Anathema: correct me if i am wrong, I have Anathema on a minion who
has no blood. A minion enters combat with me and steals 0 blood (as i
have none) playing a "theft of vitae", i believe that the Anathema is
not triggered because i have not suffered an actual reduction in my
blood, i wouldn't be burned either if i was sent to torpor with a hand
strike, 'cause i had no blood. Correct ?
If i had one blood and played majesty i would be burned, because i pay
the cost of the card as i declare my strike, right ?
Majesty: i am the acting minion and i choose my strike which is
majesty superior (CE and untap before CE) the op minion's strike is
also majesty superior. Does he untap ? it says before CE, but because
i am the acting minion i believe that his strike should have no
effect, so no untap for him. (i think that the official rules allow
him to untap, but i am not sure, so please tell me what happens).
Rotschreck: I believe Rotschreck beats CE, right?
I also believe that a blocking minion with erosion on him (str = 0),
or under the effects of disease (-2 str) cannot play Rotschreck
because he is not "about to inflict aggravated damage" as he has not a
current possitive strength value and would inflict 0 damage, am i
right ?
Form of mist: I declare a bleed, a minion of my prey plays forced
awakening and blocks, in the resulting combat i play form of mist
superior and i burn a blood to continue the action at +1 stealth. Can
the minion who previously blocked play a deflection without "waking"
again by playing another wake ?
i believe yes because it is the same action as form of mist states
"burn 1 blood to continue the action as if it was unblocked at +1
stealth". Am i right ?
Forced awakening: I bleed at +2 stealth and a minion of my prey
with only 1 blood left plays "forced awakening" and adds 1 intercept,
then he draws a deflection. So he says i deflect it, pays the 1 blood
cost and then has no blood to burn for playing forced awakening and
not blocking. Right ?
I have heard someone saying that he cannot play deflection because he
has to burn the blood for not blocking immediately after he fails to
block, so before having the opportunity to play deflection. I don't
think this is the case, because the blood is burned at the end of the
action, thus after the bleed is resolved. So i believe he has the
option of using his only blood to play deflection, right ?
chiroptean marauder and cards that state "burn 1 blood to do this":
the "burn 1 blood to do this" is considered as blood cost ?
if yes, then meshenka can play chi marauder at superior without
paying, if not then he has to burn 1 blood. I believe it is blood
cost, but i have heard some ppl saying that it is not blood cost, and
thus he has to burn the blood. This is crazy in my opinion, i am quite
sure that the cards that say "burn x blood" talk about blood cost,
because they just couldn't put the usual blood cost mark on the side
of the card, as the chi marauder (and form of mist, etc) doesn't
require blood to be paid for the inferior effect.
Accepting this crazy theory that "burn 1 blood to do that" is not a
blood cost, then any minion with superior vic and no blood on him can
play chi marauder at superior, because the card has no cost so he can
play it and doesn't burn 1 blood 'cause he has none. Like when you can
play forced awakening and redirection with no blood.
Sorry for the really long posting, the next ones will be sorter, i
promise.
> Anathema: correct me if i am wrong, I have Anathema on a minion who
> has no blood. A minion enters combat with me and steals 0 blood (as i
> have none) playing a "theft of vitae", i believe that the Anathema is
> not triggered because i have not suffered an actual reduction in my
> blood, i wouldn't be burned either if i was sent to torpor with a hand
> strike, 'cause i had no blood. Correct ?
> If i had one blood and played majesty i would be burned, because i pay
> the cost of the card as i declare my strike, right ?
Correct. There must be an actual reduction in blood. The source of the
loss does not matter.
[RTR 19980623] @
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid%3a358FE...@wizards.com> Majesty: i am the acting minion and i choose my strike which is
> majesty superior (CE and untap before CE) the op minion's strike is
> also majesty superior. Does he untap ? it says before CE, but because
> i am the acting minion i believe that his strike should have no
> effect, so no untap for him. (i think that the official rules allow
> him to untap, but i am not sure, so please tell me what happens).
Not 100% sure about this one. Both strikes resolve at the same time,
since both are a "S:CE-speed", so yes both vampires will untap.
> Rotschreck: I believe Rotschreck beats CE, right?
> I also believe that a blocking minion with erosion on him (str = 0),
> or under the effects of disease (-2 str) cannot play Rotschreck
> because he is not "about to inflict aggravated damage" as he has not a
> current possitive strength value and would inflict 0 damage, am i
> right ?
Both are correct.
Neither can you play Rotschrek when you're at the wrong range for the
aggravated damage.
