[LSJ] Ignis Fatuus vs. Draba

Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at inferior have the same effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at inferior after a Draba at superior? Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: :: Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at inferior [ quoted text not captured ] yes =) the acting minion's stealth is reduced to zero and he suffers a -1 stealth penalty as well, no matter the order you play the cards.

Damnans wrote: > Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at inferior have the same > effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at inferior after a Draba at superior? Not usually. If the minion started with 0 (or less) stealth , then it would. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: :: Damnans wrote: ::: Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at ::: inferior have the same effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at ::: inferior after a Draba at superior? :: :: Not usually. :: If the minion started with 0 (or less) stealth , then it would. I'm thinking different : Fidus plays a Guard duty. He has +3 stealth . You play draba then Ignis, he gets down to 0 zero stealth, then goes to -1 Stealth. you play ignis the Draba, he gets down to +2 stealth, then goes to -1 Stealth. Because he suffers -1 stealth penalty until the end of the turn, which "adds" to the "reduce this vamp stealth to zero effect". The result is the same if you planned to play both cards no matter how stealthy the action was.

> > Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at inferior have the > > same effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at inferior after a Draba at > > superior? > > Not usually. > If the minion started with 0 (or less) stealth , then it would. But what about the wording on Draba then: Reduce the acting minions stealth to 0. My point is the keyword: reduce. If Ignus Fatuus is played first, giving the acting minion -1 stealth totalt, and then a Draba is played...it wouldn't be REDUCING to stealth to 0, it would be increasing. Is Draba even legal to play at that effect in this situation? /Fredrik

reyda wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > :: Damnans wrote: > ::: Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at > ::: inferior have the same effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at > ::: inferior after a Draba at superior? > :: > :: Not usually. > :: If the minion started with 0 (or less) stealth , then it would. > > I'm thinking different : Fidus plays a Guard duty. > He has +3 stealth . > You play draba then Ignis, he gets down to 0 zero stealth, then goes to -1 > Stealth. > you play ignis the Draba, he gets down to +2 stealth, then goes to -1 > Stealth. Because he suffers -1 stealth penalty until the end of the turn, > which "adds" to the "reduce this vamp stealth to zero effect". No. The reduction takes him from whatever he has down to zero. It therefore leaves him at zero. > The result is the same if you planned to play both cards no matter how > stealthy the action was. 3 [Draba] = 0 [Ignis] -1 = -1. 3 [Ignis] -1 = 2 [Draba] = 0 = 0. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fredrik Ljungberg wrote: > > > > Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at inferior have the > > same effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at inferior after a Draba at > > > superior? > > > > Not usually. > > If the minion started with 0 (or less) stealth , then it would. > > But what about the wording on Draba then: > > Reduce the acting minions stealth to 0. > > My point is the keyword: reduce. That's the key to my answer above, yes. > If Ignus Fatuus is played first, giving the acting minion -1 stealth > totalt, and then a Draba is played...it wouldn't be REDUCING to > stealth to 0, it would be increasing. Right. Which means that the stealth remains at -1. Which is different than it would be if the order were reversed (some token reduction followed by a reduction to zero yielding zero, not -1). > Is Draba even legal to play at > that effect in this situation? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Is Draba even legal to play at > > that effect in this situation? > > Yes. Okay, so being able to reduce the stealth is not considered a requirement to play the card. That also means that if one Met. plays a draba on that effect, a second met can also do that (reducing the 0 stealth to 0 ) How about a seducted minion playing a Second Tradition? He's not allowed to block due to the seduction but second trad states "and attempts to block". Is THAT legal to play? (If it is, I suppose he untaps but can't attempt to block) I agree that this situation is more dubious than the draba, but it's the same theme so to speak. (i.e is cardtext considered a requirement to play) /Fredrik Visit the Umeå V:tES Deck Archive at www.tyffo.com/~fredde aministrated by yours truly

