Rules Interpretations on Playing Stealth, etc.

I have a question seeking rules interpretations for something that happened at our weekly gaming session. I was playing an Assamite deck being bled by a Malkavian anti-tribu deck (no, I didn't last long). What happened was this: Weeny anti-tribu Malkav bleeds me for 1 pool. I decline to block. My predator plays Mask of 1K Faces and changes the bleeder to the big, bad anti-tribu who has +1 bleed and +1 stealth against a prey with no titled vampires (unfortunately me). He tries to play the card at superior for the additional +1 stealth (possibly because he is psyched out by the Marketplace I have out). The questions follow-- 1. Can he even play this card at superior since he already has an automatic +1 stealth and I have announced no blocker with +1 intercept yet? I argued no, because I remembered a ruling that Bonding cannot be played at superior for +1 stealth when the stealth is not yet required. This is in line with the rules as far as I see, stating: b. Acting Minion can play an Action Modifier card to increase Stealth only if the Blocking Minion has at least as much Intercept as the Acting Minion's Stealth. (:18.2.2) Increased stealth lasts until the action is finished. [13.3.2] I have gotten several objections to using this ruling in this situation: A. The vampire playing the Mask is not the acting minion, so is not bound by this rule. I objected that the whole point of the Mask is to change who is the acting minion, so the new vampire is as bound by the rule as the former one is. B. That all vampires have the option regardless of circumstances to play the superior version of a discipline instead of the inferior. This argument claims that there is no difference between playing Mask at inferior or superior and Lost in Crowds (+1/+2 stealth) at superior or inferior. I object to this on the basis that according to the ruling above, a vampire playing Lost in Crowds must already need stealth, and whether the vampire gets +1 or +2 stealth is not essential. However, a vampire playing the Mask does not necessarily need extra stealth to play the card. And the above ruling appears to say that the vampire cannot play the superior version for +1 stealth unless it is needed to avoid a blocker. To me this is similar to the Bonding ruling. C. A variant of argument B aboves claims that this particular anti-tribu can still play the superior version of Mask for additional stealth even though the vampire's special ability automatically gives it +1 stealth. This argument sees only two steps to playing Mask of 1K-- before it is a 1 bleed at 0 stealth and after it is a 2 bleed at 2 stealth. This argument goes further than argument B above to state that the vampire's special ability occurs at the same time as the +1 stealth from the superior Mask, so that the situation is exactly like playing a Lost in Crowds for +2 stealth. To me it seems that this vampire's special ability is not optional-- all bleeds by this vampire are at +1 stealth against players without titled vampires. But the additional +1 stealth from the superior Mask is optional and can only be invoked if at the time the Mask is played +2 stealth are necessary to avoid a declared blocker with +1 intercept. An example would be if I had declared a blocker who owned a sport bike or raven spy for the original weenie vampire's bleed. 2. Does the change in acting minion caused by the Mask allow me to reconsider whether I wish to block the bleed? Or am I still stuck with not blocking the bleed? I tend to believe that I cannot name a blocker after the Mask if I had not named one before, because the rule book says on p. 21: "Once a Methuselah has passed up the opportunity to block an action, he cannot attempt to block it later, regardless of whether other blocking attempts have been made [presumably by other methuselahs-- jwa] or whether the action has been modified with an action modifier card." However this brings up different issues: A. If I had named a blocker prior to the Mask, and the person who plays the Mask does not raise the stealth, am I now forced to go into combat with the new vampire without the opportunity to change my mind about who is blocking? I would tend to say yes, because there are cards such as dawn operation which specifically state the blocker may now decline to block, and Mask lacks such text. This is how I played Mask when I had a Tremere deck that relied on my prey blocking weenie vampires only to face big, bad ones in the resulting combat. B. Is there ever a point where a Methuselah getting bled declines to play reaction cards? In other words, if I decline to block and say, How much?" am I still able to play reaction cards to decrease the bleed, decrease the stealth (chimerstry), and/or deflect/telepathically misdirect the increased bleed? Is there a never-ending sequence of action modifiers/reactions being played until no one wants to play anymore? Is it like the maneuver or press steps in combat where you go in turns and once you decline to play a card/use an effect, you don't get a second thought? 3. Similar to 1A above, hasn't there been a ruling that a non-acting vampire with superior obfuscate can play an unlimited number of Cloak the Gatherings to give stealth to the acting minion, whereas the acting minion is limited to playing only one (at inferior)? 4. Totally different question. Hasn't there been a recent ruling that tapped vampires could play reaction cards for votes during a vote without untapping/playing a reaction card which allows them to play reaction cards even though tapped? What was the justification for this? Is there any other situation where a tapped vampire can play a reaction card without untapping/etc.? Sorry to take so much time and space, but I'd really like to resolve these issues before we play again. Joseph W. Alfred j-al...@uiuc.edu