> Form of mist: I declare a bleed, a minion of my prey plays forced
> awakening and blocks, in the resulting combat i play form of mist
> superior and i burn a blood to continue the action at +1 stealth. Can
> the minion who previously blocked play a deflection without "waking"
> again by playing another wake ?
> i believe yes because it is the same action as form of mist states
> "burn 1 blood to continue the action as if it was unblocked at +1
> stealth". Am i right ?
Yup. Action has not ended yet, so you can still play actions and try to
block as if untapped.
> Forced awakening: I bleed at +2 stealth and a minion of my prey
> with only 1 blood left plays "forced awakening" and adds 1 intercept,
> then he draws a deflection. So he says i deflect it, pays the 1 blood
> cost and then has no blood to burn for playing forced awakening and
> not blocking. Right ?
> I have heard someone saying that he cannot play deflection because he
> has to burn the blood for not blocking immediately after he fails to
> block, so before having the opportunity to play deflection. I don't
> think this is the case, because the blood is burned at the end of the
> action, thus after the bleed is resolved. So i believe he has the
> option of using his only blood to play deflection, right ?
Correct again. You can spend blood for cards because you are allowed to
play them "as if untapped".
Only AFTER the action has been resolved, it becomes apparent that you
failed to block, at which point you must burn a blood.
If there's no blood to burn (as in above case), too bad for the blood.
> chiroptean marauder and cards that state "burn 1 blood to do this":
> the "burn 1 blood to do this" is considered as blood cost ?
> if yes, then meshenka can play chi marauder at superior without
> paying, if not then he has to burn 1 blood. I believe it is blood
> cost, but i have heard some ppl saying that it is not blood cost, and
> thus he has to burn the blood. This is crazy in my opinion, i am quite
> sure that the cards that say "burn x blood" talk about blood cost,
> because they just couldn't put the usual blood cost mark on the side
> of the card, as the chi marauder (and form of mist, etc) doesn't
> require blood to be paid for the inferior effect.
> Accepting this crazy theory that "burn 1 blood to do that" is not a
> blood cost, then any minion with superior vic and no blood on him can
> play chi marauder at superior, because the card has no cost so he can
> play it and doesn't burn 1 blood 'cause he has none. Like when you can
> play forced awakening and redirection with no blood.
Burning blood is NOT a blood cost. It's an ability granted by playing a
card, much like there are permanent action cards that grant a vampire an
ability for a certain "burn-blood" cost. Easy to figure out by using
Lightning Reflexes as an example.
Lightning Reflexes
[cel] Additional strike.
[CEL] This vampire may burn X blood to gain X additional strikes.
In Meshenka's case, the X would be a blood cost and as such he can gain
unlimited additional strikes for free.
Same goes for Awe. That would be 2 times unlimited votes. For free.
Cool.
Sorry, but the "crazy theory" is true.
And to answer your question, yes a minion with no blood can play Chi
Marauder and then simply fail to burn a blood. You can still use the
maneuver if you want...
Ulugh Beg II expounded:
> > Majesty: i am the acting minion and i choose my strike which is
> > majesty superior (CE and untap before CE) the op minion's strike is
> > also majesty superior. Does he untap ? it says before CE, but because
> > i am the acting minion i believe that his strike should have no
> > effect, so no untap for him. (i think that the official rules allow
> > him to untap, but i am not sure, so please tell me what happens).
>
> Not 100% sure about this one. Both strikes resolve at the same time,
> since both are a "S:CE-speed", so yes both vampires will untap.
I'm sure. Both get to untap. Both SCE strikes resolve at the same time -
just as both hand strikes owuld resolve at the same time if you hit each
other for 1 (for example).
> > Rotschreck: I believe Rotschreck beats CE, right?
> > I also believe that a blocking minion with erosion on him (str = 0),
> > or under the effects of disease (-2 str) cannot play Rotschreck
> > because he is not "about to inflict aggravated damage" as he has not a
> > current possitive strength value and would inflict 0 damage, am i
> > right ?
>
> Both are correct.
> Neither can you play Rotschrek when you're at the wrong range for the
> aggravated damage.
Assuming that the Rotschreck was being played on a strength-based strike
-ie you must be attempting to do actual damage but if you were playing
Walk of Flame it wouldn't matter what your strength was.
> > Forced awakening: I bleed at +2 stealth and a minion of my prey
> > with only 1 blood left plays "forced awakening" and adds 1 intercept,
> > then he draws a deflection. So he says i deflect it, pays the 1 blood
> > cost and then has no blood to burn for playing forced awakening and
> > not blocking. Right ?