Fredrik Ljungberg wrote: > > > > Is Draba even legal to play at > > > that effect in this situation? > > > > Yes. > > Okay, so being able to reduce the stealth is not considered a > requirement to play the card. > That also means that if one Met. plays a draba on that effect, a > second met can also do that (reducing the 0 stealth to 0 ) Correct. > How about a seducted minion playing a Second Tradition? Not legal, since 2nd Trad requires a block attempt. > He's not allowed to block due to the seduction but second trad states > "and attempts to block". > Is THAT legal to play? (If it is, I suppose he untaps but can't > attempt to block) No. > I agree that this situation is more dubious than the draba, but it's > the same theme so to speak. (i.e is cardtext considered a requirement > to play) The "reduce to zero" is not prohibited. The "attempt to block" is prohibited. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: :: reyda wrote: ::: ::: LSJ wrote: ::::: Damnans wrote: :::::: Does playing a Draba at superior after an Ignis Fatuus at :::::: inferior have the same effect than playing an Ignis Fatuus at :::::: inferior after a Draba at superior? ::::: ::::: Not usually. ::::: If the minion started with 0 (or less) stealth , then it would. ::: ::: I'm thinking different : Fidus plays a Guard duty. ::: He has +3 stealth . ::: You play draba then Ignis, he gets down to 0 zero stealth, then ::: goes to -1 Stealth. ::: you play ignis the Draba, he gets down to +2 stealth, then goes ::: to -1 Stealth. Because he suffers -1 stealth penalty until the ::: end of the turn, which "adds" to the "reduce this vamp stealth to ::: zero effect". :: :: No. The reduction takes him from whatever he has down to zero. It :: therefore leaves him at zero. :: ::: The result is the same if you planned to play both cards no ::: matter how stealthy the action was. :: :: 3 [Draba] = 0 [Ignis] -1 = -1. :: 3 [Ignis] -1 = 2 [Draba] = 0 = 0. Come on.... The vampire get -1 stealth for the reminder of the round > added to > The acting vampire's stealth is reduced to 0 makes it act a -1 Stealth. Is it some kind of logic or language this time ?

reyda wrote: > :: 3 [Draba] = 0 [Ignis] -1 = -1. > :: 3 [Ignis] -1 = 2 [Draba] = 0 = 0. > > Come on.... > The vampire get -1 stealth for the reminder of the round > added to > The > acting vampire's stealth is reduced to 0 makes it act a -1 Stealth. Is it > some kind of logic or language this time ? Reducing it to zero has the effect of reducing it to zero. If his stealth is 3 when draba is played, draba acts as a -3 stealth modifier. If Mass Reality is in play and a vampire with Memories of Mortality uses a .44 to strike a Renegade Garou, how much damage does the Garou take (remember, the Mass Reality's effect lasts for as long as the Mass Reality is in play). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: :: reyda wrote: ::::: 3 [Draba] = 0 [Ignis] -1 = -1. ::::: 3 [Ignis] -1 = 2 [Draba] = 0 = 0. ::: ::: Come on.... ::: The vampire get -1 stealth for the reminder of the round > added ::: to > The acting vampire's stealth is reduced to 0 makes it act a - ::: 1 Stealth. Is it some kind of logic or language this time ? :: :: Reducing it to zero has the effect of reducing it to zero. :: If his stealth is 3 when draba is played, draba acts as a -3 :: stealth modifier. what i thought (with this wording) is "the acting minion's stealth is now zero" And this could be added to "the acting minion's stealth takes a -1 penalty". I guess this is the same kind of clarification you pointed when i asked if Erosion would leave Lazverinus with 0 strength or 2 strength...

