LSJ: Seduction and targeting question

This came up in a game last night. We were down to two Methuselahs; myself playing !Ventrue and my opponent playing an all Imbued deck. I attempted a bleed action with one of my vampires, and (because I wanted to cycle cards) played Seduction, naming one of my vampires (my prey/predator had only Imbued) as a vampire who cannot block. We argued about this for a while; it seems illogical but I couldn't find anything in the rules or card text that prevented it. The latest card text does not specify that the vampire must belong to another methuselah. The vampire wouldn't be able to block anyway, but I fail to see why that matters. e.g. my prey has a tapped vampire with Pentex Subversion; I can't see why I couldn't play Sleeping Mind at inferior on him. relevant card text: Seduction [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PV, CE:C/PV2, BH:PTr2] Cardtype: Action Modifier Discipline: Dominate Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. [dom] Choose a younger vampire. He or she cannot block this acting vampire. [DOM] As above, but the affected vampire can be the same age or older.

Dasein wrote: > This came up in a game last night. We were down to two Methuselahs; > myself playing !Ventrue and my opponent playing an all Imbued deck. I > attempted a bleed action with one of my vampires, and (because I wanted > to cycle cards) played Seduction, naming one of my vampires (my > prey/predator had only Imbued) as a vampire who cannot block. We argued > about this for a while; it seems illogical but I couldn't find anything > in the rules or card text that prevented it. what you did was perfectly legal. another scenario where you might want to seduce someone who can't normally block is when you bleed your prey, and your predator has a scary vampire untapped. You Seduce the predator's vampire (who couldn't be eligible to block normally) because don't want your prey to flick the bleed back to him to get your vamp all torn up. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > Dasein wrote: > > This came up in a game last night. We were down to two Methuselahs; > > myself playing !Ventrue and my opponent playing an all Imbued deck. I > > attempted a bleed action with one of my vampires, and (because I wanted > > to cycle cards) played Seduction, naming one of my vampires (my > > prey/predator had only Imbued) as a vampire who cannot block. We argued > > about this for a while; it seems illogical but I couldn't find anything > > in the rules or card text that prevented it. > > what you did was perfectly legal. Correct

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow, you must have been in a hurry, since you missed the ".". :) Ankur

[ quoted text not captured ] It's the new, extra-terse LSJ. > Ankur -John Flournoy

>>> Correct >> >> Wow, you must have been in a hurry, since you missed the ".". :) > > It's the new, extra-terse LSJ. I nearly missed it, I did. Ankur

Or for instance someone cross-table is playing a Lazverinus wall deck, and Laz has an Eternal Vigilance, and keeps Eagle Sighting and blocking everything ever. Oh well, good to know I did the right thing and stuck to my guns and was vindicated.

[ quoted text not captured ] You can't use Eagle Sight at Superior and Eternal Vigilence unless you play a Wake/Forced first. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp