I've seen
>Information Highway self-contested in mid to late
>game to move an extra card, and I've
>occasionally seen any number of other free or
>cheap masters contested, such as Elysium.
The reversal is mildly consistent with the restrictions on action-
modifiers and reactions, in this sense.
You can't put excessive numbers of them in a deck and cycle them freely.
A similar thing *could* be argued here.
As I have stated repeatedly, the contest rules are now much simpler to
explain but I don't know if they're "better".
>Unintuitive and non-sensical were probably plenty
>enough reasons for the rule change. But if those are
>the standards, I'm just waiting for a new rule saying
>that a vampire cannot be controlled if a copy is in any
>player's ash heap. I distinctly remember one game
>where I went through 2 copies of Basil. Hey, didn't
>Milicent burn him last turn?
He got better.
Halcyan 2
>>Information Highway self-contested in mid to late
>>game to move an extra card, and I've
>>occasionally seen any number of other free or
>>cheap masters contested, such as Elysium.
>
>The reversal is mildly consistent with the restrictions on action-
>modifiers and reactions, in this sense.
>
>You can't put excessive numbers of them in a deck and cycle them freely.
>A similar thing *could* be argued here.
But it's not as if you can "cycle them freely" anyway. After you self-contest,
you'll have to either yield both of them, or yield one of them and pay a pool
(and in the latter case, you don't gain control of the card till next turn).
All in all, I thought that if anything, self-contesting was an expensive thing
to do (though sometimes done in desperation).
>As I have stated repeatedly, the contest rules are now much simpler to
>explain but I don't know if they're "better".
>
Ditto. While I don't mind "consistency," I don't really like the concept of
"dumbing down the rules." I honestly like more complex and sophisticated rules.
They allow for more interesting loopholes. =)
Halcyan 2