Dogged Pursuit at superior on a vampire already having one attached

Oortje wrote:

Can I play a parity shift while being on the same amount of pool as anybody else?

Yes, it will "fizzles the action: the action still resolves and, if unblocked, is successful, but it has no effect."
Edit* Action is successful, referendum fail, didn't pass.
Edit ** there is a ruling contradicting this statement ruling

Sérgio wrote:

Based on this thread, equating a self-contained ability (Gathii) with effects dependent on external factors (the need for intercept or block fails), then I should be able to:

1. Attempt to equip Leather Jacket while wearing a Leather Jacket.
2. Attempt to equip Ambulance while riding an Ambulance.
3. Attempt to equip Unlicensed Taxi Cab while riding an Unlicensed Taxi Cab (so long as a Prince or Archbishop is present).
4. Attempt to get ANY vehicle while riding Ambulance or Unlicensed Taxi Cab.

Think there is a mix-up; you can"equip Leather Jacket while wearing a Leather Jacket"
You will need to burn one once the other is in play, but you can play it; it's not unique.

Parity Shift has a ruling about it needing to have legal targets so no, fizzling is not applicable - either the Dogged Pursuit ruling rolls back the ruling, or it shouldn't be playable.

Unique shouldn't be a limitation, since it should just slide off like snot, like any other equipment with quantity limitation. If we're throwing "you can't do what you can't do" out the window, then there's no reason why self-contesting and quantity limited equipment, should behave differently.

Also, attempt to equip Blood Tears of Kephran while having Blood Tears of Kephran.

Sérgio wrote:

Parity Shift has a ruling about it needing to have legal targets so no, fizzling is not applicable - either the Dogged Pursuit ruling rolls back the ruling, or it shouldn't be playable.

Unique shouldn't be a limitation, since it should just slide off like snot, like any other equipment with quantity limitation. If we're throwing "you can't do what you can't do" out the window, then there's no reason why self-contesting and quantity limited equipment, should behave differently.

Also, attempt to equip Blood Tears of Kephran while having Blood Tears of Kephran.

This ruling is before the update and rewording, so the ruling is Mute.
Edit* however that is a new ruling with updated text ruling

A unique ruling is that stopping a play of a card, a card stating "you can have only one," is in effect only after it's resolved and in play.

Thus, you can't play equip Blood Tears of Kephran while having Blood Tears of Kephran.
As this is a self-contest, that is stopping you from playing it.

While you can have more than one piece of the same equipment, like Magnum, Flak Jacket, nothing is stopping you from playing it, but there is nothing you can do to have two pieces of the equipment with a restriction that you can have only one.

Edit: Here is the part of the discussion that the rulebook wording should be updated to match existing rulings regarding unique cards. discusion

Agreed, none of them have a random outcome. Which is why, Dogged Pursuit, which also doesn't have a random outcome, but an outcome dependent on choices made by you, should not inherit the Gathii ruling. Gathii's ability is not to provide stealth, but to flip the top card of your library; if that card happens to belong to group 1, you get X effect, otherwise, you get Y effect.

Dogged Pursuit's text neither follows that reasoning nor is it random, instead being fully controlled by the player. Given the only difference between superior and inferior is the ability to place the card on the vampire, which points towards the intent of the card's design and wording, if the check is only done upon action resolution, then there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to check only upon action resolution of Blood Tears of Kephran, or Leather Jacket - after all, they're as random as Dogged Pursuit.

What is actually being set as precedent here is a distinction between playing cards with at least partial card text being delayed conditional effects, at a point when said delayed conditional effect could not be met given current game state but might in the future, and attempting actions when their resolution is not legal given current game state but might be upon resolution. And I'm not sure those are distinguishable.