Continuing an unblocked action (expansion)

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > By reacting quickly, the vampire has unwittingly allowed a blocked > action to be successful when it would not have had the chance if > the fast reactor has sat on his thumbs. Not only that, but you are now Bum's Rushing a vampire in torpor; something which I assumed was not allowed... What happens? Is there combat, or just a chance for diablerie? > I'd suggest allowing FoM to continue an action only if the acting > vampire is currently in combat with a blocking minion - to keep > silly stuff like the above from happening. Hmm... FoMming a Bum's Rush is kinda strange, but I don't think that just because things didn't work out the way the opposing Meth. planned is such a horrible thing... James -- James Hamblin | Consultant, CS 212 Cornell University | V.P. of Wargames, CSSS http://www-sunlab.cit.cornell.edu/Info/People/jhamblin/index.html

In article <310EBC...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu>, James Hamblin <jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu> wrote: > L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > By reacting quickly, the vampire has unwittingly allowed a blocked > > action to be successful when it would not have had the chance if > > the fast reactor has sat on his thumbs. > Not only that, but you are now Bum's Rushing a vampire in torpor; something > which I assumed was not allowed... What happens? Is there combat, or just a > chance for diablerie? No, assuming that it can be done (that is, FoM a Bum's Rush), one cannot Bum's Rush a torped vampire. > > I'd suggest allowing FoM to continue an action only if the acting > > vampire is currently in combat with a blocking minion - to keep > > silly stuff like the above from happening. > Hmm... FoMming a Bum's Rush is kinda strange, but I don't think that just > because things didn't work out the way the opposing Meth. planned is such a > horrible thing... While I agree that making things have unplanned results is a good thing in game context ("I didn't think you'd do that!"), but as game design goes, allowing S:CE (in FoM) to be used as a continuance of an already resolved action... This doesn't seem right. Slightly different example: I Bum's Rush, hurt them, press to a second round, Form of Mist to continue an action that has already resolved... This is where things seem bad. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

OK, refresher: The RTR has said that Form of Mist (superior) can be used to "continue" and action that was never blocked - like a Bum's Rush for example. "Continuing" this action has the effect of re-starting the action resolution stage (actually, it backs up to even before this stage - all the way to the Choose Blockers step, but that obvious bug isn't the point of this post). End refresher. So, in the same vein, let's say the Acting Vampire *is* blocked, resulting in combat. But, the poor acting vampire can't seem to draw a FoM and so settles hand-to-claw combat, ending the combat quickly :-). None too amused, the blocking vampire's Methuselah sends another vampire into the fray with Fast Reaction (tapping the reacting vampire, and starting a combat in the first round of which the acting minion cannot strike). Somehow, the acting vampire lives through the first round (probably playing a few damage prevention cards in the process) and has the good fortune to draw a FoM. The acting vampire presses, and the Fast Reactor starts turning a little paler. The acting vampire chooses FoM superior for his strike and continues the action at +1 stealth. This is even further inside the bounds of the RTR's interpretation of the way FoM works that the retro-booster effect on a Bum's Rush. By reacting quickly, the vampire has unwittingly allowed a blocked action to be successful when it would not have had the chance if the fast reactor has sat on his thumbs. I'd suggest allowing FoM to continue an action only if the acting vampire is currently in combat with a blocking minion - to keep silly stuff like the above from happening. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec

In article <4eomsv$l...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: [Bomb utility with FoM discussion] > But this obviously makes the bomb less useful (not that anyone I know > prefers a bomb over simple Arson - one action and no pool expenditure > is better than two actions and a pool anyday.) Bomb is more versatile (sp?). Many a Fame deck love it. Suiciding wienies love it to. (I got stuck the prey of a weenie fortitude/obfuscate deck. Dawn Operation, I thought what the heck? Disguised Bomb... Boom! :/ ) [ quoted text not captured ]

eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >[FoM confusion snipped] >> >>I'd suggest allowing FoM to continue an action only if the acting >>vampire is currently in combat with a blocking minion - to keep >>silly stuff like the above from happening. >How about the following scenario (this is similar to one I mentioned in the >Heidelburg thread.) >Vamp A has Bomb >Vamp A uses (D) action from bomb to trash a location of meth B's >Vamp B blocks >Vamp B steals bomb from Vamp A >Vamp A FoM's, continuing the action...but without the equipment that made >it possible for him to take the action in the first place. If you do it >with Heidelburg instead of a combat, a similar controversy arises. He would have to FoM in the second round (after the round in which the Bomb was stolen), but OK. >1.) Can Vamp A still trash the location? Real world says no, card text and rules say yes (even if the FoM fix listed above is implemented). I'd say burn it, to avoid the mess involved with rules for obscure combinations of events. To handle it better, you could re-word the bomb to: Bearer may burn the bomb to /attempt/ to burn a location. But this obviously makes the bomb less useful (not that anyone I know prefers a bomb over simple Arson - one action and no pool expenditure is better than two actions and a pool anyday.) >2.) Does the bomb get burned? If the location goes, so does the bomb. If it doesn't, neither does the bomb. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: [FoM confusion snipped] > >I'd suggest allowing FoM to continue an action only if the acting >vampire is currently in combat with a blocking minion - to keep >silly stuff like the above from happening. How about the following scenario (this is similar to one I mentioned in the Heidelburg thread.) Vamp A has Bomb Vamp A uses (D) action from bomb to trash a location of meth B's Vamp B blocks Vamp B steals bomb from Vamp A Vamp A FoM's, continuing the action...but without the equipment that made it possible for him to take the action in the first place. If you do it with Heidelburg instead of a combat, a similar controversy arises. 1.) Can Vamp A still trash the location? 2.) Does the bomb get burned? Ack! My brain hurts. gnfnrf