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Joseph W. Alfred wrote: [snip] > Weeny anti-tribu Malkav bleeds me for 1 pool. I decline to block. My > predator plays Mask of 1K Faces and changes the bleeder to the big, bad > anti-tribu who has +1 bleed and +1 stealth against a prey with no titled > vampires That would be Vasantasena. > (unfortunately me). He tries to play the card at superior for > the additional +1 stealth (possibly because he is psyched out by the > Marketplace I have out). The questions follow-- > > 1. Can he even play this card at superior since he already has an > automatic +1 stealth and I have announced no blocker with +1 intercept > yet? No she cannot. Even if she did not have an automatic +1 stealth already, she would not be able to do this. [snip] > > I have gotten several objections to using this ruling in this situation: > > A. The vampire playing the Mask is not the acting minion, so is > not bound by this rule. Mask makes him the acting minion. Otherwise the additional stealth is meaningless to him. [snip] > B. That all vampires have the option regardless of circumstances > to play the superior version of a discipline instead of the > inferior. This argument claims that there is no difference > between playing Mask at inferior or superior and Lost in Crowds > (+1/+2 stealth) at superior or inferior. There is no rule against adding more stealth than you need, but there is a rule agains adding stealth when you do not need it. [snip] > C. A variant of argument B aboves claims that this particular > anti-tribu can still play the superior version of Mask for > additional stealth even though the vampire's special ability > automatically gives it +1 stealth. This argument sees only two > steps to playing Mask of 1K-- before it is a 1 bleed at 0 stealth > and after it is a 2 bleed at 2 stealth. This argument goes > further than argument B above to state that the vampire's special > ability occurs at the same time as the +1 stealth from the > superior Mask, so that the situation is exactly like playing a > Lost in Crowds for +2 stealth. This argument makes sense to me in that, had you attempted to block at 0 intercept, then he, since he was at 0 stealth before the card was played and so *does* need stealth, could therefore play Mask at superior to gain +2 stealth. A counterargument might be that, while the original weenie *does* need the stealth, Vasantasena is the minion who is playing the Mask, and Vasantasena does not need the stealth. I think we need LSJ on this one. However, since you declined to block, these arguments are moot as regards your original example. The stealth is not needed. [snip] > 2. Does the change in acting minion caused by the Mask allow me to > reconsider whether I wish to block the bleed? Or am I still stuck with > not blocking the bleed? The latter. The decision not to block is final. [snip] > However this brings up different issues: > > A. If I had named a blocker prior to the Mask, and the person who > plays the Mask does not raise the stealth, am I now forced to go > into combat with the new vampire without the opportunity to change > my mind about who is blocking? Yes. In fact, I believe that the person who plays Mask may do so after combat is entered. I have to do this to get Lucretia into combat with blockers since otherwise her automatic +1 stealth would cause the action to go by them. I believe this is legal (LSJ, please confirm?). I have always understood that, except in the case of a Bum's Rush or similar action to enter combat, an action is not complete until the resulting combat is over. [snip] > B. Is there ever a point where a Methuselah getting bled declines > to play reaction cards? No. Though the decision not to block is final, in all other ways you get a chance to respond to any cards or effects played. If you decline to play reaction cards, this decision is only final if the action you are responding to is not altered by additional cards played, or effects of cards in play. > 3. Similar to 1A above, hasn't there been a ruling that a non-acting > vampire with superior obfuscate can play an unlimited number of Cloak the > Gatherings to give stealth to the acting minion, whereas the acting > minion is limited to playing only one (at inferior)? No. The same action modifier cannot be played twice by the same minion on a single action. To my knowledge, no exception has been made in this case. However there *has* been a ruling that multiple cloak the gatherings may be played on a single action, provided that you have multiple vampires to play them. Thus, if you had 4 vampires with obfuscate in play, and one took an action, you could play 4 cloak the gatherings (one at inferior and 3 at superior), to gain +4 stealth. Incidentally, you do not have to be untapped to play Cloak the Gathering at superior, since it is not a reaction card, and card text does not say you must be untapped. It is an action modifier, and these are normally played by tapped vampires anyway. > 4. Totally different question. Hasn't there been a recent ruling > that tapped vampires could play reaction cards for votes during a vote > without untapping/playing a reaction card which allows them to play > reaction cards even though tapped? What was the justification for this? > Is there any other situation where a tapped vampire can play a reaction > card without untapping/etc.? Gosh, I have not heard of such a ruling. Normally tapped vampires cannot play reaction cards. I was just looking through the most recent posting of the V:tES Complete Rules Reference, version 2.10. I could find no reference to the rule that only untapped vampires may play reaction cards. LSJ, did I miss it, or has there been an oversight? John W.

