[LSJ] Blessing of Chaos

Cart Text: Blessing of Chaos 1 blood Dementation Action This is a +1 stealth action. Put this card on the acting vampire. If the vampire with this card attempts to block another vampire, that vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation, Dominate, Presence, or Chimerstry. Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines. *As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be directed at this vampire. IMO, this card is much underrepresented. It is anti-TB, anti-S:CE and anti-bleed all in one shot. It's great. And depending on the answers to my questions, it's utility is even moreso. * The part of the phrase "Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards that require those Disciplines [Dominate, Presense, etc]". Is this referring to *all* combats? Or just those that result from a successful block? * Now, If Vamp A attempts to bleed and Vamp B w/the Blessing tries to block, Vamp A is prohibited from modifing the bleed thereafter with a Dominate or Presence or Dementation action mod. However, I know that as part of the initial action declaration (when the action card is played), you can toss down any action mods you feel comfortable with play, so long as they don't violate the 'no additional stealth if not required' clause. So you could, for example, throw down a GtU modified by a Threats for a bleed of 4/5. Would Vamp B have an opportunity to 'declare' the block in order to keep Vamp A from playing that Threats? Or no because there was really no window of Opportunity? If no, could I do something like declare that Vamp B would attempt to block any bleeding action in order to prevent something like this? If no, then just as a side comment, a situation like this is ripe for Archon Investigation. :p Thanks. a0 -- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us -- Concrete Blonde -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

AgentZero wrote: > Blessing of Chaos - 1 blood - Dementation - Action > This is a +1 stealth action. > Put this card on the acting vampire. If the vampire with this card > attempts to block another vampire, that vampire cannot play action > modifiers requiring Dementation, Dominate, Presence, or Chimerstry. > Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards that > require those Disciplines. > *As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be directed > at this vampire. > > [...snip...] > * The part of the phrase "Vampires opposing this vampire in combat > cannot play cards that require those Disciplines [Dominate, Presense, > etc]". Is this referring to *all* combats? Or just those that > result from a successful block? All combats. > * Now, If Vamp A attempts to bleed and Vamp B w/the Blessing tries > to block, Vamp A is prohibited from modifing the bleed thereafter > with a Dominate or Presence or Dementation action mod. Correct. > However, I know that as part of the initial action declaration > (when the action card is played), you can toss down any action mods > you feel comfortable with play, so long as they don't violate the > 'no additional stealth if not required' clause. So you could, for > example, throw down a GtU modified by a Threats for a bleed of > 4/5. Correct. > Would Vamp B have an opportunity to 'declare' the block in > order to keep Vamp A from playing that Threats? Or no because > there was really no window of Opportunity? No, because there's no opportunity. > If no, could I do > something like declare that Vamp B would attempt to block any > bleeding action in order to prevent something like this? No. The acting minion's controller always gets first opportunity to play the next card (or effect). You cannot declare a block attempt until the acting Methuselah has chosen not to play another card (for the moment). > If no, > then just as a side comment, a situation like this is ripe for > Archon Investigation. :p Sure. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html