[ quoted text not captured ] Erosion modifies the minion's base strength (like Torn Signpost would). It doesn't apply a modifier based on his current strength. Reducing a minion's base stealth to zero would be largely pointless, since almost all minions have a base stealth of zero by default. Standard stealth-increasing action modifiers last for the duration of the action by default. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Reyda. Imagine the following situation: - Arika attempts to bleed (zero stealth action). - Joaquina Amaya attempts to block. - Arika plays Cloak the Gathering at superior to get +1 stealth. - Joaquina Amaya plays Ignis Fatuus at inferior (-1 stealth), so Arika's current stealth is zero. - Arika plays Lost in Crowds at superior to get +2 stealth. - Joaquina Amaya plays Draba at superior to reduce Arika's stealth to ZERO. - Combat occurs, and Arika plays Majesty at superior to untap. If Arika attempts another action this turn, she will get -1 stealth because of the Ignis Fatuus. However, in the example I have given above, Draba reduced Arika's stealth to ZERO for that bleed action, which means that the Ignis Fatuus' stealth reduction for that bleed action is irrelevant at that moment, because of Draba's effect. Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: :: Reyda. Imagine the following situation: :: :: - Arika attempts to bleed (zero stealth action). :: - Joaquina Amaya attempts to block. :: - Arika plays Cloak the Gathering at superior to get +1 stealth. :: - Joaquina Amaya plays Ignis Fatuus at inferior (-1 stealth), so :: Arika's current stealth is zero. :: - Arika plays Lost in Crowds at superior to get +2 stealth. :: - Joaquina Amaya plays Draba at superior to reduce Arika's stealth :: to ZERO. - Combat occurs, and Arika plays Majesty at superior to :: untap. :: :: If Arika attempts another action this turn, she will get -1 :: stealth because of the Ignis Fatuus. However, in the example I :: have given above, Draba reduced Arika's stealth to ZERO for that :: bleed action, which means that the Ignis Fatuus' stealth reduction :: for that bleed action is irrelevant at that moment, because of :: Draba's effect. :: :: Greetings, :: Damnans thank you Damnans ;) I think it solves my problem =) What i was thinking with your question is : does it make any difference if i play draba + ignis or Ignis + draba "in a row", which means without the other minion playing things in between -then my answer would be it doesn't make a difference -hence my simple example with guard duty. Now i know what you meant with the question, so the argument is over. I don't how we ended on something so complicated =) reyda

LSJ wrote: :: reyda wrote: ::: ::: LSJ wrote: ::::: reyda wrote: :::::::: 3 [Draba] = 0 [Ignis] -1 = -1. :::::::: 3 [Ignis] -1 = 2 [Draba] = 0 = 0. :::::: :::::: Come on.... :::::: The vampire get -1 stealth for the reminder of the round > :::::: added to > The acting vampire's stealth is reduced to 0 makes :::::: it act a - 1 Stealth. Is it some kind of logic or language :::::: this time ? ::::: ::::: Reducing it to zero has the effect of reducing it to zero. ::::: If his stealth is 3 when draba is played, draba acts as a -3 ::::: stealth modifier. I answered to damnans this time =) ::: what i thought (with this wording) is "the acting minion's ::: stealth is now zero" And this could be added to "the acting ::: minion's stealth takes a -1 penalty". ::: ::: I guess this is the same kind of clarification you pointed when i ::: asked if Erosion would leave Lazverinus with 0 strength or 2 ::: strength... :: :: Erosion modifies the minion's base strength (like Torn Signpost :: would). It doesn't apply a modifier based on his current strength. :: :: Reducing a minion's base stealth to zero would be largely :: pointless, since almost all minions have a base stealth of zero by :: default. :: :: Standard stealth-increasing action modifiers last for the duration :: of the action by default. understood =) just a question : is Erosion only useful against a warghoul then ?

