Malkavian time Auction + Blood Doll/Villein

Thanks! If the ruling could include a clear delineation of whether masters stay put, magically move without doing any of the stuff they would normally do when getting played on a vampire, or do everything like new (e.g. villein take blood off, vessels pop a blood doll), that would be great!

Pascal wrote:

The most appropriate, so far, is this one: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/3N7thHoSNvE/bX2wPL4hKeEJ
which, pretty inconveniently, links to nothing.

groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EE0C831.3010601%40white-wolf.com is this post:

groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/qzKS4OGBgbo/ST8O8A0s-JMJ

which says that equipment, retainers and locations on a minion are moved to something appropriate controlled by the new controller, and anything else that changes control that is on a minion stays put (without explicit card text).

jamesatzephyr wrote:

which says that equipment, retainers and locations on a minion are moved to something appropriate controlled by the new controller, and anything else that changes control that is on a minion stays put (without explicit card text).

Could you quote that directly? I do not see any text that says that. LSJ's post deals only and specifically with minion cards. It does not mention masters, or "anything else".

"Kulaid" in the following post says that you can auction masters that you control that are played on other players' minions (Haven Uncovered), but no one discusses whether that master gets moved.

Of course I agree that the master doesn't move based on my reading of the rules, but the OP seems to need something "official" to be satisfied.

AaronC wrote:

Could you quote that directly? I do not see any text that says that. LSJ's post deals only and specifically with minion cards. It does not mention masters, or "anything else".

Ah, true, sorry, I was overly-hasty in reading the text.

Succubus Club is relevant, though.

[LSJ 20010904]

LSJ wrote:

> Both Malkavian Time Auction and the Succubus Club allow you to auction
> or trade control of a "card"? What is a "card"?

The green-backed or amber-backed paper things.

> Certainly, both the London Evening Star and Dre, Leader of the Cold
> Dawn would fit this definition. How about Children of Osiris? I
> would think so, but the effect would be small (it would just change
> who could block any attempt to burn the card, I'd guess).

Correct.


> I would also guess you could auction or trade off a Form of
> Corruption, couldn't you?? Some interesting possibilities there!

Yes.


> What about cards like Depravity or a Dominate master card? Would this
> have any effect??

Change of control (which would matter if the new controller were ousted,
for example).

Which implies that the Depravity or Dominate stays put, and more specifically:

LSJ wrote:

> What about a Flamthrower or Mr. Winthrop?? I

Equipment or retainers would be moved to a minion controlled by the new
controller. These are the only two things that do so.

In [LSJ 20030606] (the one I cited earlier), that gets expanded to include locquipment too. (As it's specifically about minion-card locations, not master-card locations, or hypothetical other locations.)

Good research.

I have to wonder why such research is even necessary. These aren't rulings - they are what I would call "clarifications." Neither the rulebook nor the text of MTA implies that the placement of a master-on-a-minion would get moved by MTA. It is already established that a player can control a master placed on another player's minion. Ergo, logic dictates that the master-on-a-minion whose controller changes does not get moved. A "clarification"/"ruling" is nice for those who dare not read and analyse the rules themselves, but it shouldn't be necessary.

It's like everyone wants to make sure that LSJ didn't make some exception to the rules that he hid in some obscure newsgroup posting. I really don't like this "common law" approach to rules, which I guess is odd since I live in a common law country. Maybe someday we'll get a "civil code" approach.

AaronC wrote:

I have to wonder why such research is even necessary.

Often, it goes like this. Player wants to win. Player sees an opportunity to do devious things to help themself win. Player asks if it's legal.

Depending on your perspective, this inevitably involves a certain amount of rules-lawyering / anally-retentive attention to card text / creative-yet-competitive card play.