[LSJ] Clarification about playing Form of Mist/"Needing Stealth"

A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and the vampire with intercept is tapped. There is an old ruling, still to be found in the rulings page under "Form of Mist" which states, "The superior form cannot be used by the acting vampire unless he needs the stealth." Taken by itself, this is non-sensical since at the moment of the strike, there's no call for blockers who could be blocking the renewed action so *NO* vampire could possibly "need stealth". If I recall correctly (which is always dubious), the issue is resolved by assuming his opponent in combat is still the one attempting to block and that the issue of whether it could, given that it's now tapped, is not considered. (That is, it's as if acting vampire is still trying to evade the original block). The need for stealth (or not) is then resolved that way. The acting vampire almost always needs stealth except in a few corner cases, again, if I recall correctly. So anyway, do I have this right or does the prohibition against using FoM when needing stealth mean something completely different? And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that > if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked > by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that > Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all > because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and > the vampire with intercept is tapped. He needs stealth. There is a current blocking minion with intercept >= stealth. > And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of > FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule > that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting > vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be > perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire > didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02. Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:mOwde.3027$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of >> FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule >> that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting >> vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be >> perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire >> didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02. > > Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of > the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule. If that's currently the correct way to play it, the rulings file is misleading as currently worded. Fred

Another question: Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block. Vampire A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat he plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he still have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone" with the Raven Spies?

[ quoted text not captured ] Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at superior to continue the action.

Try using Mirror Image ;D

[ quoted text not captured ] But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spirit愀 Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn愒 he?

its a bleed action[ ;) ]^2

[ quoted text not captured ] Spirit´s > Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he? Reaction cards work for the remainder of the actions, Retainers as long as you employ them. A killed Marijava Ghoul wouldn't provide stealth either.

Johannes Walch wrote: I have thought a bit... >> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth >> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at >> superior to continue the action. Nonsense in my opinion. You can always play FoM superior to continue the action regardless if you "need" the stealth or not. What means "needing stealth" in combat anyway. > But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spirit´s > Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he? And I still have the opinion that the reacting minion keeps the original intercept just like he played cards or got intercept from locations. LSJ, can you confirm? -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > I have thought a bit... > >>> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth >>> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at >>> superior to continue the action. > > > Nonsense in my opinion. You can always play FoM superior to continue the > action regardless if you "need" the stealth or not. What means "needing > stealth" in combat anyway. > >> But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a >> Spirit愀 Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn愒 he? > > > And I still have the opinion that the reacting minion keeps the original > intercept just like he played cards or got intercept from locations. > > LSJ, can you confirm? Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need stealth. Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:52:20 +0200, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] gone. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:26:57 +0200, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: >Arden McBathan wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] from the Anarch's rulebook, 6.2: Taking an action, page 27: "The effect of an action modifier or a reaction card lasts for the duration of the current action by default" [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need > stealth. > > Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in > play. Okay, let's add another scenario to this discussion and see what the rulings mean... Frederick the Weak (having been given PRO) bleeds, playing Earth Control for +2 stealth against the first 0-intercept block attempt (Natalia). He then gets successfully blocked by Khalil Ravana, who has 2 Raven Spies - but before they go to combat, Natalia plays Shilmulo Deception to take over as the blocking minion. Can Frederick play Form of Mist at superior? Does he 'need' the stealth in this circumstance or not, since he has 2 more points of stealth than the minion he is in combat with? If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration of the combat'... > LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1115132515.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] if i understand correctly, he can play Form of Mist, but not use the burn blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other minon has 0 intercept. but, IANLSJ...

