Telepathic Counter

This came up in an online game. Minion A bleeds for 1 Minion B telepathic counters it a superior Minion A plays conditionig at superior. Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2? Chris O'Brien

Silas7 <sil...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990716100643...@ng-fx1.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the Conditioning was played. The rulings say: "Telepathic Counter - Reaction (aus) 稗leeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative bleed is treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM 960419] [TOM 19960419] 肘s played before the bleed is considered successful, so would be played before cards like Spying Mission, which are only played on a successful bleed. [FAQ]" BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-) OK, LSJ, time to tell us all why I'm wrong, as usual... KM

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:02:52 GMT "Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com> wrote: > > Minion A bleeds for 1 > > Minion B telepathic counters it a superior > > Minion A plays conditionig at superior. > > > > Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2? > > I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the > Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the > Conditioning was played. The rulings say: The problem is that there are a few steps that aren't mentioned that are probably happening here. After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect, reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1 by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously). > "Telepathic Counter - Reaction (aus) > 稗leeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative > bleed is treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM > 960419] [TOM 19960419] It is only when the action is completed that a negative bleed is unsuccessful. The action isn't completed until blocks have been decided and all players involved have said they are playing no more modifiers. The bleed does not instantly become unsuccessful when it is reduced to 0 or a negative number. > 肘s played before the bleed is considered successful, so would be > played before cards like Spying Mission, which are only played on a > successful bleed. [FAQ]" This bit is irrelevant in this case, but good to list for completeness. > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-) Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less. So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not be gained. > OK, LSJ, time to tell us all why I'm wrong, as usual... IANALSJ, but I play one on TV. Mike -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).

mbohlman <mboh...@shout.net> wrote in article <w0Jj3.70$I5....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>... > On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:02:52 GMT "Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com> > wrote: > > > > Minion A bleeds for 1 > > > Minion B telepathic counters it a superior > > > Minion A plays conditionig at superior. > > > > > > Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2? > > > > I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the > > Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the > > Conditioning was played. The rulings say: > > The problem is that there are a few steps that aren't mentioned > that are probably happening here. > > After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller > doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion > A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's > controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect, > reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined > to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1 > by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again > (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously). > Hmmm....I guess that makes sense. So, would there be any way to time the Telepathic Counter so that the bleeder wouldn't be able to tack on the bleed modifier? For example, if Minion B's controller first announces that he will not block, and Minion A's controller says OK without doing anything further, could Minion B's controller then play the Telepathic Counter without any risk of a bleed modifier (because he already announced he wouldn't block)? > > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a > > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-) > > Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie > not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less. > So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not > be gained. Perhaps we could say that the successful negative bleed action "fizzles" to avoid confusion instead of calling it "unsuccessful"? KM

mbohlman wrote: > "Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com> wrote: > > [Slias7 wrote:] > > > Minion A bleeds for 1 > > > Minion B telepathic counters it a superior > > > Minion A plays conditioning at superior. > > > > > > Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2? > > > > I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the > > Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the > > Conditioning was played. The rulings say: > > The problem is that there are a few steps that aren't mentioned > that are probably happening here. > > After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller > doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion > A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's > controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect, > reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined > to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1 > by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again > (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously). Correct. > > "Telepathic Counter - Reaction (aus) > > > *Bleeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative > > bleed is treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM > > 960419] [TOM 19960419] > > It is only when the action is completed that a negative bleed is > unsuccessful. The action isn't completed until blocks have > been decided and all players involved have said they are playing no > more modifiers. The bleed does not instantly become unsuccessful > when it is reduced to 0 or a negative number. Correct. > > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a > > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-) > > Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie > not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less. > So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not > be gained. Correct. Like a vote that is called (unblocked = successful action) but doesn't pass (unsuccessful vote), a bleed action can be a successful (unblocked) action even though the bleed itself is unsucessful (doesn't remove pool from the target). -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

Kristyl Meth wrote: > mbohlman <mboh...@shout.net> wrote: > > After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller > > doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion > > A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's > > controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect, > > reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined > > to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1 > > by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again > > (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously). > > Hmmm....I guess that makes sense. So, would there be any way to time the > Telepathic Counter so that the bleeder wouldn't be able to tack on the > bleed modifier? No. After every effect (like Telepathic Counter), the acting Meth. again gets the opportunity to play the next effect. > For example, if Minion B's controller first announces that > he will not block, and Minion A's controller says OK without doing anything > further, could Minion B's controller then play the Telepathic Counter > without any risk of a bleed modifier (because he already announced he > wouldn't block)? No. That breaks down like this: Opportunity Action ----------- -------------------- Action is announced. A No effects (at this time). B No effects. B announces "No block attempts" A No effects. B Telepathic Counter. A Conditioning. A No further effects. B No further effects. Action resolves. Note: after each event (announcement, declaration of "no block", and each modifier/reaction), A gets the first opportunity to play the next effect. > > > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a > > > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-) > > > > Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie > > not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less. > > So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not > > be gained. > > Perhaps we could say that the successful negative bleed action "fizzles" to > avoid confusion instead of calling it "unsuccessful"? An action (or effect) "fizzles" when its cost cannot be paid (or for similar reasons). That is the current use of the term "fizzle". An action is successful if it remains unblocked. A bleed is successful if it removes (one or more) pool from the target. [ quoted text not captured ]