In article <MPG.e94e6488...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Joseph W. Alfred" <j-al...@students.uiuc.edu> writes >I have a question seeking rules interpretations for something that >happened at our weekly gaming session. I was playing an Assamite deck >being bled by a Malkavian anti-tribu deck (no, I didn't last long). What >happened was this: > >Weeny anti-tribu Malkav bleeds me for 1 pool. I decline to block. My >predator plays Mask of 1K Faces and changes the bleeder to the big, bad >anti-tribu who has +1 bleed and +1 stealth against a prey with no titled >vampires (unfortunately me). He tries to play the card at superior for >the additional +1 stealth (possibly because he is psyched out by the >Marketplace I have out). The questions follow-- > >1. Can he even play this card at superior since he already has an >automatic +1 stealth and I have announced no blocker with +1 intercept >yet? I argued no, because I remembered a ruling that Bonding cannot be >played at superior for +1 stealth when the stealth is not yet required. >This is in line with the rules as far as I see, stating: > > b. Acting Minion can play an Action Modifier card to increase > Stealth only if the Blocking Minion has at least as much Intercept > as the Acting Minion's Stealth. (:18.2.2) Increased stealth lasts > until the action is finished. [13.3.2] > You are correct. It is exactly the same as Cloak the Gathering. If I have two (or more) Cloaks in my hand, I can't just get other people to play them when no-one is blocking. >I have gotten several objections to using this ruling in this situation: > > A. The vampire playing the Mask is not the acting minion, so is > not bound by this rule. > >I objected that the whole point of the Mask is to change who is the >acting minion, so the new vampire is as bound by the rule as the former >one is. > You are correct (but I'm NOT official - it's possibly not encoded in the rules, but this is how it was intended I'm sure). > B. That all vampires have the option regardless of circumstances > to play the superior version of a discipline instead of the > inferior. This argument claims that there is no difference > between playing Mask at inferior or superior and Lost in Crowds > (+1/+2 stealth) at superior or inferior. > >I object to this on the basis that according to the ruling above, a >vampire playing Lost in Crowds must already need stealth, and whether the >vampire gets +1 or +2 stealth is not essential. However, a vampire >playing the Mask does not necessarily need extra stealth to play the >card. And the above ruling appears to say that the vampire cannot play >the superior version for +1 stealth unless it is needed to avoid a >blocker. To me this is similar to the Bonding ruling. The problem here is that the two levels are *different*. Yes, if you need stealth you can play either level - but basic level doesn't give you stealth and if it did you couldn't play it because you don't need stealth. Superior level DOES give you stealth and you can't play it unless you need it. As you correctly say, this is the same as Bonding. You can't play it at superior unless you need the stealth. > > C. A variant of argument B aboves claims that this particular > anti-tribu can still play the superior version of Mask for > additional stealth even though the vampire's special ability > automatically gives it +1 stealth. This argument sees only two > steps to playing Mask of 1K-- before it is a 1 bleed at 0 stealth > and after it is a 2 bleed at 2 stealth. This argument goes > further than argument B above to state that the vampire's special > ability occurs at the same time as the +1 stealth from the > superior Mask, so that the situation is exactly like playing a > Lost in Crowds for +2 stealth. > >To me it seems that this vampire's special ability is not optional-- all >bleeds by this vampire are at +1 stealth against players without titled >vampires. But the additional +1 stealth from the superior Mask is >optional and can only be invoked if at the time the Mask is played +2 >stealth are necessary to avoid a declared blocker with +1 intercept. An >example would be if I had declared a blocker who owned a sport bike or >raven spy for the original weenie vampire's bleed. In your scenario - "Igo's bleeding you for 1 at 0 stealth, now Vampire X is bleeding you for 2 at 2 stealth" - the correct way of doing it is this. "Igo is bleeding you for 1 at 0 stealth" If no-one blocks then it can be shifted to Vamp X using inferior Mask to get it for 2 at 1 stealth. If someone does block (or rather, attempts to block) then Vamp X could play Mask at superior (since this increases the stealth beyond the currently matched intercept which is legal) to bleed for 2 at 2 stealth. > >2. Does the change in acting minion caused by the Mask allow me to >reconsider whether I wish to block the bleed? Or am I still stuck with >not blocking the bleed? I tend to believe that I cannot name a blocker >after the Mask if I had not named one before, because the rule book says >on p. 21: > > "Once a Methuselah has passed up the opportunity to block