pick from another post :
JON> > Powerbase New York with 3 blood on it and I have Guard duty on one of
my
> > ready vamps for the powerbase. Another players minion attempts to steal
the
> > blood on the powerbase. Can the Guard Duty vampire pay the blood to
untap
> > and attempt to block with +1 intercept?
>
LSJ> If he needs the intercept.
hey ? how could we guess ? i thought you could burn a blood and untap (and
gain one intercept by the way)... So if someone arsons you with no stealth,
you can't untap =/ and if someone arsons you with a call of the hungry dead,
he will give -1 intercept to the other blocker but you still can't untap =)
sounds strange and may lead to early wallpaperizing of the card !
is it a definitive answer ?
reyda
Reyda wrote:
>
> pick from another post :
>
> JON> > Powerbase New York with 3 blood on it and I have Guard duty on one of
> my
> > > ready vamps for the powerbase. Another players minion attempts to steal
> the
> > > blood on the powerbase. Can the Guard Duty vampire pay the blood to
> untap
> > > and attempt to block with +1 intercept?
> >
> LSJ> If he needs the intercept.
>
> hey ? how could we guess ? i thought you could burn a blood and untap (and
Guess? Read section 6.2.2.2
> gain one intercept by the way)... So if someone arsons you with no stealth,
> you can't untap =/ and if someone arsons you with a call of the hungry dead,
> he will give -1 intercept to the other blocker but you still can't untap =)
> sounds strange and may lead to early wallpaperizing of the card !
>
> is it a definitive answer ?
Yes.
--
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/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C889EB3...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
[regarding Guard Duty's untap&block only being usable
if the vampire needs the +1 intercept it grants]
> > is it a definitive answer ?
>
> Yes.
How about errata for designer intent, to match the
one for Second Tradition that made it playable even
if you don't need the intercept?
Not available if the designer didn't want the card
to be useful, of course. :-)
Josh
plea-bargain?
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6agr2$crlll$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I was under the impression that you only get the intercept if needed, not
that you couldn't use the untap ability. I don't think he's saying that you
can't burn the blood to untap, but rather that you only get the intercept if
its needed.
Similarly, if you are already untapped and someone plays stealth, it is my
understanding that you can pay the blood to get +1 intercept even though the
minion is already untapped. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Jon Stahler wrote:
> I was under the impression that you only get the intercept if needed, not
> that you couldn't use the untap ability. I don't think he's saying that you
> can't burn the blood to untap, but rather that you only get the intercept if
> its needed.
No. You cannot use the "untap and block with +2 intercept" effect if
you don't need intercept. Similarly, you cannot use the "+1 intercept
and maneuver" effect of Spirit's Touch if you dont need the intercept
(not even just to gain the maneuver).
> Similarly, if you are already untapped and someone plays stealth, it is my
> understanding that you can pay the blood to get +1 intercept even though the
> minion is already untapped. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Yes, you can untap an untapped minion. No restriction on that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
>
> Jon Stahler wrote:
> > I was under the impression that you only get the intercept if needed, not
> > that you couldn't use the untap ability. I don't think he's saying that you
> > can't burn the blood to untap, but rather that you only get the intercept if
> > its needed.
>
> No. You cannot use the "untap and block with +2 intercept" effect if
Before anyone asks about the typo, that should be +1 intercept, of course.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C88D827...@white-wolf.com...
> Jon Stahler wrote:
> > I was under the impression that you only get the intercept if needed,
not
> > that you couldn't use the untap ability. I don't think he's saying that
you
> > can't burn the blood to untap, but rather that you only get the
intercept if
> > its needed.
>
> No. You cannot use the "untap and block with +2 intercept" effect if
> you don't need intercept. Similarly, you cannot use the "+1 intercept
> and maneuver" effect of Spirit's Touch if you dont need the intercept
> (not even just to gain the maneuver).
If that's the case, then the card text should have read "If the chosen
location is the target of a (D) action at +1 stealth..." as the card is, per
your ruling, almost useless otherwise.
