Q: Directed Actions

This came up last night whilst playing.. Can a minion block a directed action against him/her? i.e. VampA attempts to Bum's Rush VampB. VampB wishes to block this action for the sole purpose of preventing VampA from getting the optional press. Is this legal? rob.

Rob LeGood <rfle...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Can a minion block a directed action against him/her? The answer you're looking for is "yes, it can". To be technical, the answer is "unknown and not relevant". Directed actions are derected against a Methuseleh, not a vampire. Even if the action would affect one of the Meth's vampires, it's still directed at the Meth, not the vampire. > i.e. VampA attempts to Bum's Rush VampB. VampB wishes to block this >action for the sole purpose of preventing VampA from getting the >optional press. > Is this legal? Yes, and common as well. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Rob LeGood <rfle...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >> Can a minion block a directed action against him/her? >The answer you're looking for is "yes, it can". Correct. >To be technical, the answer is "unknown and not relevant". Directed >actions are derected against a Methuseleh, not a vampire. Even if the >action would affect one of the Meth's vampires, it's still directed at the >Meth, not the vampire. Not so. It *is* directed at the vampire. As a directed action, it can be blocked only by the controller of the target. The distinction is relevant to several Sabbat cards: Blessing of Chaos Action Dementation 1 blood This is a +1 stealth action. Normal: Put this card on the acting vampire. If the vampire with this card attempts to block another vampire, that vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation, Dominate, Presence, or Chimerstry. Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines. Superior: As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be directed at this vampire. Communal Haven: Temple Master Sabbat 1 pool Master: location. Each Sabbat vampire you control gets +1 intercept when attempting to block (D) actions directed against other Sabbat vampires you control. A player may have only one Communal Haven in play. Consecration Rites Action Requires a ready Priscus, Cardinal, or Archbishop. This is a +1 stealth action. Put this card on a location you control. You may burn this card to cause an action directed at the location to fail. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Kirk: How's Ensign Pilsbury? http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | McCoy: He's Bread, Jim. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>To be technical, the answer is "unknown and not relevant". Directed >>actions are derected against a Methuseleh, not a vampire. Even if the >>action would affect one of the Meth's vampires, it's still directed at the >>Meth, not the vampire. >Not so. It *is* directed at the vampire. As a directed action, it >can be blocked only by the controller of the target. Directed actions are directed against Methuselehs. From the original rulebook, 13.3.1: "Non-directed actions are actions that are not directed against a *Methuseleh*" (emphasis mine). There is a casual meaning of "directed", meaning "affecting", and in that sense Bum's Rush is indeed "directed" at a vampire. But in the technical word "directed" in game terms refers to who is allowed to block. For the casual use of "directed" you would need another term like "targeting". >Communal Haven: Temple Master Sabbat 1 pool > Master: location. Each Sabbat vampire you control gets +1 intercept > when attempting to block (D) actions directed against other Sabbat > vampires you control. A player may have only one Communal Haven in > play. So WotC doesn't know its own terminology and is confusing the casual and game meanings of "directed". So what's new? They can't get their templates straight either. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>>To be technical, the answer is "unknown and not relevant". Directed >>>actions are derected against a Methuseleh, not a vampire. Even if the >>>action would affect one of the Meth's vampires, it's still directed at >the >>>Meth, not the vampire. >>Not so. It *is* directed at the vampire. As a directed action, it >>can be blocked only by the controller of the target. >Directed actions are directed against Methuselehs. From the original >rulebook, 13.3.1: >"Non-directed actions are actions that are not directed against a >*Methuseleh*" (emphasis mine). An action directed at a Methuselah's minion is also directed at that Methuselah, yes. But it is still directed at the minion as well. In the VtES rules, this overlap is more obvious. But it still exists in Jyhad. The case can be made (and you make it very well) that the overlap didn't exist in Jyhad, but there is no proof for either side of the argument. And, since the VtES rules don't conflict with the Jyhad rules on this matter, I'd suggest simply assuming that it works the same way in Jyhad. >So WotC doesn't know its own terminology and is confusing the casual and >game meanings of "directed". So what's new? They can't get their >templates straight either. An action is either Directed or not. Directed actions are always: (The following terms are used interchangeably in the VtES rulebook to describe/define a directed action) directed at directed against targeted at directly affect a Methuselah or a card that a Methuselah controls (Actually, the rulebook only notes minions that a Methuselah controls, ignoring the fact that some directed action target other cards - like Arson, Cryptic Mission (vs. Retainers), inferior Shepherd's Innocence, etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > Rob LeGood <rfle...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > i.e. VampA attempts to Bum's Rush VampB. VampB wishes to block this > >action for the sole purpose of preventing VampA from getting the > >optional press. > > > Is this legal? > > Yes, and common as well. > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) not common at all, in fact i have never seen it done....i have, however, seen it blocked to prevent vampA from getting an optional maneuver.....blah blah blah..picky picky picky...me me me.. salem....."pedantic? me? not in the exact sense of the word.."

In article <5da3ot$a...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, "L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> writes >(Actually, the rulebook only notes minions that a Methuselah controls, >ignoring the fact that some directed action target other cards - like >Arson, Cryptic Mission (vs. Retainers), inferior Shepherd's Innocence, etc.) Aren't these all directed at cards that another Methuselah *controls* anyway? -- Pax Vobiscum Justin Grace

Okay, some of the things are only directed at things another Methuselah controls (these are stated specifically on the cards). However, what happens if the thing does not state it eg. Darius Styx. He specifically states that it can be directed at *any* Methuselah. I have seen the official line on this ie it can't. However, I don't like the way it has been resolved - you can't because (D) actions can't be directed at yourself unless the card specifically over-rules this. Darius' wording *does* over-rule this. I'm not complaining about the ruling - Ravnos weapon decks would go wild - but I am complaining about how it's been fixed. Surely just an errata - Direct the action at any other Met - would do, not saying the card doesn't say that when it quite clearly does. --- James Coupe.