The title is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll give the details, just
in case : )
I was wondering if Imprison's text referring to "strikes other than
strikes to end combat" applied to *all* strikes (including the default,
cardless, handstrike) or only strike cards?
I wanted to make sure it wasn't an omission or anything, and that it
indeed applied to all strikes.
In that case, logic would imply that it applies to gun strikes, or
other strikes made with equipment, as well.
Here's the card text, for those of you wondering what I'm babbling
about:
"Only usable before range is determined. For the remainder of combat,
the opposing monster cannot maneuver or press to continue, and strikes
other than strikes to end combat cost the opposing monster an
additional blood or life."
Thank you,
MiF
Prince of Montreal - East
MiF wrote:
> I was wondering if Imprison's text referring to "strikes other than
> strikes to end combat" applied to *all* strikes (including the default,
> cardless, handstrike) or only strike cards?
>
> I wanted to make sure it wasn't an omission or anything, and that it
> indeed applied to all strikes.
>
> In that case, logic would imply that it applies to gun strikes, or
> other strikes made with equipment, as well.
>
> Here's the card text> "Only usable before range is determined. For the remainder of combat,> the opposing monster cannot maneuver or press to continue, and strikes
> other than strikes to end combat cost the opposing monster an
> additional blood or life."
Seems pretty straightforward: any strike that is not SC:E costs one
more. The interesting thing here is that (barring card text) a minion
must strike in combat, so this forces them to 'pay to play'. Kills
Mylan immediately whether he dodges or hits you for zero!
MiF wrote:
> The title is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll give the details, just
> in case : )
>
> I was wondering if Imprison's text referring to "strikes other than
> strikes to end combat" applied to *all* strikes (including the default,
> cardless, handstrike) or only strike cards?
All.
> In that case, logic would imply that it applies to gun strikes, or
> other strikes made with equipment, as well.
Yes.
Robert Scythe wrote:
> Seems pretty straightforward: any strike that is not SC:E costs one
> more. The interesting thing here is that (barring card text) a minion
> must strike in combat, so this forces them to 'pay to play'. Kills
> Mylan immediately whether he dodges or hits you for zero!
Nah. You can't force someone to pay a cost. If they choose not to pay
to play, then they don't get to strike.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1145383308....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
That works for things like Giotto Verducci's "cost to block" effect, but
striking is normally mandatory. When a vampire has a mandatory action, they
don't have the option of not taking it because they don't want to pay the
cost of the action, do they? Consider the case of Lorrie Dunsirn with a
Lunatic Eruption on her: can she decline to take the required enter-combat
action because it would cost a pool? I would think that she must still take
the action, even if succeeding would oust her controller...
Josh
never go down to one pool with lorrie on your side
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > Nah. You can't force someone to pay a cost. If they choose not to pay
> > to play, then they don't get to strike.
>
> That works for things like Giotto Verducci's "cost to block" effect, but
> striking is normally mandatory. When a vampire has a mandatory action, they
> don't have the option of not taking it because they don't want to pay the
> cost of the action, do they? Consider the case of Lorrie Dunsirn with a
> Lunatic Eruption on her: can she decline to take the required enter-combat
> action because it would cost a pool? I would think that she must still take
> the action, even if succeeding would oust her controller...
Mandatory actions may be different than mandatory strikes.
Quoting LSJ in 2000:
> Tadeusz wrote:
> > One last thing: in the current state of the rules, is it mandatory for
> > a minion to strike when in combat (or can you "spare" Smudge from time
> > to time?)?
>
> You must strike (if you have a strike).
> Even at long range, (if you select no other strike) you're strike will be
> (an ineffective) "hand strike".
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Thus, your 'must strike' is mandatory only as long as you have a
strike. If you don't pay the cost of your hand strike, you do not have
a default strike and thus are not compelled to make one.
But I'll let Scott cover the 'mandatory action' situation with Lorrie
above.
> Josh
-John Flournoy
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> That works for things like Giotto Verducci's "cost to block" effect, but
> striking is normally mandatory.
So is continuing the attempt to block once you start it (until your
intercept falls short).
