General question:
If there is a lingering cancellation effect going on, and I know that the
next card I play of a certain type will be canceled as-played, can I play
the card even though I know I couldn't normally pay the cost?
Specific example:
I control a vampire with DOM, AUS, and 1 blood.
My predator bleeds me.
I play Deflection.
My prey plays Two Wrongs.
Can I then play superior Telepathic Misdirection, even though I have 0
blood, since I know no cost will be paid?
Thanks.
Jozxyqk wrote:
> General question:
> If there is a lingering cancellation effect going on, and I know that the
> next card I play of a certain type will be canceled as-played, can I play
> the card even though I know I couldn't normally pay the cost?
Restated: can you play a card whose cost you cannot pay?
Answer: no.
[ quoted text not captured ]> Answer: no.
Well, the question is "Can you play a card whose cost you cannot pay, when
there is a game effect which will absolutely cancel it, since cost is not
paid until the card is resolved?"
Sort of Related: You can play a Govern the Unaligned when you have 1 blood,
knowing that you're going to be playing Shadow Play for stealth and that the
action will fizzle. This was the parallel that caused me to be unsure
about the question.
And also sort of related:
If Ravnos Carnival is in play, with 1 counter, a ravnos with 2 blood
can attempt the action Sensory Deprivation and then decide _not_
to use the Carnival counter, causing the action to fizzle.
Is that true?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Jozxyqk wrote:>>> General question:
>>> If there is a lingering cancellation effect going on, and I know that the
>>> next card I play of a certain type will be canceled as-played, can I play
>>> the card even though I know I couldn't normally pay the cost?>>> Restated: can you play a card whose cost you cannot pay?>>> Answer: no.>
> Well, the question is "Can you play a card whose cost you cannot pay, when
> there is a game effect which will absolutely cancel it, since cost is not
> paid until the card is resolved?"
And the answer was given in no uncertain terms: no, you cannot play a card whose
cost you cannot pay.
> Sort of Related: You can play a Govern the Unaligned when you have 1 blood,
> knowing that you're going to be playing Shadow Play for stealth and that the
> action will fizzle. This was the parallel that caused me to be unsure
> about the question.
No parallel, since in that example you never play a card whose cost you cannot pay.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm.. that's actually interesting.
I know that Ravnos Carnival has been somewhat "problematic" in assimilating
its wording with rules, but here goes anyway:
Despite saying "may" in its wording, how mandatory is Ravnos Carnival to use?
Two situations:
Situation A:
A Ravnos with 2 blood attempts a Sensory Deprivation Action.
There is a Ravnos Carnival in play with some counters on it.
The Ravnos gains blood during the action, before it resolves.
Must he still use the Carnival's counters, since it facilitated his
announcement of the action?
Situation B:
A Ravnos with 3 blood attempts a Sensory Deprivation Action.
There is a Ravnos Carnival in play with some counters on it.
The Ravnos loses blood during the action, before it resolves.
Must he use the Carnival's counters, or can he let the action
fizzle as it normally would in this situation?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Jozxyqk wrote:>>> And also sort of related:
>>> If Ravnos Carnival is in play, with 1 counter, a ravnos with 2 blood
>>> can attempt the action Sensory Deprivation and then decide _not_
>>> to use the Carnival counter, causing the action to fizzle.
>>>
>>> Is that true?>>> No. If that were true, then the Ravnos with 2 blood could not play Sens Dep in
>> the first place.>
> Hmm.. that's actually interesting.
> I know that Ravnos Carnival has been somewhat "problematic" in assimilating
> its wording with rules, but here goes anyway:
>
> Despite saying "may" in its wording, how mandatory is Ravnos Carnival to use?
>
> Two situations:
>
> Situation A:
> A Ravnos with 2 blood attempts a Sensory Deprivation Action.
> There is a Ravnos Carnival in play with some counters on it.
>
> The Ravnos gains blood during the action, before it resolves.
> Must he still use the Carnival's counters, since it facilitated his
> announcement of the action?
No.
> Situation B:
> A Ravnos with 3 blood attempts a Sensory Deprivation Action.
> There is a Ravnos Carnival in play with some counters on it.
>
> The Ravnos loses blood during the action, before it resolves.
> Must he use the Carnival's counters, or can he let the action
> fizzle as it normally would in this situation?
No.
On Feb 1, 1:18 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:> > Situation B:
> > A Ravnos with 3 blood attempts a Sensory Deprivation Action.
> > There is a Ravnos Carnival in play with some counters on it.
>
> > The Ravnos loses blood during the action, before it resolves.
> > Must he use the Carnival's counters, or can he let the action
> > fizzle as it normally would in this situation?
>
> No.
That was an either or question. Which bit are you saying no to?
[ quoted text not captured ]
The first one, as in situation A (Since B began the same way: "Must he use the
counters", and A didn't muddy the situation by providing the opposite answer as
part of the question, I stopped once the question was clear, not realizing it
went on to become less clear).
Questioners: please don't ask yes/no questions embedded in either/or constructs.
If you find such a construct useful, then please mark it accordingly. e.g.:
Which is true?: 1) he must use the Carnival's counters, or 2) he can let the
action fizzle.
But in this case, since the construct is not useful, it's best to leave it out
(as the questioner did in situation A). e.g.:
Must he use the Carnival's counters?