Fee Stake, contested, anarch in torpor

Wow, I didn't think to look in the SPECIAL TERMS section of the rulebook for such a thing. Thank you, James.

The rulebook needs a serious rewrite/reorganization.

Correct answers here.
If you contest the title, the card is out of play, and you get nothing from it (increased capacity for Praxis, untap for Crusades, ability to be burned for Fee Stakes, ...). It's just no there.
If you yield, it's burned, and what you lost when the contest started doesn't come back.

Pascal wrote:

If you contest the title, the card is out of play, and you get nothing from it (... untap for Crusades ...)

Incorrect. Crusade's untap is a lingering effect, not an effect of the card being in play.

[LSJ 20060621]

LSJ wrote:

> The question is, is the "if the withdrawl fails" clause an effect of the
> card being in play, or a long-term component of the "must attempt to
> withdraw" effect?

A lingering effect of the "must attempt to withdraw" effect (setting up
a conditional effect that will occur "on that Methuselah's next untap
phase", if the condition is met).

The "must attempt to withdraw" clause is an effect of the card being in
play, of course.

The classic example of the card-in-play's "next phase" template is
Leandro.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8e36e4de3e365294

Similarly Flash Grenade, Mummy's Tongue, and Qufur (obviously).
And also Highway Haven, Chill of Oblivion (if the vampire Freaks and
then gets into combat and burns the Chill, the Chill still untaps him
in the discard phase), clan-based Crusades (will untap the vampire even
if contested), and Blessing of the Name, Command, and Concert Tour
(interesting only in very odd corner cases), maybe others.

Along similar lines, a vampire who got elected Archbishop of Floppy's House (untap if this vampire is weird blah blah) who then became a Cardinal in the same turn would still untap.

[LSJ 20031125] was the first occurrence.
It's interesting that it didn't show up in my search the other day..