[LSJ] Strike with conviction

Hello, I would like to confirm the following about Strike with conviction : Strike with conviction Conviction "(...). Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action." If the bleed is blocked, do I burn the card ? Thank you, François

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, you burn it to be able to attempt the bleed. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, XZealot wrote: >> I would like to confirm the following about Strike with conviction : >> >> Strike with conviction >> Conviction >> "(...). Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action." >> >> If the bleed is blocked, do I burn the card ? > > Yes, you burn it to be able to attempt the bleed. Nope. Apparently burning the Conviction is the cost of the action. The cost is not paid if it's blocked. http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3565#50202 Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. The (D) action is "burn to bleed at +1 bleed".

[ quoted text not captured ] Neato. I thought Strike with Conviction was already a pretty good Conviction card and now it got just a little bit stronger. Do I take the bleed or block and risk taking +1 damage in combat from them buring the Strike with Conviction for its other effect (assuming I am a monster) or suffering some other Power or Imbued card that costs Conviction (that the Imbued is now able to pay for with the Strike with Conviction they did not have to burn to attempt the bleed). Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] Then the language is non-intuitive. "If x then to be able to do y" does not imply that y has to be successful for x to occur. The card should have been written as a action modifier if that was the intent, such as "burn to get +1 bleed". [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, XZealot wrote: > > > > >> I would like to confirm the following about Strike with conviction : > > >> > > >> Strike with conviction > > >> Conviction > > >> "(...). Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action." > > >> > > >> If the bleed is blocked, do I burn the card ? > > > > > > Yes, you burn it to be able to attempt the bleed. > > > > Nope. Apparently burning the Conviction is the cost of the action. The > > cost is not paid if it's blocked. > > > > http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3565#50202 > > Then the language is non-intuitive. I agree that it seems unintuitive on its own. However, the rules state that the cost of an action is not payed until the action is successful. So the only interpretation is whether burning Strike With Conviction is a cost of the action or is merely a side effect of the attempt. The ruling is yes, it's the cost of the action. > "If x then to be able to do y" does not imply that y has to be > successful for x to occur. See also Hrothulf and Enticement. Neither require you to burn the edge if the action is blocked, because burning the edge is part of the cost of the action. > The card should have been written as a action modifier if that was the > intent, such as "burn to get +1 bleed". No. Such a card would stack with other bleed actions like Computer Hacking, and thus *not* meet the intent of this card. Witness1 -ItE