[EC 2012] Can you answer these?

Haze wrote: I believe Boris is correct on this rule interpretation. there is a similar LSJ ruling with Jimmy Dunn where you control Jimmy #1 and then influence out Jimmy #2 -- ordinarily this would be considered self-contesting and you burn #2, but with Jimmy's cardtext there is never any contesting to resolve so #1 burns as usual.

therefore, if contesting never resolves with Visit From The Capuchin, it should be legal to play #2 when the #1 has only one counter left.

I believe it too that there is no such thing as a move that became legal later. It's even why I believe it don't work.

Boris's say "I play a card, I replace it, and then I check whether it is legal". Which support the idea that you can play anything illegal, replace the card, and then ... what ?

Jimmy Dunn is a case of involontary self contest, like any vampire. If you were forced to play the visit from Capucin, I would subscribe to the interpretation, but here it's playing something that self contest.

Please notice : you can willingfully influence out a new jimmy dunn. Since the card text clearly mentions that jimmy does not contest as normal, it's not an illegal move.

Ohlmann wrote:

Haze wrote: I believe Boris is correct on this rule interpretation. there is a similar LSJ ruling with Jimmy Dunn where you control Jimmy #1 and then influence out Jimmy #2 -- ordinarily this would be considered self-contesting and you burn #2, but with Jimmy's cardtext there is never any contesting to resolve so #1 burns as usual.

therefore, if contesting never resolves with Visit From The Capuchin, it should be legal to play #2 when the #1 has only one counter left.

I believe it too that there is no such thing as a move that became legal later. It's even why I believe it don't work.

Boris's say "I play a card, I replace it, and then I check whether it is legal". Which support the idea that you can play anything illegal, replace the card, and then ... what ?

Jimmy Dunn is a case of involontary self contest, like any vampire. If you were forced to play the visit from Capucin, I would subscribe to the interpretation, but here it's playing something that self contest.

Also, it is always wrong to look for a guiding principal in the ruling of a specific card and then to apply that principal to another card.

Reyda wrote: Please notice : you can willingfully influence out a new jimmy dunn. Since the card text clearly mentions that jimmy does not contest as normal, it's not an illegal move.

Well, last time I influenced a second copy of a vampire by mistake, judges said me that the move was legal but that the new vampire burn, because you can influence a unique vampire already in play, and bringing it into play is automatic.

So, regarless of his card text, you could put it into play. His text is the reason whyit's the old that burn and not the new one.

(and, no, I have no idea whether you can Summon History an unique vampire if you already have one copy of the vampire in play. It's the only action I know that allow to directly put an unique vampire into play - as opposed to put blood on it)

it's true that there's a loophole with "accidental" transfers, but there's many ways to intentionally put a vampire in play, such as Possession or Eternal Mask. these are all legal plays because Jimmy's text means he never self-contests. he's unique, but it's impossible to contest him. therefore, the self-contest rule only applies if contesting will happen as an end result, not the fact that you're attempting to control two copies of a unique card (which may or may not have some card text that will apply in the future when the action resolves)

likewise, it's impossible to self-contest Visit from the Capuchin when it's at 1 counter because you always replace before resolving (barring another card changing the rules of the game during your master phase). the rule doesn't make it illegal to play a 2nd Visit, it only makes it illegal if the end result is self-contesting.

Ohlmann wrote: (and, no, I have no idea whether you can Summon History an unique vampire if you already have one copy of the vampire in play. It's the only action I know that allow to directly put an unique vampire into play - as opposed to put blood on it)

LSJ answered yes in 2003. Of course that was long before Summon History got printed, but the original question and his answer do not assume anything about how the player brings the second copy into play.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/BnRxa-r3KcM/M7kKI-3CGoMJ