Q: Fata Morgana

Hi all, Can i use superior Fata Morgana to increase my bleed if nobody blocks me, despite the +1 stealth? GP41

In message <3ACB9F78...@videotron.ca>, GP41 <GP...@videotron.ca> writes >Can i use superior Fata Morgana to increase my bleed if nobody blocks >me, despite the +1 stealth? No, because you don't need the stealth. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

> >Can i use superior Fata Morgana to increase my bleed if nobody blocks > >me, despite the +1 stealth? > No, because you don't need the stealth. Out of curiosity, why is it that you can use 2nd Tradition if you don't need the intercept but you can't use Fata Morgana if you don't need the stealth? Just seems kind of odd that the ruling/errata was made to 2ndTrad but not to this card when it's almost the opposite side of the same coin. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Hi all, > >Can i use superior Fata Morgana to increase my bleed if nobody blocks >me, despite the +1 stealth? > No. Even though it's a different card, it's pretty much the same as Bonding. The superior form of Bonding cannot be used if you do not need the stealth at the time you play Bonding. [TOM 19951109] (You need the stealth in order to play Fata Morgana). Halcyan 2

In message <tcnddls...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >Out of curiosity, why is it that you can use 2nd Tradition if you don't need >the intercept but you can't use Fata Morgana if you don't need the stealth? Card text. >Just seems kind of odd that the ruling/errata was made to 2ndTrad The Jyhad version of 2nd Tradition supported this interpretation to a lesser or greater extent. (That it was usable, not only usable, and so forth.) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand. And yes, it would affect Bonding as well (the only other card, I believe). But it just seemed odd to me to empower 2ndTrad and not at least Fata Morgana. It's not as if the Ravnos couldn't use the help. I don't care one way or the other. It just seemed odd. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

My opinion: Fata Morgana can be played beacuse the +bleed part is written first: "+1 bleed and +1 stealth." I.e. uou gain +1 bleed, and the +1 stealth is a bonus. The bonding card, on the other hand, says "+1 stealth and +1 bleed", i.e. +1 stealth (on a bleed action) with +1 bleed as a bonus. But of course, my opinion has little to do with reality in any way... Sorrow skrev i meddelandet ... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9agffn$juu$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Henke <d98...@stud.hh.se> writes >My opinion: Fata Morgana can be played beacuse the +bleed part is written >first: "+1 bleed and +1 stealth." I.e. uou gain +1 bleed, and the +1 stealth >is a bonus. Not true. [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Henke" <d98...@stud.hh.se> wrote in message news:9agffn$juu$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > My opinion: Fata Morgana can be played beacuse the +bleed part is written > first: "+1 bleed and +1 stealth." I.e. uou gain +1 bleed, and the +1 stealth > is a bonus. The bonding card, on the other hand, says "+1 stealth and +1 > bleed", i.e. +1 stealth (on a bleed action) with +1 bleed as a bonus. > > But of course, my opinion has little to do with reality in any way... Well in which order it's written is really irrelevant since the text has the word "and" which doesn't in any way make text following that secondary to the first text. If a card said "additional strike and a dodge" it wouldn't mean you had to play that additional strike first before you could dodge. Hmm came to think of soemthing..on Propaganda..doesn't it tap a titled vampire before the bleed? But how can it do that when an action card's effect shouldn't apply until the action is successful? Because if was bloocked the vampire shouldn't have been tapped.

In message <9agirq$mb3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >Hmm came to think of soemthing..on Propaganda..doesn't it tap a titled >vampire before the bleed? No. They tap after the bleed is successful. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > >Can i use superior Fata Morgana to increase my bleed if nobody blocks > > >me, despite the +1 stealth? > > No, because you don't need the stealth. > > Out of curiosity, why is it that you can use 2nd Tradition if you don't need > the intercept but you can't use Fata Morgana if you don't need the stealth? > Just seems kind of odd that the ruling/errata was made to 2ndTrad but not > to this card when it's almost the opposite side of the same coin. Because 2nd Trad needed errata to correct the introduction of the word "only" in the V:TES printing. Since it was being errata'ed anyhow, the other "lesser" fix was also made, since the errata threshold was already met. Fata Morgana hasn't met the errata threshold. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <9agirq$mb3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult > <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes > >Hmm came to think of soemthing..on Propaganda..doesn't it tap a titled > >vampire before the bleed? > > No. They tap after the bleed is successful. Well, when the action is successful, to be precise. The bleed could be reduced to zero and the Methuselah would still have to tap a minion. [ quoted text not captured ]