Untap during Ambush?

There is an argument going on amongst the Sydney vtes players at the moment, so I thought we should ask for a ruling. Scenario: Minion A announces the action "Ambush". The methuselah announces a valid target, called Minion B. Minion B then plays an effect that untaps him (like second trad or tattoo signal). Is minion B still a valid target? simcof

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Also, if the effect didn't require him to block (like 2nd Tradition does) and there is no successful block, then the action will fizzle. [Fizzle = ends with no results. The cost of a fizzled action is still paid.] LSJ 04-Oct-2004 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c3788873e0058947 LSJ 24-Oct-2003 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/aabe0307bd3d5c2a LSJ 15-Jan-2002 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/646fde4c309dac00

On Feb 24, 2:13 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:01:48 -0800 (PST), simcof wrote: > >There is an argument going on amongst the Sydney vtes players at the > >moment, so I thought we should ask for a ruling. > >Scenario: > >Minion A announces the action "Ambush". The methuselah announces a > >valid target, called Minion B. > >Minion B then plays an effect that untaps him (like second trad or > >tattoo signal). > >Is minion B still a valid target? > > No. > > Also, if the effect didn't require him to block (like 2nd Tradition > does) and there is no successful block, then the action will fizzle. > [Fizzle = ends with no results. The cost of a fizzled action is still > paid.] > > LSJ 04-Oct-2004http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c378... > > LSJ 24-Oct-2003http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/aabe... > > LSJ 15-Jan-2002http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/646f... LSJ: Is this generalisation of this thread and the other rulings accurate? All actions check their required conditions, including vampire state, blood cost and pool cost, at the point of resolving the action. If the required conditions are not met at that point, the action fizzles.

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > LSJ: Is this generalisation of this thread and the other rulings > accurate? > > All actions check their required conditions, including vampire state, > blood cost and pool cost, at the point of resolving the action. If the > required conditions are not met at that point, the action fizzles. Well, first check targets and such to see if the action's cost should be paid. If not, it fizzles with no cost paid. Then pay the cost. If it cannot be paid, then as much as can be paid is paid, and the action fizzles.