A couple of questions regarding contest

Pascal wrote:

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".

I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is because for a long time having a title was strictly beneficial with no downsides, by the time downsides to having titles were introduced the rule had been there long enough not to be considered for review.

Pascal wrote:

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?

From a logic point of view that you have to be in a contest in order to yield it, even if you are only in it for an infinitesimally short duration of time. It's mostly a point of semantics, probably only relevant because I hadn't assumed the word 'instead' in the rule (see Henrik's post for how I thought it worked).

Mael wrote:

Pascal wrote:

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".

I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is because for a long time having a title was strictly beneficial with no downsides, by the time downsides to having titles were introduced the rule had been there long enough not to be considered for review.

Chas Giovanni Tello's printed version (Final Nights, 2001) reads "Chas gets +1 strength when in combat with a titled vampire."

The Treatment, Wrath of the Inner Circle and Command of the Harpies (Dark Sovereigns, 1995) produce drawbacks to being a Prince / Justicar, which don't affect you anymore once you're not Prince / .. : [LSJ 19980209]

Mael wrote:

Pascal wrote:

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".

I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is because for a long time having a title was strictly beneficial with no downsides, by the time downsides to having titles were introduced the rule had been there long enough not to be considered for review.

But both having and not having the title could bring additional downsides.

1) Can you play Blood Hunt on a vampire with an inert title? (Possible ever since Writ of Acceptance was added in Ancient Hearts, and Clan Impersonation in the same release.)

2) Does Vasantasena get her plus to stealth if my only potentially 'titled' vampire is of the wrong sect? (She gets stealth if you have no titled vampires.)

3) Does Suhailah get her plus to stealth if my only potentially titled vampire (Prince or Justicar) is of the wrong sect or clan? Suhailah gets extra stealth if there is a ready Prince or Justicar. (Suhailah added in Ancient Hearts.)


As listed earlier in this thread, Vasantasena was explicitly considered back in 1999.

Pascal wrote:

The Treatment, Wrath of the Inner Circle and Command of the Harpies (Dark Sovereigns, 1995) produce drawbacks to being a Prince / Justicar, which don't affect you anymore once you're not Prince / .. : [LSJ 19980209]

Fair enough, I don't think I've ever seen any of those cards before. I withdraw my previous speculation for how this discrepancy came to exist.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

But both having and not having the title could bring additional downsides.

Agreed. That is what the rulebook says though. That complication is why I'm more in favour of changing the rulebook than the ruling.