Basically, unless someone plays the Haunt at superior to burn a location at
stealth, in order to use Guard Duty AT ALL, the follow must occur:
1. You attempt to block a (D) action against the location that is at 0
stealth
2. The minion attempting the (D) action must then increase the stealth
3. At which time the Guard Dutied vampire can pay the blood to untap and
attempt to block.
It seems as this is very similar to Second Tradition before its errata. As
it stands, Guard Duty only "guards" a single location, so I can't see this
becoming too powerful of a card if errata'd similarly to Second Tradition's
text of "even if the intercept is not needed." Hell...don't give us the
intercept if its not needed. I think the untap portion is the most
important.
Jon Stahler wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C88D827...@white-wolf.com...
> > Jon Stahler wrote:
> > > I was under the impression that you only get the intercept if needed,
> not
> > > that you couldn't use the untap ability. I don't think he's saying that
> you
> > > can't burn the blood to untap, but rather that you only get the
> intercept if
> > > its needed.
> >
> > No. You cannot use the "untap and block with +2 intercept" effect if
> > you don't need intercept. Similarly, you cannot use the "+1 intercept
> > and maneuver" effect of Spirit's Touch if you dont need the intercept
> > (not even just to gain the maneuver).
>
> If that's the case, then the card text should have read "If the chosen
> location is the target of a (D) action at +1 stealth..." as the card is, per
> your ruling, almost useless otherwise.
OK.
> Basically, unless someone plays the Haunt at superior to burn a location at
> stealth, in order to use Guard Duty AT ALL, the follow must occur:
>
> 1. You attempt to block a (D) action against the location that is at 0
> stealth
> 2. The minion attempting the (D) action must then increase the stealth
> 3. At which time the Guard Dutied vampire can pay the blood to untap and
> attempt to block.
OK.
> It seems as this is very similar to Second Tradition before its errata. As
> it stands, Guard Duty only "guards" a single location, so I can't see this
> becoming too powerful of a card if errata'd similarly to Second Tradition's
> text of "even if the intercept is not needed." Hell...don't give us the
> intercept if its not needed. I think the untap portion is the most
> important.
OK.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C88E016...@white-wolf.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Why do I get the impression that what I'm saying is falling on dead ears?
Can't blame a guy for trying...oh well...on to my next crusade.
"Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:LC5i8.27792$tg4.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C88E016...@white-wolf.com...> > OK.
[...]
> Why do I get the impression that what I'm saying is falling on dead ears?
>
> Can't blame a guy for trying...oh well...on to my next crusade.
He's saying "OK" so you know that he hears your opinion
and it'll be taken into consideration. He's not gonna
make a change right this instant because errata like this
is a matter for the rules team as a whole.
Do we need LSJ-watchers like the financial markets have
Greenspan-watchers? I didn't think he was *that* hard
to interpret. :-)
Hey Scott, maybe you should make a "rules FAQ" that you
can post every month or two that explains how rulings,
errata, clarifications, new cards, and cardtext changes
are made, and how to find them.
Josh
faqolicious
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6apr2$cvshj$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I was beating a dead horse at that point as the question had been directly
answered in another thread that I wasn't watching. Bitching about it
further won't help the situation. I was just hoping for some
rationalization of the ruling. Hence the "dead ears" comment.
Sorry...I have a friend who always says "OK" when she wants you to shut up
and isn't really listening. Wasn't reading them in that context.
"Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:rY5i8.27799$tg4.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Rather, I was reading his response in that context.
In message <LC5i8.27792$tg4.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Jon Stahler
<sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> writes:
>Why do I get the impression that what I'm saying is falling on dead ears?
Erm, the impression you *should* be getting is that LSJ issues rulings
based on the rules, but doesn't issue errata without first going over it
with the Rules Team, who can all argue about the different ramifications
of it.
--
James Coupe Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
PGP 0x5D623D5D And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 All of my folks hate all of your folks,
13D7E668C3695D623D5D It's American as apple pie.