[ quoted text not captured ] Right, I'm specifically wondering about the 'burn blood to continue' part. Should have made that more clear. -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht >>>If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he >>>cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past >>>Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration > > of > >>>the combat'... >>> >> >>if i understand correctly, he can play Form of Mist, but not use the > > burn > >>blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other > > minon has 0 > >>intercept. but, IANLSJ... > > > Right, I'm specifically wondering about the 'burn blood to continue' > part. Should have made that more clear. And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. How does a blocked minion not need stealth? If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or other non-intercept) I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the action at stealth" doesn't make sense. So you do an action you smack around the guarding vamps a bit then float on through after the C:E to bleed/equip/diab etc. Sure it takes a little effort and time to mug the guard but its always worth a little payback.

carl wrote: > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > >>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. > > How does a blocked minion not need stealth? Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth". In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:11:20 +1200, "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote >> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. > >How does a blocked minion not need stealth? >If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action >would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or >other non-intercept) > >I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM >during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the >action at stealth" doesn't make sense. Why not? Bum's Rush and Harass are zero-stealth actions. If they're blocked, the acting minion can stealth past to get the intended target. I want to dunk Arika, not Gideon Fontaine. So I play Form of Mist to get to her. Don't mess the objective of the action with the burn blood effect. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta on the big screen! http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:rl1ee.3426$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > carl wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > > > >>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. > > > > How does a blocked minion not need stealth? > > Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with > intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth". > > In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept > is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion > doesn't need stealth. And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message news:jdfi71l5jn42cbpor...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:11:20 +1200, "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > >> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. > > > >How does a blocked minion not need stealth? > >If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action > >would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or > >other non-intercept) > > > >I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM > >during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the > >action at stealth" doesn't make sense. > > Why not? > > Bum's Rush and Harass are zero-stealth actions. > If they're blocked, the acting minion can stealth past to get the > intended target. I want to dunk Arika, not Gideon Fontaine. So I play > Form of Mist to get to her. > > Don't mess the objective of the action with the burn blood effect. Sorry I thought it was painfulllyy obvious that I was talking about an attack at the vampire wot blocks.

That attack will still work. Vampire A plays Bum's Rush, targeting Vampire B. Vampire B sucessfully blocks. Vampire A plays Form of Mist at superior during the resulting combat, burns a blood to continue the action, and is unblocked. Vampire A enters combat with Vampire B again, this time with the maneuver available from the Bum's Rush. John Eno

carl wrote: > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:rl1ee.3426$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > >>carl wrote: >> >>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote >>> >>> >>>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. >>> >>>How does a blocked minion not need stealth? >> >>Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with >>intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth". >> >>In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept >>is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion >>doesn't need stealth. > > And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur? The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending. See the set up to which I was responding. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > carl wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:rl1ee.3426$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > >>carl wrote: > >> > >>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > >>> > >>> > >>>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth. > >>> > >>>How does a blocked minion not need stealth? > >> > >>Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with > >>intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth". > >> > >>In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept > >>is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion > >>doesn't need stealth. > > > > And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur? > > The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending. > See the set up to which I was responding. Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. -> post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat. So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped since the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but the +1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept. So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table. Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try again. But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play intercept - then you need -more- stealth. So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is initiated then intercept to counter it.

