A couple of questions regarding contest

When I say the ruling is counterintuitive, that means that I am criticizing it, not saying that it doesn't exist. The other answers make sense to me and follow an easy-to-understand and intuitive principle: Cards and titles on a contested card are out of play.

The exception adds unneeded complication to the game. Additionally it is a rules team ruling from 1995, and frankly the quality of many of the old RTR rulings is poor. For example they ruled in 1998 that superior Psyche! is not played during combat since "the end of combat is not technically during combat" Of course now the end of combat is indicated as step F of combat in the complete rules reference, but old precedents are stubbornly clung to.

I also wonder why these rulings were never added to the rulebook proper. It seems unorganized to make substantive changes and additions to the rules on newsgroup postings, and then to only sometimes update the core rulebook to reflect those changes. I guess that's another discussion, though...

Mael wrote:

Smaul wrote:

The more relevant way is that the vampire still has the title (which is what makes the point not relevant to the discussion) he just gets no benefit from it. (See the sentence immediately before the one you quoted).
Edit: The distinction is required because of abilities possessed by Jezebelle and Zane (and possibly others).

The title is inert. The vampire with the inert title behaves as an untitled vampire (except for receiving a new title, or someone contesting their inert title). For example:

[LSJ 20051211]

LSJ wrote:

But either way, when she is without title (including the times
when any title she has is inert), so can become an anarch via
the cardless action.

Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title - being inert means it's completely ignored, except for the specific exceptions.

[LSJ 20030819]

LSJ wrote:

salem wrote:
> they still have the title while in the wrong sect, it's just
> totally ignored for game purposes (except title contestion, whereupon
> they instantly yield the title)

Right. The vampire "loses the benefit of" the title while he is of the
wrong sect/clan for the title. He doesn't lose the title completely
(unless it is contested or he gains a new title to replace the old
inactive one).

You control Queen Anne (Prince of London). She plays Clan Impersonation: Giovanni, and is Independent (her Prince title is inert). Jezebelle gets her extra vote, because you don't control a ready prince.

You control Zane. He has a Prince title from Praxis Seizure: Who-Cares. He plays Clan Impersonation: Osebo (Prince title is inert). Zane isn't a Prince for his special text. However, he can't use it because you must be able to legally receive the title to call the vote, the same as Maxwell and Horatio. [LSJ 20030630]

LSJ wrote:

The rule that Praxes can only be called by Camarilla is a function of the
rule that only Camarilla vampires can become princes - it is not a specific
rule unto itself. Horatio and Maxwell are covered under the same rule.

And so, therefore, would Zane.


You (my prey) control Lisette Vizquel (Sabbat bishop). I control Sela (basic). Lisette has a Writ of Acceptance (bishopric inert). Sela becomes an Archbishop. Lisette does not burn blood from Sela's special, because she is not seen as possessing a bishop title.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

You control Queen Anne (Prince of London). She plays Clan Impersonation: Giovanni, and is Independent (her Prince title is inert). Jezebelle gets her extra vote, because you don't control a ready prince.

Yes you do. The quote you've taken from LSJ there even says "He doesn't lose the title completely".

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title - being inert means it's completely ignored, except for the specific exceptions.

That is indeed what you meant by inert. That is why you are incorrect. The rules say nothing about the title being inert, they say (as previously quoted by me) that the vampire "loses the benefit of the title".

So for example you control Tara, she is Prince of San Diego, for whatever reason she changes sect. Your predator controls Zane, he can call a referendum using his special to become Prince of San Diego, contesting the title with Tara which she would then be forced to yield.

The exact paragraph in the rules that deals with this is

A vampire must belong to the appropriate sect to receive a title. If a vampire with a title changes clans or sects to a clan or sect inappropriate for his title, he loses the benefit of the title until his clan or sect changes appropriately. If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested (see Contested Titles, sec. 4.2), he immediately yields the old title.

Nowhere does it use the word "inert", nor does it say that "Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title". Nor for that matter do any of the quotes you've taken from LSJ actually address this question.

Mael wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

You control Queen Anne (Prince of London). She plays Clan Impersonation: Giovanni, and is Independent (her Prince title is inert). Jezebelle gets her extra vote, because you don't control a ready prince.

Yes you do. The quote you've taken from LSJ there even says "He doesn't lose the title completely".

Right. It's there to be reactivated when the vampire changes back to an appropriate sect (or clan).

The vampire isn't regarded as having a title, however, which is why they can take the inherent make-me-an-anarch action.

Mael wrote:

That is indeed what you meant by inert.

It's also what LSJ has repeatedly meant by it.

Mael wrote:

That is why you are incorrect.

I'm not.

Mael wrote:

The rules say nothing about the title being inert, they say (as previously quoted by me) that the vampire "loses the benefit of the title".

LSJ has repeatedly ruled on this issue. You are wrong.

Mael wrote:

So for example you control Tara, she is Prince of San Diego, for whatever reason she changes sect. Your predator controls Zane, he can call a referendum using his special to become Prince of San Diego, contesting the title with Tara which she would then be forced to yield.

Incorrect on several levels.