> When a vampire has a mandatory action, they
> don't have the option of not taking it because they don't want to pay the
> cost of the action, do they?
Not currently. Can't say it's ever come up though. Perhaps they
shouldn't have to in that case. I'll ave to ponder that some more.
But those aren't in the same boat -- hand striking is just a default
thing -- if you don't do anything else, you end up making a hand strike
(the default). There is no default action.
> Consider the case of Lorrie Dunsirn with a
> Lunatic Eruption on her: can she decline to take the required enter-combat
> action because it would cost a pool? I would think that she must still take
> the action, even if succeeding would oust her controller...
She does indeed, since the rush is mandated, not simply defaulted.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > That works for things like Giotto Verducci's "cost to block" effect, but
> > striking is normally mandatory.> So is continuing the attempt to block once you start it (until your
> intercept falls short).> > When a vampire has a mandatory action, they
> > don't have the option of not taking it because they don't want to pay the
> > cost of the action, do they?> Not currently. Can't say it's ever come up though. Perhaps they
> shouldn't have to in that case. I'll ave to ponder that some more.
Through the Jozfilter, I see:
It could come up if Phillipe Rigaud is ready and Hazimel is in torpor...
Although that's a "burn 2 blood to attempt", not a cost, so maybe it's
not an exact parallel.
LSJ wrote:
Snip
>>> > When a vampire has a mandatory action, they
> > don't have the option of not taking it because they don't want to pay the
> > cost of the action, do they?
>
> Not currently. Can't say it's ever come up though. Perhaps they
> shouldn't have to in that case. I'll ave to ponder that some more.
>
> But those aren't in the same boat -- hand striking is just a default
> thing -- if you don't do anything else, you end up making a hand strike
> (the default). There is no default action.
>
The situation has arisen before with the card text of putrefacation
Putrefaction
Type: Combat
Requires: Thanatosis/Presence
Cost: 1 blood
[pre] Strike: combat ends.
[thn] Strike: 1 damage. Put this card on the opposing minion. The
minion with this card has -1 stealth. He or she may burn this card
instead of untapping as normal during his or her untap phase. A minion
may have only one Putrefaction.
[THN] As [thn] above, and this minion takes 1 unpreventable damage when
he or she strikes in combat or takes an action. The minion with this
card may choose not to strike during the Choose Strike step of combat.
As far as I can tell this is the only previous example where a minion
gets an option dodge a cost by striking or not striking. To me this
indicates that if there is no option not to strike then you have to
strike, hands or otherwise, and take the damage. A precedent has
already been set with this card by virtue of the fact that it does give
you an option where imprison does not. I suppose you could errata the
card, or the ruling but why bother? It works fine the way it is.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Is there a precedent for this?
All minions can make a hand strike. in combat a minion must strike.
Or is this a ruling pertaining to Imprison (and any future similar
situations)?
Either way Mylan still dies: dead if he pays, dead if he doesn't.
Robert Scythe wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Robert Scythe wrote:
> > > Seems pretty straightforward: any strike that is not SC:E costs one
> > > more. The interesting thing here is that (barring card text) a minion
> > > must strike in combat, so this forces them to 'pay to play'. Kills
> > > Mylan immediately whether he dodges or hits you for zero!
> >
> > Nah. You can't force someone to pay a cost. If they choose not to pay
> > to play, then they don't get to strike.
>
> Is there a precedent for this?
No. It's a new ruling.
> All minions can make a hand strike. in combat a minion must strike.
> Or is this a ruling pertaining to Imprison (and any future similar
> situations)?
It is a ruling pertaining to paying a cost to make a default hand
strike.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1145399028.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:>> That works for things like Giotto Verducci's "cost to block" effect, but
>> striking is normally mandatory.>
> So is continuing the attempt to block once you start it (until your
> intercept falls short).
Fair point. :-)
>> When a vampire has a mandatory action, they
>> don't have the option of not taking it because they don't want to pay the
>> cost of the action, do they?>
> Not currently. Can't say it's ever come up though. Perhaps they
> shouldn't have to in that case. I'll ave to ponder that some more.