carl wrote: > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote >>The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending. >>See the set up to which I was responding. > > Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. -> > post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat. Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth. There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed. Form of Mist has no text to override that rule. So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. > So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and > intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped since None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2] > the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but the > +1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no > blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept. In general, the action continues at an additional one stealth beyond whatever it had before. And the play of Form of Mist to add stealth was legal since stealth was needed. In the corner case which we are presently discussing, however, stealth is not needed, and so Form of Mist cannot be played to add stealth, and therefore cannot be played to continue the action. > So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table. There'd be an X+1 stealth action on the table if FoM were legal to continue the action. But it's not (in this case). > Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try again. > But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play > intercept - then you need -more- stealth. > > So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is initiated > then intercept to counter it. It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 5 May 2005 09:50:52 +1200, "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Even then, you can play Form of Mist. It just won't do any good - since the rush action was already at a "resolve effects" stage, it won't make you enter combat with the target again. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=form+of+mist+bum+rush+author:lsj&hl=pt&lr=&group=rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&selm=35vcgoF4rbcc1U1%40individual.net&rnum=6 [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:pZdee.4017$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > carl wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > >>The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending. > >>See the set up to which I was responding. > > > > Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. -> > > post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat. > > Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth. > There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed. > Form of Mist has no text to override that rule. > So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your > assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. What does stealth inside a combat resolution do? I haven't come across it before but there are lots of cards I have yet to get. > > So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and > > intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped since > > None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to > stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2] So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is continued? and not reset) but can't wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play. > > the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but the > > +1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no > > blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept. > > In general, the action continues at an additional one stealth beyond > whatever it had before. And the play of Form of Mist to add stealth > was legal since stealth was needed. > > In the corner case which we are presently discussing, however, stealth > is not needed, and so Form of Mist cannot be played to add stealth, > and therefore cannot be played to continue the action. Fredericks case: a minon's intercept >= acting minion stealth, so ok to pay and continue (+1 stealth) Johannes case: minion blocked (+3 intercept) action was at +3 stealth. Action _continues_ now at +4 stealth and the intercept continues for the length of the action, so upon a Wake that blocking minion is still at +3 intercept (but new blockers at +0 intercept.) But if the blocker does not Wake then the action cannot continue? (since acting vampire is at +3 stealth and new blockers are +0 intercept) Johns case: acting minion +2 stealth blocked by untapped vamp at +2 intercept. combat goes with third "reacting" vamp leaving +2 intercept still active on original still untapped "blocker". the FoM says nothing about who the +1 stealth applies to (ie this action/acting minion?) so acting minion needs +1 stealth to beat the still active +2 intercept on the orginal still untapped blocker and thus can pay to continue? > > So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table. > > There'd be an X+1 stealth action on the table if FoM were legal to > continue the action. But it's not (in this case). > > > Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try again. > > But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play > > intercept - then you need -more- stealth. > > > > So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is initiated > > then intercept to counter it. > > It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the > proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread. What about the +2 on Khalil Ravana who is still untapped.

carl wrote: > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth. >>There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed. >>Form of Mist has no text to override that rule. >>So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your >>assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. > > What does stealth inside a combat resolution do? I haven't come across it > before but there are lots of cards I have yet to get. What does stealth at action resolution "do"? Nothing. It just is. The only thing it ever "does" is get measured when attempting to see if a block succeeds (or if a minion needs more, etc.). >>None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to >>stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2] > > So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is > continued? and not reset) but can't Raven Spies are effects that added intercept during the action. Their intercept applies only while they are in play. > wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather > Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would > only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and > any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play. He "uses" all three while they are in play -- whether he needs intercept or not (he even has the intercept when he is acting). >>In the corner case which we are presently discussing, however, stealth >>is not needed, and so Form of Mist cannot be played to add stealth, >>and therefore cannot be played to continue the action. > > Fredericks case: a minon's intercept >= acting minion stealth, so ok to pay > and continue (+1 stealth) > > Johannes case: minion blocked (+3 intercept) action was at +3 stealth. > Action _continues_ now at +4 stealth and the intercept continues for the > length of the action, so upon a Wake that blocking minion is still at +3 > intercept (but new blockers at +0 intercept.) But if the blocker does not > Wake then the action cannot continue? (since acting vampire is at +3 stealth > and new blockers are +0 intercept) Johannes's case: Action at 3 stealth. Minion blocks with 3 intercept. Weather control kills Ravens, leaving blocking minion with 0 intercept. Acting minion (still with 3 stealth) cannot use Form of Mist to continue, since doing so would add stealth (and the acting minion doesn't need stealth). > Johns case: acting minion +2 stealth blocked by untapped vamp at +2 > intercept. combat goes with third "reacting" vamp leaving +2 intercept > still active on original still untapped "blocker". the FoM says nothing > about who the +1 stealth applies to (ie this action/acting minion?) so > acting minion needs +1 stealth to beat the still active +2 intercept on the > orginal still untapped blocker and thus can pay to continue? FoM says that the action continues, and it doesn't say to change the acting minion, so the acting minion is clearly the minion doing the continuing. FoM says to add stealth, so the acting minion must need stealth to use FoM to add stealth. He cannot, since he does not need stealth. The untapped minion with 2 intercept is not currently a blocking minion. There's only ever one blocking minion at a time, and right now, he's in combat with that one blocking minion -- the one with 0 intercept. >>It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the >>proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread. > > What about the +2 on Khalil Ravana who is still untapped. Or the +3 on Bob with three Ravens? The same: neither Khalil nor Bob are the blocking minion, so their intercept is not material to needing stealth. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:01:33 +1200, "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> scrawled: >So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is >continued? and not reset) but can't >wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather >Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would >only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and >any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play. i think it might be important here to point out you don't actually generally ever tap retainers to do anything. they are always active while on the minion. if you have 3 raven spies you'll have +3 intercept for every single action that happens. if people start a 0 stealth action, you're not allowed to _play_ cards to give you intercept unless they gain stealth, but the intercept already in play is fine. you may still attempt to block 0 stealth actions with your 3 raven spy guy. [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k5qo719fe654bd7us...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Thanks didn't realise that. I was taught intercept only to counter stealth. Made things like Eagle sight at superior questionable. (if they have +1 stealth how can +2 intetrcept be applied...then someone cloaks-the-gathering.... and the discussions start.