an > action, he cannot attempt to block it later, regardless of whether > other blocking attempts have been made [presumably by other > methuselahs-- jwa] or whether the action has been modified with an > action modifier card." > >However this brings up different issues: > > A. If I had named a blocker prior to the Mask, and the person who > plays the Mask does not raise the stealth, am I now forced to go > into combat with the new vampire without the opportunity to change > my mind about who is blocking? I would tend to say yes, because > there are cards such as dawn operation which specifically state > the blocker may now decline to block, and Mask lacks such text. > This is how I played Mask when I had a Tremere deck that relied on > my prey blocking weenie vampires only to face big, bad ones in the > resulting combat. Yes, this is perfectly legal. You can play inferior Mask whenever - because it doesn't increase stealth. And it can be incredibly funny! (Although people tend to stop blocking you if you do it like you did :( but then you win ;) > > B. Is there ever a point where a Methuselah getting bled declines > to play reaction cards? In other words, if I decline to block and > say, How much?" am I still able to play reaction cards to decrease > the bleed, decrease the stealth (chimerstry), and/or > deflect/telepathically misdirect the increased bleed? Is there a > never-ending sequence of action modifiers/reactions being played > until no one wants to play anymore? Is it like the maneuver or > press steps in combat where you go in turns and once you decline > to play a card/use an effect, you don't get a second thought? > No, never. I never have to decline to play reactions - EVER. So, I can boost up my intercept as much as my like, get just pipped at the post by his stealth (so I have 4 intercept but he has 5 stealth), decline to attempt further block, he throws down loads of bleed modifiers (Command, Conditioning, something like that) and then I can play a Deflection to bounce it to my prey - a huge bleed at masses of stealth! Woohoo! If, after I'd declined to block, I had to decline to play any reactions at all, things like Political Backlash would be useless - my pred calls a vote, I decline to block (as does his predator), we manage to vote the vote down. Who's going to play the Backlashes other than his predator and prey - not many people, really, unless he's been a right git to someone across the table. >3. Similar to 1A above, hasn't there been a ruling that a non-acting >vampire with superior obfuscate can play an unlimited number of Cloak the >Gatherings to give stealth to the acting minion, whereas the acting >minion is limited to playing only one (at inferior)? > No - there hasn't. From the complete rules reference. NOTE: Action Modifiers may be played only by the Acting Vampire at any time in the above sequence as allowed by the card. Any cost for playing the modifier is paid immediately. (:6.3.2.1) The same Minion may not use the same Action Modifier twice. (3.2.2) [7.2.2] Only Action Modifiers appropriate to the Action may be played. e.g., you may not use Bonding on ! a non-Bleed Action. [RTR] Action Modifiers may be played on your own ! actions, even if it is not your turn. [RTR] Note - the same minion may not use the SAME ACTION MODIFIER twice. This prohibits me from making a deck with two vampires out - one with OBF. Only act with the other vampire and just empty my hand of as many Cloaks as needed. Anyway, it makes sense. If a vampire only has enough power of Obfuscate to cloak once when he's acting, why should he be able to play more than one when he's helping someone else out (using his obf on someone else, not himself - pretty taxing and difficult). >4. Totally different question. Hasn't there been a recent ruling >that tapped vampires could play reaction cards for votes during a vote >without untapping/playing a reaction card which allows them to play >reaction cards even though tapped? What was the justification for this? >Is there any other situation where a tapped vampire can play a reaction >card without untapping/etc.? > There are some occassions when a vampire can react when tapped - these are either handled implicitly on the cards - such as Wake With Evenin'g Freshness and 2nd Tradition Domain - or through errata - Reform Body. To my knowledge you cannot react with, say, Dread Gaze when tapped. Again from the complete rules reference. 6. Other Methuselahs' untapped Minions may play Reaction cards to gain votes. >Sorry to take so much time and space, but I'd really like to resolve >these issues before we play again. Don't worry about it - that's part of what the newsgroup is for - helping others to understand how to play Jyhad better and in line with the rules (and, occassionally, laughing at the rules errata that the Rules Team have issued). -- James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply by e-mail) If you find you are falling into madness - dive