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960131162706.6322B-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >In article <4eomsv$l...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu >(L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >[Bomb utility with FoM discussion] > >> But this obviously makes the bomb less useful (not that anyone I know >> prefers a bomb over simple Arson - one action and no pool expenditure >> is better than two actions and a pool anyday.) > >Bomb is more versatile (sp?). Many a Fame deck love it. Suiciding >wienies love it to. (I got stuck the prey of a weenie >fortitude/obfuscate deck. Dawn Operation, I thought what the heck? >Disguised Bomb... Boom! :/ ) Well, yeah - but you're using the bomb as a weapon - quite outside the scope of the discussion on using it as a tool for burning locations. Or do your wienies love to use a bomb to burn locations (staying their Famous hides in the Ready area)? If you're going to use a bomb to burn a location, you're better off using Arson. Every day of the week, no matter your capacity, skill, or clan. One action is better than two actions and a pool loss. As a weapon, sure you may want a Bomb instead of a Saturday night special. No question about it. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In addition, the action is less likely to be blocked if the acting vampire is carrying a weapon that will do 5 point of damage and he's not afraid to use it. Then the blocker has to choose between his location and his vampire.

In article <4er3de$h...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >If you're going to use a bomb to burn a location, you're better off using >Arson. Every day of the week, no matter your capacity, skill, or clan. > >One action is better than two actions and a pool loss. Not necessarily. The bomb allows a delayed burn. Get the bomb now, blow up the location 2 turns later when your hand can support it (or when the best target is clear, or when your prey is tapped out, or whatever). In addition, if the Arson is blocked, it's gone, but you can keep trying with the bomb. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] >Real world says no, card text and rules say yes (even if the FoM fix >listed above is implemented). I'd say burn it, to avoid the mess involved >with rules for obscure combinations of events. Actually, I suspect the location is not burned in this case. If Vamp A's action had been taken over by someone who didn't have a Bomb, the location would not have been burned had the action been "successful." The principle is that the result of a Masked action depends on what equipment the new acting minion has, not what the old one had, and I see no particular reason why this wouldn't or couldn't apply here. Similarly, if a vampire takes a bleed action, what matters is whether it has a Laptop when the bleed is successfull, not whether it had one when it took the action. If the vampire gets into combat, loses the laptop, and Mists out of the combat, it will not get that +1 bleed if the action is ultimately successfull. But I will have to double check this with the others. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >why this wouldn't or couldn't apply here. Similarly, if a vampire takes >a bleed action, what matters is whether it has a Laptop when the bleed is >successfull, not whether it had one when it took the action. If the vampire >gets into combat, loses the laptop, and Mists out of the combat, it will not >get that +1 bleed if the action is ultimately successfull. Well, thanks for the well-thought-out almost-ruling. But this is counter to the answer you gave last week for juggling Laptops with HC. Are you reversing this answer? From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 1/24/96 Date: 30 Jan 1996 21:56:06 GMT Message-ID: <4em45m$k...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote: >>Can you xfer equipment after block/no block has been declared, but >>before the action resolves? > >More on this idea, to which I think the answer would be yes, consider the >following scenario. >Vamp A has V:tES Laptop >Vamp B (same meth) also has V:tES Laptop >that mesuthelah has Heidelburg untapped. > >Vamp A Bleeds. Gets +1 Bleed for the current bleed action. >Heidelburg swaps Laptops (neither has more than one at a time) >Vamp A gets another +1 bleed for the action from the other laptop. Yes, this works. The errata only prohibits the Castle from being used during combat, not at other times. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>why this wouldn't or couldn't apply here. Similarly, if a vampire takes >>a bleed action, what matters is whether it has a Laptop when the bleed is >>successfull, not whether it had one when it took the action. If the vampire >>gets into combat, loses the laptop, and Mists out of the combat, it will not >>get that +1 bleed if the action is ultimately successfull. >But this is counter to the answer you gave last week for juggling >Laptops with HC. Are you reversing this answer? Yes, because I misread that question. > >More on this idea, to which I think the answer would be yes, consider the > >following scenario. > >Vamp A has V:tES Laptop > >Vamp B (same meth) also has V:tES Laptop > >that mesuthelah has Heidelburg untapped. > > > >Vamp A Bleeds. Gets +1 Bleed for the current bleed action. > >Heidelburg swaps Laptops (neither has more than one at a time) > >Vamp A gets another +1 bleed for the action from the other laptop. > > Yes, this works. The errata only prohibits the Castle from being > used during combat, not at other times. I read the question as "does Vamp A get the bleed modifier for its new laptop?", missing the part about "does the vamp get the modifiers for its old laptop?" [ quoted text not captured ]