LSJ Forced Awakening Q

Ira and I agree, Jeff Kuta doesn't: A Bleeds. B Forced Awakening and attempts to block. A plays stealth. B Declares "No block", and Deflects. C Reduces A's stealth (Draba?), and deflects back to B. B now blocks. Does B burn a blood for Forced Awakening? best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

librarian wrote: > Ira and I agree, Jeff Kuta doesn't: > > A Bleeds. > B Forced Awakening and attempts to block. > A plays stealth. > B Declares "No block", and Deflects. > C Reduces A's stealth (Draba?), and deflects back to B. > B now blocks. > Does B burn a blood for Forced Awakening? No. Jeff indeed should know; he followed-up to this article: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3deecaa89f2088fa More here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f276c2a35629ab4b And see also the online rulings (quoted in that second URL as well).

On Oct 12, 10:08 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Ira and I agree, Jeff Kuta doesn't: > > A Bleeds. > B Forced Awakening and attempts to block. > A plays stealth. > B Declares "No block", and Deflects. > C Reduces A's stealth (Draba?), and deflects back to B. > B now blocks. > Does B burn a blood for Forced Awakening? IANLSJ, but I would say that no, he doesn't burn blood. The blood is not burnt until the resolution of the action. Forced Awakening Reaction Only usable by a tapped vampire. This reacting vampire can attempt to block and play reaction cards as though untapped. If he or she does not successfully block this action, he or she burns an additional blood. The card makes no mention of multiple block attempts, just that if they fail to block the action. As the action is still progressing, and the new block attempt is now successful, they have met the criteria to not burn blood. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

On Oct 12, 10:18 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 10:08 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > Ira and I agree, Jeff Kuta doesn't: > > > A Bleeds. > > B Forced Awakening and attempts to block. > > A plays stealth. > > B Declares "No block", and Deflects. > > C Reduces A's stealth (Draba?), and deflects back to B. > > B now blocks. > > Does B burn a blood for Forced Awakening? > > IANLSJ, but I would say that no, he doesn't burn blood. The blood is > not burnt until the resolution of the action. > > > --> J > grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com Or LSJ can be quicker than me anyway. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 11, 5:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > Ira and I agree, Jeff Kuta doesn't: > > > A Bleeds. > > B Forced Awakening and attempts to block. > > A plays stealth. > > B Declares "No block", and Deflects. > > C Reduces A's stealth (Draba?), and deflects back to B. > > B now blocks. > > Does B burn a blood for Forced Awakening? > > No. > > Jeff indeed should know; he followed-up to this article:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3dee... > > More here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f276... > > And see also the online rulings (quoted in that second URL as well). Or perhaps you could not quote me out of context. And flat out wrongly. The situation at hand *WAS NOT* the one described above. It was an anarch stealing blood via Principia Discordia off of a vampire which had 1 blood who had Forced Awake and didn't generate enough intercept to block the action. The vampire burns 1 blood PRIOR to the steal going into effect so the stealer gets nothing. LSJ ruled on this with a similar situation but I can't find the link right now. It's the *SAME* end result, but this being a steal action (D) at a vampire, there is no way to change the target of the action a la Deflfection, so when the Meth declares "No more blockers" there really are no more blockers. I suppose you could make the case for Eagle's Sight type shenanigans but that just wasn't the case. So please, don't put words in my mouth, especially when they are wrong.. Get your facts straight first. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Hi Jeff - Sorry you got so bothered. I don't dispute what you are saying. But I actually asked and responded to what Ira said, and I quote the JOL log here: league434npd - adam 5.2 11:55 10/11 [ira] Actually, I think it's a valid timing question, Jeff. If Tariq Forces Awake, attempts to block a *BLEED* (emphasis mine), acting minion 11:55 10/11 [ira] adds stealth, Tariq fails to block, bleed it bounced, stealth reduced, and bounced back, if Tariq blocks, he doesn't 11:56 10/11 [ira] burn a blood from the Forced Awakening in that situation (at least, I don't think he does.) Your reply was: 12:17 10/11 [Jeff] as soon as the meth declares "no more blocks" then the FA fails 12:19 10/11 [Jeff] something about a ravnos stealing with her innate special. LSJ ruled on it I guess from what you have described above, you were referring to the Principia Discordia action. But Ira specifically referred to a bleed action, which is what I asked here on the NG. And you didn't say you were referring to Principia Discordia, however since that was what was going on in the game at the time, of course that could very well have been on the top of everyone's mind but mine; and I see now that you do mention "a ravnos stealing", which I totally missed the first time. Since I came in later and just skimmed the turns, I didn't even realize you might have been talking about PD. Again, sorry about misunderstanding you, but it did seem like you were disagreeing with what Ira wrote about a *BLEED*. In this instance, I think I have my facts straight. Although, as usual, I'm probably wrong again. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > aucti...@superfuncards.com Thanks for clarifying. I just was sticking to the original action at hand and not considering Ira's hypothetical. No harm, no foul. :) Jeff

On Oct 12, 11:26 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > In this instance, I think I have my facts straight. Although, as usual, > I'm probably wrong again. Ah, the oh so humble Chris Shorb. "Huntblockahunt?".