John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Joseph W. Alfred wrote: > > Weeny anti-tribu Malkav bleeds me for 1 pool. I decline to block. My > > predator plays Mask of 1K Faces and changes the bleeder to the big, bad > > anti-tribu who has +1 bleed and +1 stealth against a prey with no titled > > vampires [Vasantasena]. > > He tries to play the card at superior for > > the additional +1 stealth (possibly because he is psyched out by the > > Marketplace I have out). The questions follow-- > > > > 1. Can he even play this card at superior since he already has an > > automatic +1 stealth and I have announced no blocker with +1 intercept > > yet? > > No she cannot. Even if she did not have an automatic +1 stealth already, > she would not be able to do this. Correct. Stealth cannot be added unless stealth is needed. > > I have gotten several objections to using this ruling in this situation: > > > > A. The vampire playing the Mask is not the acting minion, so is > > not bound by this rule. > > Mask makes him the acting minion. Otherwise the additional stealth is > meaningless to him. The restriction (against applying unneeded stealth) applies to non-acting minions as well, so it must be that Mask treats the Masking vampire as the acting vampire. > > 2. Does the change in acting minion caused by the Mask allow me to > > reconsider whether I wish to block the bleed? Or am I still stuck with > > not blocking the bleed? > > The latter. The decision not to block is final. Correct. > > However this brings up different issues: > > > > A. If I had named a blocker prior to the Mask, and the person who > > plays the Mask does not raise the stealth, am I now forced to go > > into combat with the new vampire without the opportunity to change > > my mind about who is blocking? > > Yes. Correct. > In fact, I believe that the person who plays Mask may do so after combat > is entered. I have to do this to get Lucretia into combat with blockers > since otherwise her automatic +1 stealth would cause the action to go by > them. I believe this is legal (LSJ, please confirm?). You can play Mask after being blocked but before combat, yes. You cannot play it during combat. > I have always > understood that, except in the case of a Bum's Rush or similar action to > enter combat, an action is not complete until the resulting combat is > over. Sure, but that doesn't mean you can play Action Modifiers during combat. > > B. Is there ever a point where a Methuselah getting bled declines > > to play reaction cards? > > No. Though the decision not to block is final, in all other ways you get > a chance to respond to any cards or effects played. If you decline to > play reaction cards, this decision is only final if the action you are > responding to is not altered by additional cards played, or effects of > cards in play. There are many situations where the defending Methuselah must choose to react or not. It's just that the decision is not final. If the acting minion (or anybody else, for that matter) does something, then the defending Methuselah has another opportunity to react. Similarly, the acting Meth. can choose to play action modifiers after previously declining (say, boosting the bleed after a Telepathic Counter). > > 3. Similar to 1A above, hasn't there been a ruling that a non-acting > > vampire with superior obfuscate can play an unlimited number of Cloak the > > Gatherings to give stealth to the acting minion, whereas the acting > > minion is limited to playing only one (at inferior)? > > No. The same action modifier cannot be played twice by the same minion on > a single action. To my knowledge, no exception has been made in this > case. > > However there *has* been a ruling that multiple cloak the gatherings may > be played on a single action, provided that you have multiple vampires to > play them. Thus, if you had 4 vampires with obfuscate in play, and one > took an action, you could play 4 cloak the gatherings (one at inferior and > 3 at superior), to gain +4 stealth. Correct. > Incidentally, you do not have to be untapped to play Cloak the Gathering > at superior, since it is not a reaction card, and card text does not say > you must be untapped. It is an action modifier, and these are normally > played by tapped vampires anyway. Also Correct. > > 4. Totally different question. Hasn't there been a recent ruling > > that tapped vampires could play reaction cards for votes during a vote > > without untapping/playing a reaction card which allows them to play > > reaction cards even though tapped? What was the justification for this? > > Is there any other situation where a tapped vampire can play a reaction > > card without untapping/etc.? > > Gosh, I have not heard of such a ruling. Normally tapped vampires cannot > play reaction cards. > > I was just looking through the most recent posting of the V:tES > Complete Rules Reference, version 2.10. I could find no reference to the > rule that only untapped vampires may play reaction cards. LSJ, did I miss > it, or has there been an oversight? No. It is not a ruling - vampires (and other minions) must be untapped to play reaction cards. Tapped vampires can vote (if they have votes), but that doesn't mean that they can play reaction cards. