Cost, or Effect?

When Magdelena Schaefer plays a strike that requires Thaumaturgy, she burns an additional blood. If Maggie is at 0 blood, she can: A) Play Theft of Vitae, which triggers a "burn 1 blood" effect that she must ignore. Theft later resolves normally. B) Play Theft of Vitae, which resolves its non-damage effects immediately and she burns 1 of her new blood. C) Not play Theft of Vitae, because it costs her an additional blood. I understood it to be A), but this was ruled C) at a tourney. Thanks in advance, --Brian

>When Magdelena Schaefer plays a strike that requires Thaumaturgy, she >burns an additional blood. Effect. >A) Play Theft of Vitae, which triggers a "burn 1 blood" effect that >she must ignore. Theft later resolves normally. Correct. >B) Play Theft of Vitae, which resolves its non-damage effects >immediately and she burns 1 of her new blood. No, the burning of blood is immediate. Is doesn't linger around waiting for strike resolution. >C) Not play Theft of Vitae, because it costs her an additional blood. No. It's an effect not a cost increase (see Rex for this case). >I understood it to be A), but this was ruled C) at a tourney. I'm also pretty sure it's A. If so, then the judge ruled incorrectly. Halcyan 2

In message <80bafd85.0204...@posting.google.com>, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about: >When Magdelena Schaefer plays a strike that requires Thaumaturgy, she >burns an additional blood. > >If Maggie is at 0 blood, she can: > >A) Play Theft of Vitae, which triggers a "burn 1 blood" effect that >she must ignore. Theft later resolves normally. This is the correct interpretation. She plays Theft, and burns a blood to do so. She has no blood to burn, so ignores it. If Magdalena's text read "Strikes requiring Thaumaturgy cost Magdalena an additional blood", she would not be able to play Theft of Vitae if she were at zero; the difference between "cost" and "burn". >I understood it to be A), but this was ruled C) at a tourney. Ruling of "oops". -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

lor...@yahoo.com writes: >If Magdalena's text read "Strikes requiring Thaumaturgy cost Magdalena >an additional blood", she would not be able to play Theft of Vitae if >she were at zero; the difference between "cost" and "burn". Unfortunately the current rules sometimes use "burn" instead of "pay" or "cost" to refer to minion cards. From FN 1.6.1.4: "A drop of blood with a number on the left side of a library card (in the middle of the side or in the bottom corner) indicates the amount of blood or pool that must be burned to play the card". So it's not clear from text whether Magdalena's "burn" is in the 1.6.1.4 sense (pay), the 6.4.6 sense (heal damage), or in the traditional "lose blood" sense, which I actually can't find in the FN rules. I assumed it worked as you say, since that's the traditional way, but I have wondered about it based on the 1.6.1.4 text. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020419203116...@mb-mf.aol.com... > >If Magdalena's text read "Strikes requiring Thaumaturgy cost Magdalena > >an additional blood", she would not be able to play Theft of Vitae if > >she were at zero; the difference between "cost" and "burn". > > Unfortunately the current rules sometimes use "burn" instead > of "pay" or "cost" to refer to minion cards. Yes, they use a "burn blood to do" X template, this indicates a cost. Magdalena's text is burn blood when she has done X, which indicates an effect. See also the LSJ of 1997-08-01: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=33E1D40F.2781%40regency.wizards.com > From FN 1.6.1.4: > "A drop of blood with a number on the left side of a library card (in the > middle of the side or in the bottom corner) indicates the amount of blood or > pool that must be burned to play the card". > So it's not clear from text > whether Magdalena's "burn" is in the 1.6.1.4 sense (pay), the 6.4.6 sense (heal > damage), or in the traditional "lose blood" sense, which I actually can't find > in the FN rules. It is clear from her text that it is an effect of having struck with a Thaumaturgy card, and not a cost. She does not use the "burn blood to do" X template. See the online official card text, here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In message <20020419203116...@mb-mf.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) mumbled something about: >lor...@yahoo.com writes: > >>If Magdalena's text read "Strikes requiring Thaumaturgy cost Magdalena >>an additional blood", she would not be able to play Theft of Vitae if >>she were at zero; the difference between "cost" and "burn". > >Unfortunately the current rules sometimes use "burn" instead >of "pay" or "cost" to refer to minion cards. From FN 1.6.1.4: >"A drop of blood with a number on the left side of a library card (in the >middle of the side or in the bottom corner) indicates the amount of blood or >pool that must be burned to play the card". So it's not clear from text Right; blood must be burned to even play the card in the first place, while Maggie's special is an effect set up from the successful playing of a THA strike card. >whether Magdalena's "burn" is in the 1.6.1.4 sense (pay), the 6.4.6 sense (heal >damage), or in the traditional "lose blood" sense, which I actually can't find >in the FN rules. I assumed it worked as you say, since that's the traditional >way, but I have wondered about it based on the 1.6.1.4 text. "Camarilla: If Magdelena uses a strike that requires Thaumaturgy, she burns an additional blood." So the text is very literal here. She's allowed to use any strikes that require Thaumaturgy and pays the normal cost for those; plus, she burns one additional blood after successfully using that strike. This must happen before strike resolution by card text, so she doesn't get to use any Thefted blood to burn (it's not there yet). [ quoted text not captured ]

thela...@hotmail.com writes: >It is clear from her text that it is an effect of having struck >with a Thaumaturgy card, and not a cost. She does not use the >"burn blood to do" X template. She burns an "additional" blood - but in a way different from from the way she normally burns to play strikes *and* which is not defined in the rules (I think). It's not "clear from her text". It is clear from the old terminology, but that's been changed. Under the new terminology, it's not clear whether it's an independent effect or a modification of the blood burning needed to play cards. You have to have a ruling to know. I'm not at all surprised a (presumably knowledgeable) judge ruled the other way. I'd incline that way if I hadn't learned it the old way. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thank you for your help, everyone, but LSJ, could you please respond as well? My group says they will change only by your word. I don't mean to be difficult, but I understand their position. --Brian

[ quoted text not captured ] A) is 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/