>
> But those aren't in the same boat -- hand striking is just a default
> thing -- if you don't do anything else, you end up making a hand strike
> (the default). There is no default action.
That's an interesting distinction to make, but to me, the term 'default'
(until now) meant the same thing as 'mandatory' for hand strikes: not using
the word didn't make it any less mandatory (normally) to use your default
hand strike if you didn't have another strike to choose (or an effect
prohibiting you from striking altogether). That is, it is not optional,
therefore 'mandatory' is an appropriate word.
In any case - it seems to me it'd be more consistent for block-costs and
default-strike costs to behave the same way as action-costs, one way or the
other. Not that I'm going to lose any sleep over it. :-)
Josh
we're not here cause we want to entertain
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> That's an interesting distinction to make, but to me, the term 'default'
> (until now) meant the same thing as 'mandatory' for hand strikes: not using
If you have a mandatory action, you can't take some other action.
If you have a mandatory strike, you can't make some other strike.
If you have a default action (which you don't), then you end up doing
that action when it comes time to perform an action unless you perform
some other action.
If you have a default strike (which you do), then you end up doing that
strike when it comes time to strike unless you make some other strike.
If hand strikes were mandatory, minions couldn't dodge.
> the word didn't make it any less mandatory (normally) to use your default
> hand strike if you didn't have another strike to choose (or an effect
> prohibiting you from striking altogether). That is, it is not optional,
> therefore 'mandatory' is an appropriate word.
A different type of mandatory -- your usage is equivalent to "it is
mandatory to choose a strike in the choose strike step", not "hand
strikes are mandatory".
It is normally mandatory to strike. You don't in additional strike
steps when you don't have additional strikes, of course. And you don't
if you don't pay the cost to do so, which has only now come up.
> In any case - it seems to me it'd be more consistent for block-costs and
> default-strike costs to behave the same way as action-costs, one way or the
> other. Not that I'm going to lose any sleep over it. :-)
It would indeed be more consistent if it were more consistent, yes.
As I said, the idea of mandatory actions with cost has only just now
come up as well (although they've been possible for a while now). I'll
have to ponder that some more.
LSJ wrote:
> It is normally mandatory to strike. You don't in additional strike
> steps when you don't have additional strikes, of course. And you don't
> if you don't pay the cost to do so, which has only now come up.
I don't really like this ruling. I feel it'll end up opening a whole can
of worms. "I don't want to hunt with XTC, you'll pay foul blood. I'll
decline to have to pay the 0 cost and not do it" "Don't be silly" "but
lsj said..."
Initial strikes have always been mandatory, unless card text overrides.
I don't like that changing. Where it's been seen to be innappropriate to
force a strike before, card text has explicitly given you a way out.
I'd prefer it to be more like you have to strike, and pay the cost.
Unless you can't pay the cost, in which case you don't get to strike.
It'd *feel* like a more consistent ruling, to me, at least.
Could I now choose not to strike under IG if i didn't want to hand
strike the other guy? Obviously not, but those are the sorts of
questions players are going to ask and be confused about anyway.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Salem wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > It is normally mandatory to strike. You don't in additional strike
> > steps when you don't have additional strikes, of course. And you don't
> > if you don't pay the cost to do so, which has only now come up.
>
> I don't really like this ruling. I feel it'll end up opening a whole can
> of worms. "I don't want to hunt with XTC, you'll pay foul blood. I'll
> decline to have to pay the 0 cost and not do it" "Don't be silly" "but
> lsj said..."
Don't be silly.
:-)
> Initial strikes have always been mandatory, unless card text overrides.
>
> I don't like that changing. Where it's been seen to be innappropriate to
> force a strike before, card text has explicitly given you a way out.
Then consider an effect which makes the default initial strike have a
cost to be making that override (turning the initial strike into an
option) by way of adding a cost.
> Could I now choose not to strike under IG if i didn't want to hand
> strike the other guy? Obviously not, but those are the sorts of
> questions players are going to ask and be confused about anyway.
Seems unlikely to cause confusion (being obvious, as you say), since
they're (obviously) not the same.