[LSJ] Superior Form of Mist timing question

Is there a specific time that you must play FoM (ie on the first round of combat)? Does this mean that you could potentially beat the crap out of the blocking minion, press, then FoM to continue? Also, can you play superior FoM after someone has blocked you using Force of Will and still have it continue as if unblocked? Card text for FoW states after combat or action resolves... is this a whichever happens first situation? Thanks, -JZ -< Johann Lionheart >- http://www.johannsdomain.com

-< Johann Lionheart >- wrote: > Is there a specific time that you must play FoM (ie on the first round > of combat)? Anytime you play a strike. Note you can only FoM once per action, though. > Does this mean that you could potentially beat the crap > out of the blocking minion, press, then FoM to continue? Yes. (Although there's a '98 LSJ ruling that says it can't continue if you Amaranth at the end of combat. So, maybe not always.) > Also, can you play superior FoM after someone has blocked you using > Force of Will and still have it continue as if unblocked? Yes. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22form+%2Bof+mist%22+%22force+%2Bof+will%22+author:LSJ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&scoring=d&selm=3BFCDB58.2A740BFD%40white-wolf.com&rnum=3 --Colin McGuigan

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:33:34 -0600, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled: >-< Johann Lionheart >- wrote: >> Is there a specific time that you must play FoM (ie on the first round >> of combat)? > >Anytime you play a strike. Note you can only FoM once per action, though. FoM at SUPERIOR, once per action. you can dodge all you want. >> Does this mean that you could potentially beat the crap >> out of the blocking minion, press, then FoM to continue? > >Yes. but if they go to torpor while beating the crap out of them, you'll not get to another choose strike phase to play a FoM at superior. >(Although there's a '98 LSJ ruling that says it can't continue if you >Amaranth at the end of combat. So, maybe not always.) not sure that you even can amaranth anymore after a super FoM, since Drawing out the beast is now pres-step damage at super...can anyone else think of a way to do it? >> Also, can you play superior FoM after someone has blocked you using >> Force of Will and still have it continue as if unblocked? > >Yes. > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22form+%2Bof+mist%22+%22force+%2Bof+will%22+author:LSJ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&scoring=d&selm=3BFCDB58.2A740BFD%40white-wolf.com&rnum=3 indeed. :) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet news:h8tvsvoecfnacruvp...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:33:34 -0600, Colin McGuigan > <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled: > > >-< Johann Lionheart >- wrote: > >> Is there a specific time that you must play FoM (ie on the first round > >> of combat)? > > > >Anytime you play a strike. Note you can only FoM once per action, though. > > FoM at SUPERIOR, once per action. you can dodge all you want. > > >> Does this mean that you could potentially beat the crap > >> out of the blocking minion, press, then FoM to continue? > > > >Yes. > > but if they go to torpor while beating the crap out of them, you'll > not get to another choose strike phase to play a FoM at superior. > > >(Although there's a '98 LSJ ruling that says it can't continue if you > >Amaranth at the end of combat. So, maybe not always.) > > not sure that you even can amaranth anymore after a super FoM, since > Drawing out the beast is now pres-step damage at super...can anyone > else think of a way to do it? Maxwell ambushes Arika, Gideon blocks, both strikes for one, maxwell blurs, strikes for one and finally form of mists... At end of combat, taste, disarm, decapitate/amaranth. Enters combat with Arika, striks for one, blurs, strike for one, earth meld followed by taste, disarm amaranth. After that he plays a bum's rush and does it again... =) /henrik isaksson

"-< Johann Lionheart >-" <Johann@/nospam/johannsdomain.com> wrote in message news:<19ivsvo2enrg65p0t...@4ax.com>... > Is there a specific time that you must play FoM (ie on the first round > of combat)? Does this mean that you could potentially beat the crap > out of the blocking minion, press, then FoM to continue? Yes. > > Also, can you play superior FoM after someone has blocked you using > Force of Will and still have it continue as if unblocked? Card text > for FoW states after combat or action resolves... is this a whichever > happens first situation? > ################ Force of Will [DS:C2, FN:PR2, Anarchs:PAG/PG2] Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 blood Only usable by a tapped vampire. [for] (D) Bleed with +1 bleed. This vampire takes 2 points of aggravated damage (damage not preventable) even if the action is blocked. Damage occurs after the action or combat is resolved. [FOR] As above, but with +2 bleed, and the acting vampire takes only 1 point of aggravated damage (damage not preventable). ################ If FOM say continue as if unblocked then FOW does not pull your vamp to torpor yet. You must take the 2 points of A.damage after the action or after combat, so take it at the and of the action!! Oortje

salem wrote: > FoM at SUPERIOR, once per action. you can dodge all you want. Mea culpa. > not sure that you even can amaranth anymore after a super FoM, since > Drawing out the beast is now pres-step damage at super...can anyone > else think of a way to do it? Disarm. Pulled Fangs, if you'd reduced your opponent to 0 blood first. --Colin McGuigan