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <8755383...@dejanews.com>, LSJ wrote: >John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >> I was just looking through the most recent posting of the V:tES >> >> Complete Rules Reference, version 2.10. I could find no reference to the >> rule that only untapped vampires may play reaction cards. LSJ, did I miss >> it, or has there been an oversight? >No. It is not a ruling - vampires (and other minions) must be untapped >to play reaction cards. Tapped vampires can vote (if they have votes), >but that doesn't mean that they can play reaction cards. > I think I confused you by changing the subject slightly. I meant that the rule you have just mentioned--that only untapped vampires can play reaction cards, is nowhere mentioned in "V:tES Complete Rules Reference, version 2.10", as I assume it ought to be. John W.

<HTML> <P>LSJ wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: <BR>> On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Joseph W. Alfred wrote: <BR>> > Weeny anti-tribu Malkav bleeds me for 1 pool. I decline to block. My <BR>> > predator plays Mask of 1K Faces and changes the bleeder to the big, bad <BR>> > anti-tribu who has +1 bleed and +1 stealth against a prey with no titled <BR>> > vampires [Vasantasena]. <BR>> > He tries to play the card at superior for <BR>> > the additional +1 stealth (possibly because he is psyched out by the <BR>> > Marketplace I have out). The questions follow-- <BR>> > <BR>> > 1. Can he even play this card at superior since he already has an <BR>> > automatic +1 stealth and I have announced no blocker with +1 intercept <BR>> > yet? <BR>> <BR>> No she cannot. Even if she did not have an automatic +1 stealth already, <BR>> she would not be able to do this. <P>Correct. Stealth cannot be added unless stealth is needed. <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE> One more wrinkle. What if, in the above situation, Joseph had attempted to block. <BR>Would it then be legal for Vasantasena to play superior Mask even though <BR>she would have +1 stealth anyway? <P>Gary S.</HTML>

jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote: > In article <8755383...@dejanews.com>, LSJ wrote: > >John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > >> I was just looking through the most recent posting of the V:tES >> > >> Complete Rules Reference, version 2.10. I could find no reference to the > >> rule that only untapped vampires may play reaction cards. LSJ, did I miss > >> it, or has there been an oversight? > > >No. It is not a ruling - vampires (and other minions) must be untapped > >to play reaction cards. Tapped vampires can vote (if they have votes), > >but that doesn't mean that they can play reaction cards. > > > I think I confused you by changing the subject slightly. I meant that the > rule you have just mentioned--that only untapped vampires can play > reaction cards, is nowhere mentioned in "V:tES Complete Rules Reference, > version 2.10", as I assume it ought to be. Ah. Well, it isn't mentioned to section III (where it should be), but (oddly enough) it is referred to in exactly the context of the question that started this thread: IV.D.6. Other Methuselahs' untapped Minions may play Reaction cards to gain votes. Thanks for pointing out the oversight (and sorry for being dense about it). I'll include the change in 2.11 [ quoted text not captured ]

schw...@math.uiuc.edu wrote: > <P>LSJ wrote: > <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > <BR>> On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Joseph W. Alfred wrote: > <BR>> > Weeny anti-tribu Malkav bleeds me for 1 pool. I decline to > block. My > <BR>> > predator plays Mask of 1K Faces and changes the bleeder to the > big, bad > <BR>> > anti-tribu who has +1 bleed and +1 stealth against a prey with > no titled > <BR>> > vampires [Vasantasena]. > <BR>> > He tries to play the card at superior for > <BR>> > the additional +1 stealth (possibly because he is psyched out by > the > <BR>> > Marketplace I have out). The questions follow-- > <BR>> > > <BR>> > 1. Can he even play this card at superior since he already > has an > <BR>> > automatic +1 stealth and I have announced no blocker with +1 intercept > <BR>> > yet? > <BR>> > <BR>> No she cannot. Even if she did not have an automatic +1 stealth > already, > <BR>> she would not be able to do this. > > <P>Correct. Stealth cannot be added unless stealth is needed. > <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE> > One more wrinkle. What if, in the above situation, Joseph had attempted > to block. > <BR>Would it then be legal for Vasantasena to play superior Mask even though > <BR>she would have +1 stealth anyway? Point of order: this is a text (ascii) group. Posting in HTML (or binary or whatever non-ascii format is the rage du jour) isn't very friendly and should be avoided, especially when you don't make use of any of the benefits that HTML can provide (simply quoting text is handled quite well in ascii with '>'s) - and even then you should attempt to make your content accessible to the audience of this group as a whole. From what I can extract from your post, you want to know if a vampire with an inherent +1 stealth can use superior Mask to take over an action that when the acting minion's stealth is matched by the current blocker's intercept (and would be exceeded by the inherent stealth of the would-be Masker). The answer is yes. Stealth is required when the Mask is played, so the Mask can be played at superior even though the resulting change in stealth (a total of +2) is more than is needed. