[EC 2012] Can you answer these?

Pascal wrote:

Pascal wrote:

Can I play VIsit from the Capuchin if I already control a Visit from the Capuchin with 1 counter?

No. This is a self-contest scenario, which isn't allowed by the rules.

Why? You said here that cards are replaced before resolving, so the old VftC burns before contesting and it is known before playing the card. Just before taking the decision to play the new VftC, the game is already in a state where playing it would not result in self-contest. If by "you cannot contest cards with yourself" (rulebook, Section 4.1), you mean "you cannot willingly put a unique card into play if you already control another unique card with the same name", then it needs to be written like that because it is not the same on that example.

Of course, if one follows the CRR and replaces cards after resolving them, then it is indeed self-contest

Pascal wrote:

Pascal wrote:

Does Fall of the Camarilla remain in play if there are only 2 other Gehenna in play?

No.

Really? Assuming it was played legally, I can't see any reason for Fall to leave play, and the only ruling I'm aware of on this from LSJ matches that interpretation.

Boris : the problem with your interpretation is that you initiate something illegal (playing a Visit from the capucin) because it became legal before resolution. It seem pretty shaky and too open to interpretation for me.

I completely agree with you, but it is not my interpretation, it is what the current wording means. Contesting is not a move itself, it is a property. There is no way to understand "you cannot self-contest" other than "you cannot make a move such that the game state after the move would be self-contesting".

Generally, such rules based on postconditions are bad because you have to unfold the game path and look in the future to check whether a move is legal or not. That's why I proposed to replace it with a wording that only checks the game state before making the move. What is really shaky is to do that and write something else in the rules.

Well, to replace a card in your hand, and burn the old one, you must have announced what you were playing. You don't replace before announcing the action.

You hereforth announce something illegal because when it actually resolve (immediatly after), it will not be illegal. Yes, there is no windows between the time you annonce it and the time you replace it, but it's not important.

There is no such thing as an illegal move that becomes legal later. The move "play VftC" is instantaneous. The resolution takes some time, but only the time when the decision is made matters. When you announce the card, the rules have already determined that it is legal. But to do that, they must test it by playing it for fake in a dummy mini-game first.

Assume that you play VftC. Assume that no one plays anything else (that's why it is a dummy mini-game). Resolve the card. Look at the game state you reach. Is it self-contesting? If not, then the play is legal and always was. Now you can play for real. Announce VftC, wait for Sudden.

It is not shaky at all, just horribly complicated. And most important, it is what is currently written in the rules. I don't like it any more than you and Pascal will hopefully say it is not supposed to be played like that. But it is currently written like that nonetheless. If the wording I propose is deemed too complicated for the rulebook, it could still fit in the CRR, Section III in the end notes.