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 08:23:59 -0600, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled: >salem wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] of course. stupid me. (the example shown by the other poster obviously being why amaranth ends the FoM.....hmm...does decapitate end the FoM?) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >(Although there's a '98 LSJ ruling that says it can't continue if you > > >Amaranth at the end of combat. So, maybe not always.) > > > > not sure that you even can amaranth anymore after a super FoM, since > > Drawing out the beast is now pres-step damage at super...can anyone > > else think of a way to do it? > > Maxwell ambushes Arika, Gideon blocks, both strikes for one, maxwell blurs, strikes for one and > finally form of mists... At end of combat, taste, disarm, decapitate/amaranth. Enters combat with > Arika, striks for one, blurs, strike for one, earth meld followed by taste, disarm amaranth. After > that he plays a bum's rush and does it again... =) LSJ, Is this correct? Can you play earth meld and then disarm? Enrique

salem wrote: > does decapitate end the FoM? No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Dr. Enrique Monta?o wrote: > Can you play earth meld and then disarm? If you meet the requirements for playing Disarm then you can play Disarm at the end of a round. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > salem wrote: > >> does decapitate end the FoM? > > > No. Why does Amaranth end FoM, and Decapitate not? --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Why does Amaranth end FoM, and Decapitate not? Diablerie. See the cited ruling on the Form of Mist rulings. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i meddelandet news:3FD32B31...@white-wolf.com... > Colin McGuigan wrote: > > Why does Amaranth end FoM, and Decapitate not? > > Diablerie. See the cited ruling on the Form of Mist rulings. > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html > Curious ruling IMO... Care to motivate it? I don't see why diablerie should interrupt FoM, as it's not a combat or anything. See no difference between decapitate and amaranth... /henrik isaksson cited article: > > Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote: > > : A Stanislava from hell deck: > > : Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play > > : Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist > > : then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with Absolution of the Diabolist, > > : and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam* > > Is this combination of cards legal? Yes. But the action will not continue as if unblocked. Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=102367942 I'll put this on the RT review list, just to make sure.

Henrik Isaksson wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i meddelandet news:3FD32B31...@white-wolf.com... > >>Colin McGuigan wrote: >> >>>Why does Amaranth end FoM, and Decapitate not? >> >>Diablerie. See the cited ruling on the Form of Mist rulings. >>http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html >> > > > Curious ruling IMO... Care to motivate it? I don't see why diablerie should interrupt FoM, as it's The motivation is also given in the cited article. > not a combat or anything. See no difference between decapitate and amaranth... Parallel: "I don't see why combat should disrupt FoM, as it's not a diablerie or anything". Difference between decapitate and amaranth: blood hunt. > > /henrik isaksson > > cited article: > >>>Michael Beer (Mi...@leila.ping.de) wrote: >>>: A Stanislava from hell deck: >>>: Bleed (with Dominate), be blocked, play >>>: Dawn Op + Drawing out the Beast + Form of Mist >>>: then eat your opponent for snack (with Amaranth), allow it yourself with Absolution of the >> > Diabolist, > >>>: and get on with Business "as if unblocked". *mjam* >> >>Is this combination of cards legal? > > > Yes. But the action will not continue as if unblocked. > > Like a new combat, the process of diablerie sufficiently > disrupts the "continue action" effect even though it doesn't > explicitly block the action's continuance. Precedence: the > ruling on Psyche and Form of Mist: > > http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=102367942 > > I'll put this on the RT review list, just to make sure. > > -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Does Psyche interrupt superior FoM ? How does one determine if the +1 stealth is "needed" ? For example, what happens if the last minion got tapped by the combat involving FoM, and there's no one else able or desiring to block the action : the stealth isn't "needed", so the action can't continue at +1 stealth ?? -------- Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > Does Psyche interrupt superior FoM ? http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html > How does one determine if the +1 stealth is "needed" ? For example, what Use the following test: Is there currently a blocking minion whose current intercept is equal to or greater than the acting minion's current stealth? > happens if the last minion got tapped by the combat involving FoM, and > there's no one else able or desiring to block the action : the stealth isn't > "needed", so the action can't continue at +1 stealth ?? It is, so it can be. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FD86F2E...@white-wolf.com... > Orpheus wrote: > > Does Psyche interrupt superior FoM ? > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html > > > How does one determine if the +1 stealth is "needed" ? For example, what > > Use the following test: > > Is there currently a blocking minion whose current intercept is equal to > or greater than the acting minion's current stealth? Even with the new card text, this ruling is still effective ? Isn't it very cornercase, somewhat counterintuitive and counterbalanced by From of mist 1 blood cost now ? Shouldn't we drop it for obsolescence, if not for clarity of the rules by now ? example : Makwell calls his built in action to become prince of chicago. vampy with raptor blocks. Maxwell cannot play Mask empathy superior then form of mist superior to continue -although it seems perfectly legal and not really overpowered ?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FD86F2E...@white-wolf.com... > Orpheus wrote: > > Does Psyche interrupt superior FoM ? > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html > > > How does one determine if the +1 stealth is "needed" ? For example, what > > Use the following test: > > Is there currently a blocking minion whose current intercept is equal to > or greater than the acting minion's current stealth? Even with the new card text, this ruling is still effective ? [ quoted text not captured ]

Reyda wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Orpheus wrote: >>>How does one determine if the +1 stealth is "needed" ? >> >>Use the following test: >>Is there currently a blocking minion whose current intercept is equal to >>or greater than the acting minion's current stealth? > > Shouldn't we drop it for obsolescence, if not for clarity of the rules by > now ? It is not obsolete. The restriction against adding stealth when stealth is not needed is still part of the core rules of the game. [6.2.2.2] [ quoted text not captured ]