[EC 2012] Can you answer these?

Thanks for your insights, Boris, but YANPB, so I would like to hear it from the man himself.

Why? Because sometimes, things are not what you expect (of course, sometimes, a rock is just a rock).

the1andonlime wrote:

This contradicts current rulings on this site. Confirmation, Pascal?

"The superior is played after combat ends, even though the card is a combat card. [RTR 19980928]"

It's not the current ruling. I am too lazy to check whether the ruling is still on this site, but some month ago Psyche! was changed to be played in combat.

Ohlmann wrote:

the1andonlime wrote:

This contradicts current rulings on this site. Confirmation, Pascal?

"The superior is played after combat ends, even though the card is a combat card. [RTR 19980928]"

It's not the current ruling. I am too lazy to check whether the ruling is still on this site, but some month ago Psyche! was changed to be played in combat.

vekn.net/index.php/vampire-elder-kindred-network/190-rules-team-rulings-02-dec-11

Any chance of a quick update to the CRR?

Non-existant user wrote:

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.

I believe Boris is correct on this rule interpretation. there is a similar LSJ ruling with Jimmy Dunn where you control Jimmy #1 and then influence out Jimmy #2 -- ordinarily this would be considered self-contesting and you burn #2, but with Jimmy's cardtext there is never any contesting to resolve so #1 burns as usual.

therefore, if contesting never resolves with Visit From The Capuchin, it should be legal to play #2 when the #1 has only one counter left.

CRR will be cleaned as soon as I get back from vacation.


The purpouse of writing these down is multiple.
- give judges knowledge on what 80$ of the calls to a judge are. Most of the time, LSJ's "cardtext" answer is valid, but I tend to go with the "Yes/No" answer.
- let players realize that they can save these money-time seconds by checking the cardtext before calling the judge

I didn't post everything (questions and answers) everytime, because I was busy judging the players I used that free time at the start of the rounds to write this down.