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > I have always > > understood that, except in the case of a Bum's Rush or similar action to > > enter combat, an action is not complete until the resulting combat is > > over. > > Sure, but that doesn't mean you can play Action Modifiers during combat. Ok, then when can I play Soul Stealing? Is it usable only after diablerie? Or can I use it after a vote that burns a vampire (Sacrifice, e.g.)? One more thing, with inferior Kiss of Ra, will there be combat after the card is played? (I think so, just checking) Flux

In article <01bcccff$17ebfe00$320116c3@necropolis>, "Flux" <fl...@esoterica.pt> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I have always > > > understood that, except in the case of a Bum's Rush or similar action > to > > > enter combat, an action is not complete until the resulting combat is > > > over. > > > > Sure, but that doesn't mean you can play Action Modifiers during combat. > > Ok, then when can I play Soul Stealing? Is it usable only after diablerie? > Or can I use it after a vote that burns a vampire (Sacrifice, e.g.)? From the errata/ruling summary: Soul Stealing [DS] - Action Modifier{/Combat} (ne): The normal version can only be used as an action modifier (card text). Superior: As above, and this card can also be played as a combat card. (errata) [RTR] Cannot be used if a vampire is burned as a result of a political action, such as Tradition Upheld. [RTR] > One more thing, with inferior Kiss of Ra, will there be combat after the > card is played? (I think so, just checking) No. It is played when the block attempt is made - preempting a successful block. (Although if a block is attempted vs. a vampire acting from torpor, then the would-be blocker is still allowed the option of diablerie, according to the RT - I'm working on removing that inconsistency). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : In article <01bcccff$17ebfe00$320116c3@necropolis>, : "Flux" <fl...@esoterica.pt> wrote: : > : > One more thing, with inferior Kiss of Ra, will there be combat after the : > card is played? (I think so, just checking) : No. It is played when the block attempt is made - preempting a successful : block. (Although if a block is attempted vs. a vampire acting from : torpor, then the would-be blocker is still allowed the option of : diablerie, according to the RT - I'm working on removing that : inconsistency). According to the spoiler list on the Wizards page, inferior Kiss of Ra just says that "the blocking vampire burns 2 blood and the action is now blocked." At superior, the blocker goes into torpor and I can see why combat would not follow, but does the inferior really cause combat to fail? Josh thinks that's odd

: According to the spoiler list on the Wizards page, inferior Kiss of Ra : just says that "the blocking vampire burns 2 blood and the action is : now blocked." At superior, the blocker goes into torpor and I can see why : combat would not follow, but does the inferior really cause combat to : fail? Possibly the card means to say "the action is now _considered_ blocked", in which case combat does not necessarily occur, since there is no _blocking minion_, but the action does not succeed, since it was blocked. Am I making any sense here? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something about courage." -- Blaine Faulkner, "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'", X-Files

James Hamblin (ham...@math.wisc.edu) wrote: : : According to the spoiler list on the Wizards page, inferior Kiss of Ra : : just says that "the blocking vampire burns 2 blood and the action is : : now blocked." At superior, the blocker goes into torpor and I can see why : : combat would not follow, but does the inferior really cause combat to : : fail? : Possibly the card means to say "the action is now _considered_ blocked", : in which case combat does not necessarily occur, since there is no : _blocking minion_, but the action does not succeed, since it was blocked. : Am I making any sense here? Sure, but that's certainly not what the card actually says. It would need a fairly extensive rewording to work that way I think. As it is, I don't think the inferior should cause combat to not occur - as far as I know the only reason the superior avoids combat is because the blocker is in torpor, and you can't have combat with a vamp in torpor. Besides, Kiss of Ra would only become even more sinful and unrighteous if the inferior also saves you from combat. ;-) LSJ? Josh didn't play d&d all those years without being killed by an elf...