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:LuVee.4661$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > carl wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth. > >>There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed. > >>Form of Mist has no text to override that rule. > >>So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your > >>assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. > > > > What does stealth inside a combat resolution do? I haven't come across it > > before but there are lots of cards I have yet to get. > > What does stealth at action resolution "do"? > Nothing. It just is. The only thing it ever "does" is get measured when > attempting to see if a block succeeds (or if a minion needs more, etc.). It reduces the ability for the action to be blocked by increasing the amount of intercept required to detect the action the minion is taking. Hence my confusion. > > >>None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to > >>stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2] > > > > So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is > > continued? and not reset) but can't > > Raven Spies are effects that added intercept during the action. > Their intercept applies only while they are in play. Ok. I follow that. Must be a reasonably uncommon occurence, losing the intercept in the middle of a reaction/block. > > wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather > > Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would > > only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and > > any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play. > > He "uses" all three while they are in play -- whether he needs intercept or > not (he even has the intercept when he is acting). Oh hadn't realised that. (as I mentioned to salem.) <snip> > > Johns case: acting minion +2 stealth blocked by untapped vamp at +2 > > intercept. combat goes with third "reacting" vamp leaving +2 intercept > > still active on original still untapped "blocker". the FoM says nothing > > about who the +1 stealth applies to (ie this action/acting minion?) so > > acting minion needs +1 stealth to beat the still active +2 intercept on the > > orginal still untapped blocker and thus can pay to continue? > > FoM says that the action continues, and it doesn't say to change the > acting minion, so the acting minion is clearly the minion doing the > continuing. FoM says to add stealth, so the acting minion must need > stealth to use FoM to add stealth. > He cannot, since he does not need stealth. The untapped minion with 2 > intercept is not currently a blocking minion. There's only ever one > blocking minion at a time, and right now, he's in combat with that > one blocking minion -- the one with 0 intercept. Hadn't ever considered there to be only 1 blocking minion, just a range of minions which may block given willingness and ability to meet the requirements. But the "one blocking minion" certainly does apply when in combat (for as long as combat stays 1-on-1) > >>It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the > >>proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread. > > > > What about the +2 on Khalil Ravana who is still untapped. > > Or the +3 on Bob with three Ravens? > The same: neither Khalil nor Bob are the blocking minion, so > their intercept is not material to needing stealth. > > -- > LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Thanks very much for your patience, the only thing I find worse than giving bad calls on a game is having to go back and correct them later.