1) Tara is not seen as having a title, as LSJ confirms in his response to Salem. Salem: "they still have the title while in the wrong sect, it's just totally ignored for game purposes" "Right"

2) If a contestable title on a vampire of the wrong sect is claimed by another vampire, the title is not contested. Instead, the vampire with the inert title immediately yields it instead of contesting it.

Mael wrote:

Nowhere does it use the word "inert", nor does it say that "Other effects don't see the vampire as having a title". Nor for that matter do any of the quotes you've taken from LSJ actually address this question.

Except that LSJ confirms that a vampire with an inert title can take the go anarch action - which isn't possible for titled vampires. So the vampire isn't being treated as titled.

Similarly, he confirms Salem's direct statement that the title isn't there for game purposes (except gaining a new title, or would-be contestations).

So, in fact, LSJ squarely addresses the points head-on.

Further:

- a Prince with a capacity-inreasing title (e.g. Praxis Seizure: Paris) does not receive the extra capacity while Sabbat-but-Toreador. Card text: "If the prince is Toreador, his or her capacity increases by 1." Title inert, not seen as a Prince, no extra capacity.

[LSJ 20091014]

LSJ wrote:

Similarly, if a Toreador with Praxis Seizure: Paris goes Into the Fire, the
capacity increase from the inert title is also inert (xe no longer has the extra
capacity, until the Praxis title is again in effect).

A Deranged (to Malkavian Antitribu/Sabbat) Prince is not a Prince until they change back.
[LSJ 19980818]

LSJ wrote:

> I assume that a Sabbat vampire holding the title of a Prince would

> - holds the title of Prince

Well, "holding a title" is a little ambiguous - typically implying
the priviledges of the title. He would hold the title if he were
Camarilla, but he's not. If his sect changes back to Camarilla, then
he will again hold the title.

...

He is not a Prince in any way until he becomes Camarilla again.
(And only if no one else has laid claim to his title while
he was away.)

A Prince of the wrong sect "no longer counts as a Prince".

[LSJ 20010716]

LSJ wrote:

Similarly, if Anson gets Deranged, you can hit him with a Blood Hunt
action, since he no longer counts as a Prince.

An indepedent vampire who becomes Liaison (an independent-only title) "loses it" if they become another sect - until they go back to Independent (or are forced to yield it).

[LSJ 20040704]

LSJ wrote:

>> c) If a camarilla vampire became liason (See "Rise of Nepthtali")
>> under "fall of the camarilla", when it is removed and he becomes
>> camarilla again, I guess he loses the liason title?

> Yes. Liaison is an Independent title, by card text.

Correct. He would lose it until he becomes Independent again.

Using Clan Impersonation (or the burning thereof) to change clan (and sect) lets you lose a title and take the cardless go-anarch action (which isn't available to titled vampires).

[LSJ 20031221]

LSJ wrote:

Oscar Garza wrote:
> Can only use Clan Impersonation once as per restriction. So instead he takes
> an action to remove the
> Clan Impsersonation, then must go Out of the Frying Pan to lose the title,
> and then takes the cardless action to go anarch. Banner, good catch.

Well, burning the Clan Impersonation makes him Salubri and Independent,
so that's enough.

A vampire with an inert title can be regarded as having the title "disappear". (Note that I'm the person LSJ responds to in the following quote.)
[LSJ 20061203]

LSJ wrote:

> However, the reason that "Inner Circle" disappears is not because it's
> an "actual title." It's because that title is tied to a particular sect
> - Camarilla, in this instance. Similarly, Primogen, Prince, Bishop,
> Archbishop, Cardinal, Priscus, Regent, and Magaji titles are tied to
> specific sects. See section 10 of the rulebook. Kholo and Justicar are
> also titled to clan, as well as sect.

> Note also that the title doesn't entirely disappear. It's inert, and
> will come back if the vampire changes sect again, assuming the title
> hasn't been claimed by another vampire in the mean-time (in which case,
> the inert title is yielded immediately instead of constesting it).

> The reason that the "Thetmes has 2 votes" title is not lost is that it
> is not tied to clan or sect. It is simply tied to Thetmes being
> Thetmes. If Thetmes plays Clan Impersonation: Toreador Antitribu, he
> still has 2 votes. If he plays Mozambique Allure, he still has 2 votes.
> If he plays Writ of Acceptance, he still has 2 votes. And so if he
> becomes Anarch, he still has 2 votes.

Correct.

And yet I cannot find (and I'm assuming neither can you as you would have quoted it) any ruling which directly addresses how other peoples effects interact with a title which has been temporarily rendered inert in this manner.
The only one which comes close is the 1998 Derange ruling "He is not a Prince in any way ....". This significantly predates any Zane type effect so could be seen as simple brevity on the part of LSJ.
Similarly when he wrote "Correct" to a statement that Thetmes retains his two votes I would not assume that he is considering every possible consequence of every part of your preceding statements that led to that conclusion.

Given the lack of a specific ruling, and indeed before looking for a specific ruling, we should look at the primary source, the rulebook. The phrase "he loses the benefit of the title" is from the most recent version of said book.
This phrase is quite clear, and does not in any way prevent other interactions that come from outside sources.

I'm going to open a new thread for this as we've diverted quite a bit from the initial point of this discussion (and Pascal has already answered the initial question so might not come back to this thread).