> > I have heard someone saying that he cannot play deflection because he
> > has to burn the blood for not blocking immediately after he fails to
> > block, so before having the opportunity to play deflection. I don't
> > think this is the case, because the blood is burned at the end of the
> > action, thus after the bleed is resolved. So i believe he has the
> > option of using his only blood to play deflection, right ?
>
> Correct again. You can spend blood for cards because you are allowed to
> play them "as if untapped".
> Only AFTER the action has been resolved, it becomes apparent that you
> failed to block, at which point you must burn a blood.
> If there's no blood to burn (as in above case), too bad for the blood.
Imagine that after you deflect someone else reduced the stealth to 1 (or
0) and then it got bounced back to you. You could still attempt to block
with the Forced minion and might succeed.
> > chiroptean marauder and cards that state "burn 1 blood to do this":> Burning blood is NOT a blood cost. It's an ability granted by playing a
> card, much like there are permanent action cards that grant a vampire an
> ability for a certain "burn-blood" cost. Easy to figure out by using
> Lightning Reflexes as an example.
>> Sorry, but the "crazy theory" is true.
> And to answer your question, yes a minion with no blood can play Chi
> Marauder and then simply fail to burn a blood. You can still use the
> maneuver if you want...
However you can't fail to burn the blood and use the effect that
requires it -you must burn the blood BEFORE you can use the effect; as
opposed to other effects where you have to burn a blood as a result of
something and you fail to burn th eblood because it isn't there.
For Chiroptean Marauder, I believe you could play it as superior to gain
the ability to burn a blood to make your hand strikes agg but not
(through choice or inability) burn the blood and consequently not make
your hand strikes agg.
Ulugh Beg II wrote:
[snip cited answers]
>>Majesty: i am the acting minion and i choose my strike which is
>>majesty superior (CE and untap before CE) the op minion's strike is
>>also majesty superior. Does he untap ? it says before CE, but because
>>i am the acting minion i believe that his strike should have no
>>effect, so no untap for him. (i think that the official rules allow
>>him to untap, but i am not sure, so please tell me what happens).>
> Not 100% sure about this one. Both strikes resolve at the same time,
> since both are a "S:CE-speed", so yes both vampires will untap.
Correct.
>>Rotschreck: I believe Rotschreck beats CE, right?
>>I also believe that a blocking minion with erosion on him (str = 0),
>>or under the effects of disease (-2 str) cannot play Rotschreck
>>because he is not "about to inflict aggravated damage" as he has not a
>>current possitive strength value and would inflict 0 damage, am i
>>right ?>
> Both are correct.
> Neither can you play Rotschrek when you're at the wrong range for the
> aggravated damage.
Correct.
>> Form of mist: I declare a bleed, a minion of my prey plays forced
>>awakening and blocks, in the resulting combat i play form of mist
>>superior and i burn a blood to continue the action at +1 stealth. Can
>>the minion who previously blocked play a deflection without "waking"
>>again by playing another wake ?
>>i believe yes because it is the same action as form of mist states
>>"burn 1 blood to continue the action as if it was unblocked at +1
>>stealth". Am i right ?>
> Yup. Action has not ended yet, so you can still play actions and try to
> block as if untapped.
Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Burning blood is not the cost of the card, correct. It is the cost of
the effect.
> Lightning Reflexes as an example.
>
> Lightning Reflexes
> [cel] Additional strike.
> [CEL] This vampire may burn X blood to gain X additional strikes.
>
> In Meshenka's case, the X would be a blood cost and as such he can gain
> unlimited additional strikes for free.
Not true. The cost of the card (which Meshenka doesn't pay) is 1 blood.
If he uses the superior, he gets the ability to burn X blood to gain
X additional strikes.
> Same goes for Awe. That would be 2 times unlimited votes. For free.
> Cool.
Correct.
--
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/
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:32:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
[snip]
>> Lightning Reflexes as an example.
>>
>> Lightning Reflexes
>> [cel] Additional strike.
>> [CEL] This vampire may burn X blood to gain X additional strikes.
>>
>> In Meshenka's case, the X would be a blood cost and as such he can gain
>> unlimited additional strikes for free.>
>Not true. The cost of the card (which Meshenka doesn't pay) is 1 blood.
>If he uses the superior, he gets the ability to burn X blood to gain
>X additional strikes.
Interesting. Because, well, Meshenka only pays one less for
Vicissitude cards. Lightning Reflexes ia a celerity card. :)
Dragos, however, doesn't pay for any combat card.
