I won't spoil the whole card, but Talbot says :
Talbot may do X to attempt to do Y as a +1 stealth (D) action.
Is there any difference with the following wording :
Talbot may do X to do Y as a +1 stealth (D) action.
For example:
Hrothulf
Camarilla: If you control the Edge, Hrothulf can burn it to enter
combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah as a (D)
action.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hrothulf's ability to "If you meet condition A, Hrothulf can do X as a (D) action."
Where X is "burn [the Edge] to enter combat".
And from there the difference should follow easily.
On Nov 2, 11:35 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Maybe someone else can expand on this... How is "If you meet
condition A, Hrothulf can do X as a (D) action" different from "If you
meet condition B, Hrothulf can attempt to do Y as a (D) action."
Seems the same to me, but the above implies there is a difference...
Actually, scratch that. I'm sure there is no difference, but the
above says that the difference should follow easily... What does that
mean?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hrothulf can burn the Edge to take action Y. This means that burning
the edge is a cost of action Y, and is therefore not paid if the
action is unsuccessful.
If Hrothulf could burn the edge to attempt action Y instead, he must
burn the edge even if the action is unsuccessful.
-witness1
On Nov 3, 5:10 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
If we look at two cases:
Case 1: If (Condition A), (Minion) may (Do X) to (Do Y) as a D action.
(Hrothulf)
Case 2: If (Condition B), (Minion) may (Do X) to attempt to (Do Y) as
a D action. (Talbot, apparently.)
I can't say for sure, but it looks, to me, like in Case 1 (Hrothulf),
"Do X" is the cost of "Do Y as a D action". In which case, if the
action is blocked, etc, the cost is not paid. (See also: bleeding
with Strike with Conviction.)
On the other hand, Case 2 appears that "Do X" isn't the cost of the
action - it's something you need to do to be allowed to attempt the
action. In which case, whether or not the action's blocked, you've
had to Do X already. (See also: a non-Ravnos vampire attempting to do
a D action that targets Hazimel. Closest parallel I could find.)
I *think* LSJ is referring to one being a cost of the action (1) and
the other being a precondition to attempt the action (2).
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oh, I see what he's saying now. Thanks for the clarification. It's
not that attempting an action is different from doing something as an
action, it's a question of where the "cost" part is, i.e. whether it's
burn a blood to attempt to do X or attempt to do X at a cost of a
blood. Got it.
On 4 marras, 00:38, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Oh, I see what he's saying now. Thanks for the clarification. It's
> not that attempting an action is different from doing something as an
> action, it's a question of where the "cost" part is, i.e. whether it's
> burn a blood to attempt to do X or attempt to do X at a cost of a
> blood. Got it.
It doesn't really change the outcome in this case but I believe
burning the edge is actually an effect of Hrothulf's action as opposed
to being a cost. Just nitpicking really.