Call of the Great Beast and self-contest

On a question "¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action?"
I stated:
"Yes"

Anka stated:
"No"

My comment:
"So, can you update the text or the ruling?"
Is refering to his ruling, as it's not supported by the rules.

Where correction was made:
"You can have multiple Call the Great Beast as attached cards"

Thus, this comment is not answering any question, as it's a statement:
"Reading the card explains the card."

mipopo3 wrote:

On a question "¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action?"
I stated:
"Yes"

Anka stated:
"No"

My comment:
"So, can you update the text or the ruling?"
Is refering to his ruling, as it's not supported by the rules.

Where correction was made:
"You can have multiple Call the Great Beast as attached cards"

Thus, this comment is not answering any question, as it's a statement:
"Reading the card explains the card."

Short: Read first Ankha reply again, see how it's not been modified.

Long; As per the www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/44519-how-to-make-a-rules-post-look-good

1 - Quote cardtext. As a remainder, the only official source for cardtext is the vekn website . Even though some other sources are updated, not all are, and I don't have a list of who has updated their list.

Is part that *all* posters before me forgot. We might change cardtext of Call the Great Beast two years from now, people search for rulings on it, they assume it's same as their version when in fact it might be greatly different. See how Derange text change affected many pre POD rulings on it.

Reading the card as it is now, non unique, allows playing multiples of it as long as they do not bring vampire into play that would contest. As there is existing ruling by LSJ that putting 11th counter (or more) on it would count as the an action to bring a vampire into play as it literally does that. That's in the link Ankha posted. It is so by merit of it's cardtext.

In that vein, if Nergal, as described in the OP, as 11 cap vampire tries to perform another Call the Great Beast it would result in 11 counters on it, which in turn means it's action to bring vampire into play, a vampire that is by cardtext on Call the Great Beast unique. That would result per OP stated gamestate to be self contesting the Call the Great Beast unique vampire in play. Per rulebook, you cannot voluntarily self-contest and per LSJ groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/cHdOwueG71I/m/BTBYvTZhrAUJ

> Hmmmm, I don't agree with this. I don't see why you can't do this
> action knowing it will very likely fail.

Because you can't attempt something you cannot do.
....

See my multitude of rambles how you cannot attempt to sneak 30 more pool or arrange cards in hand while your table is looking elsewhere as it's something you cannot do, even if some try-hard players have attempted similar shenigans lately.

Hence you also cannot attempt Call the Great Beast action in the situation OP described;

Ashenbach wrote:

Hello,

Let's say i have a Nergal in play with a Discipline card on him, making a 11 cap vampire and a vampire named "Call the Great Beast" in play (previously put in play by another Baali).

¿Can Nergal play another Call the Great Beast action? ¿What happens if he can?

Thanks in advance.

Regards.

Reading the card explains the card is reply to your question on

mipopo3 wrote:

The card is not unique.
It represents a unique vampire once condition is met.
So can you update the text or the ruling?

They are up to date and the original ruling made at 24 Jun 2026 09:33 www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/83053-call-of-the-great-beast-and-self-contest#117261 is in line with the existing rulings. Those per www.vekn.net/forum/news-and-announcements/80782-the-line-pack-alpha?start=6#109157

Ankha wrote:

... BTW, all LSJ/Floppy rulings are valid, unless there's a more recent official ruling saying otherwise. I'm not sure why we would need a further confirmation.

are still valid as there's not been more recent official ruling saying otherwise. Note how there's been no REVERSAL's in this topic.

The follow up you quoted as "correction" I read as attempt to clarify your misunderstanding on what's unique and what's not when it comes to that card. It's referring to a situation where multiple below 11 cap Baalis can have Call the Great Beast as the card is not unique and as the amount of counters when the action is performed is not 11 (or more) it is not action to put vampire into play... as it does not put vampire into play. They can perform those actions even if there is 9-capacity unique clanless Independent infernal vampire made by Call the Great Beast in play as long as they do not result in 11 (or more) counters the card their action targets.

I hope that clarified the situation. Unless you're referring to some other Ankha ruling that is elsewhere then in this post, if so, please include the link to that ruling.

EDIT: This btw is the Ankha quoted LSJ ruling on second Call the Great Beast in case people still cannot click and read it. Please note "whichever" Use dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/whichever if you do not understand it.

groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/_AcH7GPTLJc/m/NNsA5ODSTl0J

> I would say that you can play a Call the Great Beast with a cap 11
> Baali even though you have unique vampire in play that is a Great
> Beast. Since the action is to put the card in play and put the
> counters on the card. Then after you have put the card in play the
> card checks the amount of counters on the card and transforms it into
> a vampire.
>
> I would say that you aren´t allowed to take an action to put the
> eleventh counter on a Call the Great Beast in play if you already have
> a unique vampire in play named the Great Beast.

Whichever action puts the 11th (or more) counter on the card would
count as the an action to bring a vampire into play, ...

This need to be reflected in the current rulebook.
Thus amended text from:
"You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily 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)."

Needs to be:
"You cannot control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot voluntarily play a card that would trigger a contest 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)."

as this covers all similar situations including trying to play "The, Coven" form your hand, while you have "The, Coven" that is from other player in your control,*edit* Summoning History on minor, the, Summoning, Split the Veil, ... that will put an unique allay in play that is in your control already *edit*

As 11 cap Baali with Call the Great Beast (that is a vampire) on the field cant play a card that would trigger a contest scenario.

OR

We can clearly see that the issue comes from card not being unique, and that triggers effect constitutes vampire recruitment: "action to bring a vampire in to play", witch is not defined in the card text, thus it needs to be updated. If we are to rely on the old ruling.


This would apply to Summoning History superior, Creation Rites, The, Embrace, Third Tradition: Progeny, ...

Thus we are back at this topic, so rule change or text change.