So, to clarify:
The cost of a card is the number on the side.
If a card says "burn to (do something)", you actually need to have the
blood, and burn it, to do the thing.
If a card says '(do something) and burn a blood', then you can do the
thing if you have no blood, and then, as per normal, a vampire with no
blood is not effected by burn-blood effects.
>> Same goes for Awe. That would be 2 times unlimited votes. For free.
>> Cool.>
>Correct.
For who? Meshenka is only 1 less (not free) for Vic, Dragos is only
combat cards for free. Who's getting 2xunlimited votes with Awe? :)
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
> >> Lightning Reflexes as an example.
> >>
> >> Lightning Reflexes
> >> [cel] Additional strike.
> >> [CEL] This vampire may burn X blood to gain X additional strikes.
> >>
> >> In Meshenka's case, the X would be a blood cost and as such he can
gain
> >> unlimited additional strikes for free.> >Not true. The cost of the card (which Meshenka doesn't pay) is 1
blood.
> >If he uses the superior, he gets the ability to burn X blood to gain
> >X additional strikes.
I know. I was merely using this as an example why "burn blood" is not a
blood cost.
I just used the wrong vamp to illustrate.
> Interesting. Because, well, Meshenka only pays one less for
> Vicissitude cards. Lightning Reflexes ia a celerity card. :)
> Dragos, however, doesn't pay for any combat card.
>
> So, to clarify:
> The cost of a card is the number on the side.
> If a card says "burn to (do something)", you actually need to have the
> blood, and burn it, to do the thing.
> If a card says '(do something) and burn a blood', then you can do the
> thing if you have no blood, and then, as per normal, a vampire with no
> blood is not effected by burn-blood effects.
>
> >> Same goes for Awe. That would be 2 times unlimited votes. For free.
> >> Cool.
> >
> >Correct.
>
> For who? Meshenka is only 1 less (not free) for Vic, Dragos is only
> combat cards for free. Who's getting 2xunlimited votes with Awe? :)
Nobody does.
I do however now realize that Awe has a blood cost of "X" and Light Ref
just costs 1 and has the inherent burn blood ability.
I though both were "burn X" cards.
>Nobody does.
>I do however now realize that Awe has a blood cost of "X" and Light Ref
>just costs 1 and has the inherent burn blood ability.
>I though both were "burn X" cards.
>
>
Awe used to be. CE changed it.
Halcyan 2
salem wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:32:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:
>
> [snip]
>>>>Lightning Reflexes as an example.
>>>
>>>Lightning Reflexes
>>>[cel] Additional strike.
>>>[CEL] This vampire may burn X blood to gain X additional strikes.
>>>
>>>In Meshenka's case, the X would be a blood cost and as such he can gain
>>>unlimited additional strikes for free.>>
>>Not true. The cost of the card (which Meshenka doesn't pay) is 1 blood.
>>If he uses the superior, he gets the ability to burn X blood to gain
>>X additional strikes.>
> Interesting. Because, well, Meshenka only pays one less for
> Vicissitude cards. Lightning Reflexes ia a celerity card. :)
> Dragos, however, doesn't pay for any combat card.
Sorry, yes. I was answering just the "what's a card cost" underlying
question without paying enough attention to the example given.
> So, to clarify:
> The cost of a card is the number on the side.
> If a card says "burn to (do something)", you actually need to have the
> blood, and burn it, to do the thing.
> If a card says '(do something) and burn a blood', then you can do the
> thing if you have no blood, and then, as per normal, a vampire with no
> blood is not effected by burn-blood effects.
Correct.
>>>Same goes for Awe. That would be 2 times unlimited votes. For free.
>>>Cool.>>
>>Correct.>
> For who? Meshenka is only 1 less (not free) for Vic, Dragos is only
> combat cards for free. Who's getting 2xunlimited votes with Awe? :)
Anyone who can play Awe without paying the card's cost. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20030918123751...@mb-m25.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Aaah, so my memory does serve me right.
I have one Sabbath copy (I think) and it indeed says "burn X blood" etc
etc
>> Awe used to be. CE changed it.
>>>
>Aaah, so my memory does serve me right.
>I have one Sabbath copy (I think) and it indeed says "burn X blood" etc
>etc
>
The Sabbat version was no cost and burn X blood.
The printed CE version had a cost of X and burn X blood (so it appeared to cost
twice as much). However, it was corrected to simply have a cost of X (instead
of the burn X blood part). Note that one side effect was that Awe now combos
with Ankara Citadel.
Halcyan 2