LSJ: Questions about the new definition of Directed Action

I was asked to start a new topic on this. So here is a reiteration of my questions about the new definition of Directed Action. I think that if all of these are answered, it answers everything but the most obscure of cases. 1) As far as "targeting" goes, are Political actions ever Directed? (I assume no, since the "target" can't be declared until the action is already in resolution) 2a) I control Jaroslav. My prey controls Moncada. Jaroslav takes his action to do 1 damage to all my prey's Sabbat vampires. This action now costs a pool. Correct? 2b) Now assume the above, but Moncada has a Secure Haven. Jaroslav's action does not hurt Moncada and no longer costs a pool. Correct? 3) Can an action now change from Directed to Undirected (or vice versa) between announcement and resolution? 3a) For example: I control Jake Washington and Midget. My prey controls an Underbridge Stray and Stick, who is tapped. There are no other allies on the table. Midget attempts the superior Wave of Insanity action. It is now Directed, because my prey controls an ally. My prey burns the Underbridge Stray to untap Stick and attempt to block. Since nobody has any allies except me now, is the action now Undirected? (which means that "only usable during a D action" effects are no longer usable) 3b) Unfortunately, I can't think of a specific example for an action turning from Undirected into Directed (I'm sure there is an obscure one), but what if an Aabbt Kindred (without Nefertiti), for example, attempted an Undirected action which became Directed somewhere before resolution? Would the action resolve or fizzle? Thanks!

Jozxyqk wrote: > I was asked to start a new topic on this. > > So here is a reiteration of my questions about the new definition of > Directed Action. > I think that if all of these are answered, it answers everything but the > most obscure of cases. > > 1) As far as "targeting" goes, are Political actions ever Directed? > (I assume no, since the "target" can't be declared until the action is already > in resolution) Explicit in the rules. > 2a) I control Jaroslav. > My prey controls Moncada. > Jaroslav takes his action to do 1 damage to all my prey's Sabbat vampires. > This action now costs a pool. Correct? Card text, yes (This is the same as before, as well, since the action targets only one Methuselah, so would have been (D) under the old definition). > 2b) Now assume the above, but Moncada has a Secure Haven. > Jaroslav's action does not hurt Moncada and no longer costs a pool. > Correct? Card text, yes. > 3) Can an action now change from Directed to Undirected (or vice versa) > between announcement and resolution? Still, yes (old methods include Temptation). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > 3) Can an action now change from Directed to Undirected (or vice versa) > > between announcement and resolution? > Still, yes (old methods include Temptation). So what happens in this situation: > > 3b) Unfortunately, I can't think of a specific example for an action turning from > > Undirected into Directed (I'm sure there is an obscure one), but what if an Aabbt > > Kindred (without Nefertiti), for example, attempted an Undirected action which > > became Directed somewhere before resolution? Would the action resolve or fizzle? And I came up with a few more, on my drive to work: First, a minor one: Suppose I control Jaroslav. My prey controls Moncada, and Etienne Fauberge and Hazimel, who have both become Sabbat. Other monkey-business aside, Jaroslav's action will now cost 2 blood to attempt, and 1 pool *and* 1 blood to resolve, correct? Now for the real meaty question: Suppose I control Jaroslav. Jaroslav has an ambulance and 6 blood. My prey controls Etienne Fauberge, who has become Sabbat. (and some other Sabbat vampires). Jaroslav announces his action. It will cost an additional blood because Etienne is a target. Etienne blocks. Jaroslav strikes Burning Wrath, Disarm+Decapitate, and takes his hands-for-1 from Etienne. Etienne is no longer around, and Jaroslav is empty. Jaroslav taps his Ambulance to continue the action. Does it still cost 1 additional blood (so it would now fizzle), or does it cost no additional blood (since Etienne has left the buliding)? Might I humbly suggest to the Rules Team, while you're redefining (D) actions, that an action's Directedness and Cost are determined at action announcement and can not change (without explicit effects that break the rules by the Golden Rule), so wacky situations like these can't come up? Thanks for your answers and your consideration.