reyda wrote: > LSJ wrote: > :: Erosion modifies the minion's base strength (like Torn Signpost > :: would). It doesn't apply a modifier based on his current strength. > :: > just a question : is Erosion only useful against a warghoul then ? ? It's "useful" against any minion with a base strength of 1 or more (that's most minions). [ quoted text not captured ]

reyda wrote: > What i was thinking with your question is : does it make any difference if i > play draba + ignis or Ignis + draba "in a row", which means without the > other minion playing things in between -then my answer would be it doesn't > make a difference It does make a difference. Draba followed by Ignis results in the minion having -1 stealth (unless he had less than 0 stealth to start with, so that Draba had no effect). Ignis followed by Draba results in the minion having 0 stealth (unless he had 0 or less stealth to start with, so that the Draba had no effect and just left him with negative stealth). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: :: reyda wrote: ::: What i was thinking with your question is : does it make any ::: difference if i play draba + ignis or Ignis + draba "in a row", ::: which means without the other minion playing things in between - ::: then my answer would be it doesn't make a difference :: :: It does make a difference. :: :: Draba followed by Ignis results in the minion having -1 stealth :: (unless he had less than 0 stealth to start with, so that Draba :: had no effect). :: :: Ignis followed by Draba results in the minion having 0 stealth :: (unless he had 0 or less stealth to start with, so that the Draba :: had no effect and just left him with negative stealth). Oh crap i still didn't get it =)

> > He's not allowed to block due to the seduction but second trad states > > "and attempts to block". > > Is THAT legal to play? (If it is, I suppose he untaps but can't > > attempt to block) > > No. > > > I agree that this situation is more dubious than the draba, but it's > > the same theme so to speak. (i.e is cardtext considered a requirement > > to play) > > The "reduce to zero" is not prohibited. > The "attempt to block" is prohibited. I think a mathematician would disagree on the reducing to 0 from -1 part :)

>It does make a difference. > >Draba followed by Ignis results in the minion having -1 stealth (unless >he had less than 0 stealth to start with, so that Draba had no effect). > >Ignis followed by Draba results in the minion having 0 stealth (unless he >had 0 or less stealth to start with, so that the Draba had no effect and just > >left him with negative stealth). Can you please refresh my memory. Draba reduces the acting minion's stealth. But IIRC, stealthy action modifiers actually modify the stealth for the action (which is why Vampire A playing Lost in Crowds at superior, Vampire B Masking at inferior is still performing the action at +2 stealth from that earlier Lost). Thus, wouldn't Draba be generally ineffective against stealth action modifiers? Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > Draba reduces the acting minion's stealth. But IIRC, stealthy action modifiers > actually modify the stealth for the action (which is why Vampire A playing Lost > in Crowds at superior, Vampire B Masking at inferior is still performing the > action at +2 stealth from that earlier Lost). Thus, wouldn't Draba be generally > ineffective against stealth action modifiers? No. As stated earlier in this thread, that would be pointless (since minions have 0 stealth by default). As stated earlier in this thread, applying Draba to a minion who is currently acting at X stealth (where X is positive) has the same effect as applying a -X stealth modifier. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] As stated earlier in this thread, reducing from -1 is not possible. But that doesn't prohibit the effect from being applied (uselessly). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DF884B3...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Draba reduces the acting minion's stealth. But IIRC, stealthy action modifiers > > actually modify the stealth for the action (which is why Vampire A playing Lost > > in Crowds at superior, Vampire B Masking at inferior is still performing the > > action at +2 stealth from that earlier Lost). Thus, wouldn't Draba be generally > > ineffective against stealth action modifiers? > > No. > As stated earlier in this thread, that would be pointless (since minions > have 0 stealth by default). As stated earlier in this thread, applying Draba > to a minion who is currently acting at X stealth (where X is positive) has > the same effect as applying a -X stealth modifier. Although the -X stealth modifier applies only to that minion - if another takes over the action (with Mask or similar) then that new minion would "regain" the lost stealth, yeah? It sounds like Halcyan was thinking of something more sweeping than that, though. Josh unswept

