Selfcontesting

New one!

My vampire X has an Ivory bow. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow, and the contesting starts.
If I somehow gets control of vampire Y (Mind Rape, Temptation etc), does vampire Y's Ivory Bow burn due to the rules regarding contesting with one self?
I'm guessing vampire Y's copy is considered "incoming" and thus the answer is yes.

Rulebook wrote:

4.1. Contested Cards
[...]
You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card). [...]

I found a ruling about vampires, which is somewhat similar and would indicate that the incoming copy is burned.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9e6423a9b67a9bfa

> After a while my predator stole the Arika with Malkavian Dementia. In
> my influence, with Arika under control of my predator, I brougth a new
> Arika into play, contesting the first one.

> My second question is: Does the effect of Malkavian Dementia will
> ends, even with the copies being contested and out of game? If yes,
> Can I choose to don't pay the contest of the !Malk Arika and keep the
> other one?

When the Dementia effect ends (when your predator reaches her untap phase), the
formerly-Demented Malk returns to you. You would then be self-contesting, so
that formerly-Demented Malk is burned instead.

On the other hand, that ruling does seem to clash with RTR 20000501

Temporary control effects are ended if the vampire is contested, as normal, so the vampire would be placed facedown in front of his previous (permanent) controller.

I'm not really sure what to trust anymore.

henrik wrote:

New one!

My vampire X has an Ivory bow. Another player's vampire Y equips with an Ivory Bow, and the contesting starts.
If I somehow gets control of vampire Y (Mind Rape, Temptation etc), does vampire Y's Ivory Bow burn due to the rules regarding contesting with one self?
I'm guessing vampire Y's copy is considered "incoming" and thus the answer is yes.

Yes, from a close reading of [LSJ 20100825] . (The argument in the thread is about whether an incoming card is ever 'in play', which isn't relevant to the already-contested case.)

LSJ wrote:

On Aug 25, 9:25 am, Jozxyqk <> wrote:

> wumpus <> wrote:
> > This has been answered for the case of contesting your own vampire,
> > but it should also be pointed out that you can't contest your own
> > unique ally or retainer [4.1], as there is no mechanism I can think of
> > to 'force' such a contest.

> Hostile Takeover to steal a vampire who already has J.S. Simmons contesting
> with you?

Sure. But that is pretty clearly an already-contested card. The HT
isn't forcing the contest.

Already-contested means already out of play, so the question of "is it
in play when it gets burned for the self-contest?" doesn't come up.

The implication is that the incoming J.S. burns when you self-contest.

henrik wrote:

On the other hand, that ruling does seem to clash with RTR 20000501

Temporary control effects are ended if the vampire is contested, as normal, so the vampire would be placed facedown in front of his previous (permanent) controller.

I'm not really sure what to trust anymore.

LSJ accidentally forgot and then remembered the existence of that ruling at least once:

LSJ wrote:

I was in the process of composing an answer to your post when I came across
a ruling from RTR 01-MAY-2000:

QUOTE:
In a similar vein, leaving play (via Contesting, Banishement, or
whatever) is ruled/errata'ed to break any lingering *temporary*
change-of-control effects (like Mind Rape, Malkavian Dementia, and
Temptation), but not any permanent change-of-control effects (like
Grave Robbing and Corruption).
END QUOTE.

Which renders much of this thread moot.

When Parmenides is contested, he is contested by his two permanent
controllers (or, if they share the same permanent controller, the
one not currently controlled by her is burned).

(Reverses the earlier ruling about contesting-shifting)

That should keep your brain on ice for a while.

Unless there's a later reversal that I can't find, I think the 2000 RTR is actually the correct ruling.

I could find no reversal, but I could find a more recent ruling: [LSJ 20010612]

Burn the incoming copy.

> >Question 3 : I'm contesting the soul gem with a vamp controlled by another
> >methuselah. I play "Temptation of Greater Power" thanks to Anneke. I gain
> >control of that vamp. How is the contest handled ?

> From "simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card" I would be
> tempted to rule that you burn the copy on the vampire you just stole.

> LSJ may want to review this for consistency.

Correct on all counts.

Speaking of selfcontesting, anyone else nostalgic about the fun old days when you could strategically self-contest? Back then you never had to worry as much about "Bakija gambiting" yourself!