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> 3) Can an action now change from Directed to Undirected (or vice versa) >>> between announcement and resolution? > >> Still, yes (old methods include Temptation). > > So what happens in this situation: > >>> 3b) Unfortunately, I can't think of a specific example for an action turning from >>> Undirected into Directed (I'm sure there is an obscure one), but what if an Aabbt >>> Kindred (without Nefertiti), for example, attempted an Undirected action which >>> became Directed somewhere before resolution? Would the action resolve or fizzle? What's the confusion? What viable alternatives are you entertaining? > And I came up with a few more, on my drive to work: > > First, a minor one: > Suppose I control Jaroslav. My prey controls Moncada, and Etienne Fauberge > and Hazimel, who have both become Sabbat. > Other monkey-business aside, Jaroslav's action will now cost 2 blood to attempt, > and 1 pool *and* 1 blood to resolve, correct? Again, I'm not seeing the point of confusion. Assuming the action targets Monçada, it costs an additional pool. Card text. Assuming the action targets Etienne, it costs an additional blood. Card text. Assuming the action targets Hazimel and Jaroslav is not a Ravnos, Jaroslav must burn 2 blood to attempt it. Card text. > Now for the real meaty question: > Suppose I control Jaroslav. Jaroslav has an ambulance and 6 blood. > My prey controls Etienne Fauberge, who has become Sabbat. (and some other > Sabbat vampires). > > Jaroslav announces his action. It will cost an additional blood because > Etienne is a target. > Etienne blocks. > Jaroslav strikes Burning Wrath, Disarm+Decapitate, and takes his hands-for-1 > from Etienne. > Etienne is no longer around, and Jaroslav is empty. > Jaroslav taps his Ambulance to continue the action. > Does it still cost 1 additional blood (so it would now fizzle), or does it > cost no additional blood (since Etienne has left the buliding)? The latter. Card text, again. > Might I humbly suggest to the Rules Team, while you're redefining (D) actions, > that an action's Directedness and Cost are determined at action announcement > and can not change (without explicit effects that break the rules by the Golden > Rule), so wacky situations like these can't come up? What wacky situations?

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > [some more answers] Come to think of it, does Jaroslav's action work the way I was talking about, costwise, under previous-to-KoT rules? That is, is the new rules-change only changing who is an eligible blocker, and nothing about the "during a (D)/non-(D)" effects like Talley the Hound/Etienne/etc? (I may, admittedly, be getting confused with some other conversations I may or may not have unofficially had with you, Scott) > > So what happens in this situation: > > > >>> 3b) Unfortunately, I can't think of a specific example for an action turning from > >>> Undirected into Directed (I'm sure there is an obscure one), but what if an Aabbt > >>> Kindred (without Nefertiti), for example, attempted an Undirected action which > >>> became Directed somewhere before resolution? Would the action resolve or fizzle? > What's the confusion? What viable alternatives are you entertaining? The confusion breaks down to: When does an action get checked for Directed/Undirectedness, for the purpose of Aabbt Kindred/Slaves? Is it checked: * only when the attempt is made (in which case it wouldn't matter if it changes) * when it would resolve (in which case it would fizzle, if it changed to (D) and reached resolution, but would still be blockable) * "constantly" checked (in which case it might fizzle before block attempts are allowed)? > > Might I humbly suggest to the Rules Team, while you're redefining (D) actions, > > that an action's Directedness and Cost are determined at action announcement > > and can not change (without explicit effects that break the rules by the Golden > > Rule), so wacky situations like these can't come up? > What wacky situations? The situations where the directedness of an action can change, which affect certain "during a D/un-D action" effects and eligible blockers at strange timing?

