A couple of questions regarding contest

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Aaron wrote:

That's what I'm talking about.

No, you're starting with the premise that the cards have been ruled out of play, therefore, logically.

Instead, the actual premise is that the cards are out of play except... Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water, because your basic premise isn't true.

Logically something either is or is not.
The ruling is that the card is in play for certain effects, but out of play for others. To put it another way the card is, at the same time, both in play and not in play. This is not logical.
It may be a fair, balanced, reasoned way for the game to play. That doesn't make it any more logical.

Mael wrote:

Logically something either is or is not.

That's simply not true in various areas of V:TES.

For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested.

Sorry to break it to you, but the rules of V:TES are more nuanced than ME SAY YES or ME SAY NO.

jamesatzephyr's answers are correct (and all the referenced links are still valid).

jamesatzephyr wrote:

For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested.

That's quite irrelevant to the discussion, and not 100% accurate. He still has the title, he just "loses the benefit of the title".

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water ...

Aaron's statement that he finds the ruling to be counter-intuitive does not necessarily mean that he disagrees with it. To say something is not logical is not the same as saying it is incorrect.
Your statement "Therefore, logically, your argument doesn't hold water" is completely illogical, as you are trying to claim that something is logical because it has been ruled to be true. It does not in any way help Aaron (or other readers) to understand the ruling.

Please note that I'm not arguing the ruling here at all, I just find your above quoted statement to be annoying and unhelpful.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Sorry to break it to you, but the rules of V:TES are more nuanced than ME SAY YES or ME SAY NO.

And this statement is not only unnecessary it is also quite deliberately insulting.

Mael wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested.

That's quite irrelevant to the discussion, and not 100% accurate. He still has the title, he just "loses the benefit of the title".

Irrelevant or not it is 100% accurate.
Rulebook 10.Vampire sects page 48 last paragraph last sentence, "....he immediately yields the old tittle."

Smaul wrote:

Mael wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

For example, a vampire with a sect-specific title who is of the wrong sect has an inert title, except for the purpose of yielding it immediately when it would be contested.

That's quite irrelevant to the discussion, and not 100% accurate. He still has the title, he just "loses the benefit of the title".

Irrelevant or not it is 100% accurate.
Rulebook 10.Vampire sects page 48 last paragraph last sentence, "....he immediately yields the old tittle."

The first (and less relevant) way in which it is not 100% accurate is that there are two cases in which he would yield the title, rather than just the one mentioned. Quoting that same sentence "If he receives a new title, or if his title is contested".
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).