what happens if a tapped prince with an atonement wants to block a +1 stealth action? is he/she allowed to play a 2nd trad, domain, to untap and block, or are they not allowed to do this because they have +1 int from the atonement, and thus don't need the 2nd trad's int? -- + ....salem christ.... + + --k94...@bohm.anu.edu.au-- + +++ http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/5848/ +++ +...and an angel will come, with burning eyes like stars...+

....salem christ.... wrote: > what happens if a tapped prince with an atonement wants to block a +1 > stealth action? is he/she allowed to play a 2nd trad, domain, to untap > and block, or are they not allowed to do this because they have +1 int > from the atonement, and thus don't need the 2nd trad's int? The tapped Prince has 0 intercept and the action is at +1 stealth. So he needs intercept. So he can play 2nd Tradition. At which point, he attempts to block, at which point the Atonemnet kicks in (card text), giving the Prince a total of +3 intercept. [ quoted text not captured ]

du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > James Hamblin (ham...@math.wisc.edu) wrote: > : : According to the spoiler list on the Wizards page, inferior Kiss of Ra > : : just says that "the blocking vampire burns 2 blood and the action is > : : now blocked." At superior, the blocker goes into torpor and I can see why > : : combat would not follow, but does the inferior really cause combat to > : : fail? > > : Possibly the card means to say "the action is now _considered_ blocked", > : in which case combat does not necessarily occur, since there is no > : _blocking minion_, but the action does not succeed, since it was blocked. > > : Am I making any sense here? > > Sure, but that's certainly not what the card actually says. It would need > a fairly extensive rewording to work that way I think. As it is, I don't > think the inferior should cause combat to not occur - as far as I know the > only reason the superior avoids combat is because the blocker is in torpor, > and you can't have combat with a vamp in torpor. That's what the card says. Kiss of Ra is played when a vampire "attempts to block." It interrupts the block sequence and replaces it with the following effects: 1. The blocker loses two blood. 2. The action is blocked, i.e.: becomes blocked. i.e.: is unsuccessful (see also: Brujah Frenzy for becoming blocked without a successful block). 3. (if superior) the blocker goes to torpor. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: [re: kiss of ra] : That's what the card says. Kiss of Ra is played when a vampire "attempts : to block." It interrupts the block sequence and replaces it with the : following effects: : 1. The blocker loses two blood. 2. The action is blocked, i.e.: becomes : blocked. i.e.: is unsuccessful (see also: Brujah Frenzy for becoming : blocked without a successful block). 3. (if superior) the blocker goes to : torpor. Ummmm, okay, if you say so; you are the netrep. But I feel the need to quote the full card text here: "Only usable when a vampire who does not have Fortitude attempts to block this acting minion. The blocking vampire burns 2 blood and the action is now blocked. (S) As above, and the blocking vampire goes into torpor." Now, I can see what you mean - the wording can certainly mean that blocking doesn't occur as normal; instead the blocker burns 2 blood and the action is blocked (and combat doesn't occur). But as far as I can see, the card ought to be more explicit in circumventing the usual block sequence. (At least, it would have kept me from misreading it all these years. ;-) (Of course, for it to work this way only makes the card more broken than it already looked. But that's not really the point.) Josh still learning to read