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > As stated earlier in this thread, applying Draba > > to a minion who is currently acting at X stealth (where X is positive) has > > the same effect as applying a -X stealth modifier. > > Although the -X stealth modifier applies only to that minion - > if another takes over the action (with Mask or similar) then > that new minion would "regain" the lost stealth, yeah? No. The reduction applies to the action, as usual. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> > As stated earlier in this thread, applying Draba >> > to a minion who is currently acting at X stealth (where X is positive) >has >> > the same effect as applying a -X stealth modifier. >> >> Although the -X stealth modifier applies only to that minion - >> if another takes over the action (with Mask or similar) then >> that new minion would "regain" the lost stealth, yeah? > >No. The reduction applies to the action, as usual. So if Muaziz CI's to Harbingers and gets the Erebus Mask, she naturally has +2 stealth on all of her actions. Say she bleeds with her +2 stealth. A Draba is played which effectively acts as a -2 stealth modifier to the action. Now if some other minion (Smudge with obf) manages to Mask the action over, he's now performing the bleed at -2 stealth? Halcyan 2

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DFA104D...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > As stated earlier in this thread, applying Draba > > > to a minion who is currently acting at X stealth (where X is positive) has > > > the same effect as applying a -X stealth modifier. > > > > Although the -X stealth modifier applies only to that minion - > > if another takes over the action (with Mask or similar) then > > that new minion would "regain" the lost stealth, yeah? > > No. The reduction applies to the action, as usual. This seems like a reversal of what you wrote on April 19th, although it's possible that you didn't mean what I think you did when saying that either alternative was possible? http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CBFEEFF.66785E85%40white-wolf.com Josh missing something

Halcyan 2 wrote: > So if Muaziz CI's to Harbingers and gets the Erebus Mask, she naturally has +2 > stealth on all of her actions. > > Say she bleeds with her +2 stealth. A Draba is played which effectively acts as > a -2 stealth modifier to the action. Now if some other minion (Smudge with obf) > manages to Mask the action over, he's now performing the bleed at -2 stealth? Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > This seems like a reversal of what you wrote on April 19th, > although it's possible that you didn't mean what I think > you did when saying that either alternative was possible? > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CBFEEFF.66785E85%40white-wolf.com That says that Mask is playable before or after the "the block succeeds" event. It doesn't address stealth transition or lack thereof. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DFA308D...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > This seems like a reversal of what you wrote on April 19th, > > although it's possible that you didn't mean what I think > > you did when saying that either alternative was possible? > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CBFEEFF.66785E85%40white-wolf.com > > That says that Mask is playable before or after the "the block succeeds" > event. It doesn't address stealth transition or lack thereof. As I read it, it did. " GreySeer wrote: > > Minion A hunts ( @ the default +1 stealth ) > Minion Z plays Draba > Minion B plays Mask of 1K Faces @ basic > > I see 2 possible situations > 1) Minion B plays Mask of 1K Faces before the block is successful and combat > is entered, hence the hunt succeeds. > 2) Minion B plays Mask of 1K Faces after the block is successful and enter > combat with the blocking minion ( Z ). > > Does 1 or 2 apply or can I essentially choose, based on timing?" In 1), the hunt succeeds - because Minion B isn't subject to the "reduce stealth to 0" of the Draba. Otherwise the hunt wouldn't succeed even if Mask was played before the block was successful - the Mask was played at basic (no additional stealth). Is that not actually what you meant to say at the time? Or am I reading it wrong somehow? Your comparison to Lucretia seems to imply that it is a stealth-gaining issue, but maybe you were thinking stealth was going to be gained from the Mask rather than the ending of the Draba effect? Josh

[ quoted text not captured ] Meaning of my answer: If the Mask is played before the block succeeds and then, after Masking, the blocking minion fails to have enough intercept to block the action, then the action goes through. If the Mask is played after the block succeeds then it doesn't matter what the intercept-to-stealth comparison is after the Mask is played. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DFA351D...@white-wolf.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CBFEEFF.66785E85%40white-wolf.com > Meaning of my answer: > > If the Mask is played before the block succeeds and then, after Masking, > the blocking minion fails to have enough intercept to block the action, > then the action goes through. > > If the Mask is played after the block succeeds then it doesn't matter > what the intercept-to-stealth comparison is after the Mask is played. OK. I'm pretty sure that this reverses what everyone reading took away from that thread, but that's fine. :-) Josh clarified now