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> [some more answers] > > Come to think of it, does Jaroslav's action work the way I was talking about, > costwise, under previous-to-KoT rules? Yes, card text was to be followed even before KoT. > That is, is the new rules-change only changing who is an eligible blocker, and > nothing about the "during a (D)/non-(D)" effects like Talley the Hound/Etienne/etc? That is not a "that is". But, indeed, the new rule changes a targets-multiple-other-Methuselahs action from undirected (pre-KoT) to a directed one (KoT and later). > (I may, admittedly, be getting confused with some other conversations I may or may > not have unofficially had with you, Scott) > >>> So what happens in this situation: >>> >>>>> 3b) Unfortunately, I can't think of a specific example for an action turning from >>>>> Undirected into Directed (I'm sure there is an obscure one), but what if an Aabbt >>>>> Kindred (without Nefertiti), for example, attempted an Undirected action which >>>>> became Directed somewhere before resolution? Would the action resolve or fizzle? > >> What's the confusion? What viable alternatives are you entertaining? > > The confusion breaks down to: > When does an action get checked for Directed/Undirectedness, for the purpose of Aabbt > Kindred/Slaves? > Is it checked: > * only when the attempt is made (in which case it wouldn't matter if it changes) > * when it would resolve (in which case it would fizzle, if it changed to (D) and reached > resolution, but would still be blockable) > * "constantly" checked (in which case it might fizzle before block attempts are allowed)? See Ambush vs. a minion who untaps. >>> Might I humbly suggest to the Rules Team, while you're redefining (D) actions, >>> that an action's Directedness and Cost are determined at action announcement >>> and can not change (without explicit effects that break the rules by the Golden >>> Rule), so wacky situations like these can't come up? > >> What wacky situations? > > The situations where the directedness of an action can change, which affect > certain "during a D/un-D action" effects and eligible blockers at strange timing? Um. No wacky there so far.

On Nov 20, 6:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > 1) As far as "targeting" goes, are Political actions ever Directed? > > (I assume no, since the "target" can't be declared until the action is already > > in resolution) > > Explicit in the rules. Very, very loosely connected - since I'm sure that whatever the answer, the political action in question remains undirected, since it's a political action: Does the target of Bernard, the Scourge's blood hunt referendum get declared as part of the "declare terms" phase, rather than when the action is announced? (I believe, from Banishment's timing, that that's the case, but Banishment clearly has the choosing of the vampire as part of the referendum's text. Bernard is, as befits a Gangrel, a bit fuzzier.) Bernard, the Scourge [KoT:V] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Gangrel Group: 4 Capacity: 5 Discipline: ani for pre pro Camarilla: Bernard can call a blood hunt on a vampire of capacity 4 or less as a +1 stealth political action. - D.J.

Meej wrote: > On Nov 20, 6:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Jozxyqk wrote: >>> 1) As far as "targeting" goes, are Political actions ever Directed? >>> (I assume no, since the "target" can't be declared until the action is already >>> in resolution) >> Explicit in the rules. > > Very, very loosely connected - since I'm sure that whatever the > answer, the political action in question remains undirected, since > it's a political action: > Does the target of Bernard, the Scourge's blood hunt referendum get > declared as part of the "declare terms" phase, rather than when the > action is announced? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> What wacky situations? > > > > The situations where the directedness of an action can change, which affect > > certain "during a D/un-D action" effects and eligible blockers at strange timing? > Um. No wacky there so far. OK, here's one: National Guard Support is in play. I have Midget and my prey has tapped Stick + Underbridge Stray. Midget plays Wave of Insanity [sup], at -1 stealth, because it is a D action. Prey burns Stray to untap Stick "during a D action". There are no more allies so now the action is Undirected. Does it get its stealth back?

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. See also Barth tapping during an action. Or a vampire with Darksight being Deflected. Or a vampire with Darksight bleeding and the Darksight-playing vampire being stolen with Temptation. Or a vampire with Bestial Visage and Clan Impersonation: Kiasyd playing Grandest Trick. Wacky, I tells you.