A couple of questions regarding contest

Mael wrote:

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.

Please explicit contradiction.
Is it in the understanding of the word "benefit" ?
If I say "benefit of a title" == "considered as holding the title", does this make it clear enough? It would remove the possibility of any contradiction, I guess, but then, if it does, then the contradiction wasn't there in the first place, right?

Pascal wrote:

Mael wrote:

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.

Please explicit contradiction.
Is it in the understanding of the word "benefit" ?
If I say "benefit of a title" == "considered as holding the title", does this make it clear enough? It would remove the possibility of any contradiction, I guess, but then, if it does, then the contradiction wasn't there in the first place, right?

You could say that, but it is not a standard English definition of the word benefit. (Also, if you're not considered as holding the title you wouldn't contest it, which you do, so also not a perfect solution).

The benefit of a title would mean the advantageous effects you can get by having a title.

So by the rule as written in the rulebook, you would lose any effects that would be of benefit (including the associated votes), but any effects that are not advantageous would stay.
Benefits would include the ability to play cards as though you had the title, not being targetable by the Blood Hunt action, giving the Ayo Igoli you control an additional vote, getting +1 intercept against Dirk, etc.
Effects such as Jezebelle (controlled by you) losing her bonus vote, another Methuselah's Zane being able to claim and contest your title, Count Germaine having a bleed boost against you, those are all hindrances rather than benefits.

I can't think of a neat rulebook solution. The best is probably to say that his title is inert and then to define (in the next line) what an inert title is.

Mael wrote:

I can't think of a neat rulebook solution. The best is probably to say that his title is inert and then to define (in the next line) what an inert title is.

I'll add this to the RT list for review. But it looks like this is the first time the issue is raised in at least 13 years - see Revised Rulebook 08/10/1998 for an instance of "benefit of a title".

Mael wrote:

Also, if you're not considered as holding the title you wouldn't contest it, which you do

Do you have a link supporting this?
We currently have:

[LSJ 20080602] wrote:

> I'd like to have a confirmation about the card "No Confidence" and the
> effects on the game of "losing the benefits of one's title" (compared
> to "losing one's title").

"losing the benefit" happens, for example, when one changes to a sect
inappropriate for a title. (See section 10).

> I am pretty sure that, for example Marcel de Breau (Archbishop of
> Paris) with 2 No Confidence cards does not have 2 votes from his title
> and cannot play cards such as Eternal Vigilance.

Correct, just as if he changed to a sect inappropriate for.

> Can he play a Templar or a Red List card (wich require a Titled
> vampire and not specifically an Archbishop) ?

No, just as if he changed to a sect inappropriate for thhe title.

> Does he contest a merged Dominique's Baron of Paris title ?

He yields immediately instead, just as if...

and
Rulebook 10.0 Sects

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.

Pascal wrote:

> Does he contest a merged Dominique's Baron of Paris title ?

He yields immediately instead, just as if...

and
Rulebook 10.0 Sects

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.

Just a quick question about the immediate yielding. Does that still make the (new, not inert) title be considered contesting until the next untap phase?
As in, my vampire X is Prince of Seattle and gets a sect change to independent. Anson (Prince of Seattle) enters play.
X immediatly yields the Prince of Seattle title, but does Anson get the title right away or does he have to wait until his controllers untap phase (assuming no other contests or weird stuff)?
I guess the question is whether "the other" vampire's title is considered contested in these cases.

It looks like this immediate yielding part is awkwardly ruled.
I'll add the "immediate" word to the RT for review.

Current available (and recent) rulings:
[LSJ 20090430] seems to indicate that, while in torpor, you don't "immediately" yield, but will have to yield if you're there when you would have to choose to contest or to yield.

But then, some "immediately yields" are clearly immediate: Rise of the Nephtali, and quite likely Victor Pelletier.

I think the difference might be that Rise of the Nephtali and Victor Pelletier both states that the title is yielded instead of contesting while that part is missing from the inert title part in the rulebook.
[LSJ 20080602] does have that text though.

With that part added it seems rather clear that the incoming contester of an inert title doesn't need to wait until the controllers untap phase to fully have the title (uncontested and all).