Hello,
Lots of dust in my head, excuse the poorly worded post
1) Coterie Tactics
It appears that the only restriction for this card is that the other
ready vampire be untapped and of the same sect. So can another
vampire who could not legally block, now be chosen by this card?
Example: (A)cting Vampire plays seductions and chooses (Y)ounger
vampire, another (M)inion you control then plays Coterie tactics
choosing (Y). Now (Y) can't block this vampire, so he can't block and
the card fizzles, although it could be legally played.
(LSJ) am I correct here?
Coterie Tactics [KoT:U]
Cardtype: Reaction
Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
this reacting vampire. These two vampires attempt to block, using the
sum of their intercept to see if the block succeeds. If successful,
both tap and then you choose one to be the blocking vampire (and the
other ceases to be blocking).
2) (D) action. I have heard a lot of chatter about this rule change,
so let me try to make sure I have it clear after reading the WW
webpage
Rescuing and/or Diablerizing a vampire in a torpor region used to
default as a (D) action, although it now BECOMES a (D) action if it
targets another Methuselah or card they control.
If correct then I think I am reading the rules correctly to say
Rescuing/Diablerizing a vampire in torpor, or equiping with equipment
in play and controlled by another of your minions is an undirected
action which,
1) becomes directed if it targets someone else
2) gains +1 stealth if the target is also controlled by you (I think
that means they have to be in your torpor region as well, but there
could exist cards which don't make that the case)
I thank you for your time, I must admit I only spent a few minutes
searching for answers before posting, so I do apologize if these
questions are already asked and answered.
David Wilson
Ann Arbor
On Nov 23, 11:52 am, "davewilso...@gmail.com" <davewilso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Lots of dust in my head, excuse the poorly worded post
>
> 1) Coterie Tactics
>
> It appears that the only restriction for this card is that the other
> ready vampire be untapped and of the same sect. So can another
> vampire who could not legally block, now be chosen by this card?
> Example: (A)cting Vampire plays seductions and chooses (Y)ounger
> vampire, another (M)inion you control then plays Coterie tactics
> choosing (Y). Now (Y) can't block this vampire, so he can't block and
> the card fizzles, although it could be legally played.
>
> (LSJ) am I correct here?
>
> Coterie Tactics [KoT:U]
> Cardtype: Reaction
> Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
> this reacting vampire. These two vampires attempt to block, using the
> sum of their intercept to see if the block succeeds. If successful,
> both tap and then you choose one to be the blocking vampire (and the
> other ceases to be blocking).
>
IANALSJ, however... you can only play it if you control two vampires
that are eligible to block (at least one of them needs to be untapped,
although the one playing Coterie Tactics could play it as long as he
is "allowed to play reactions and block as though untapped".)
Coterie Tactics does not override any blocking restrictions, nor can
you play it if you don't have a legal target. In general, specific
restrictions (placed by the rules, or by another card) are only
overridden if they are *specifically* stated to be overridden.
I didn't understand your second question, so I'll skip that one.
In message <8645e107-92e3-47cc...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups
.com>, "davewi...@gmail.com" <davewi...@gmail.com> writes:
>Hello,
>
>Lots of dust in my head, excuse the poorly worded post
>
>1) Coterie Tactics
>
>It appears that the only restriction for this card is that the other
>ready vampire be untapped and of the same sect. So can another
>vampire who could not legally block, now be chosen by this card?
No.
The effect of the card is that that vampire attempts to block. Since it
can't block, you can't play the card.
>2) (D) action. I have heard a lot of chatter about this rule change,
>so let me try to make sure I have it clear after reading the WW
>webpage
>
>Rescuing and/or Diablerizing a vampire in a torpor region used to
>default as a (D) action, although it now BECOMES a (D) action if it
>targets another Methuselah or card they control.
It wasn't a (D) action by default before. It was exactly the same as it
is now.
If it targets your vampire, it's undirected. If it targets someone
else's vampires, it's directed.
The only difference in the new rules is if something targets two
Methuselahs at once.
>If correct then I think I am reading the rules correctly to say
>
>Rescuing/Diablerizing a vampire in torpor, or equiping with equipment
>in play and controlled by another of your minions is an undirected
>action which,
>1) becomes directed if it targets someone else
This is no different to before for rescue/diablerie.
You can't take equipment from someone else's minion, so it's moot there.
>2) gains +1 stealth if the target is also controlled by you (I think
>that means they have to be in your torpor region as well, but there
>could exist cards which don't make that the case)
This is no different to before.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Thanks for the quick responses,
ME:
> >1) Coterie Tactics
>
> >It appears that the only restriction for this card is that the other
> >ready vampire be untapped and of the same sect. So can another
> >vampire who could not legally block, now be chosen by this card?
>
James:
> No.
>
> The effect of the card is that that vampire attempts to block. Since it
> can't block, you can't play the card.
ME: Again
I don't agree with your reasoning here, I realize I am pushing at the
seams of sanity, but please hear me out:
Second Tradition: Domain
Type: Reaction
Requires: prince,justicar
Requires a ready prince or justicar.
+2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped prince or justicar, even if
intercept is not yet needed, to burn a blood to untap and attempt to
block with +2 intercept.
This card can't be played since the P or J can't attempt to block
because you play the card "to burn a blood to untap and attempt to
block"
but Coterie Tactics:
"Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
this reacting vampire. "
It does not say choose a *blocker*, or even an eligible blocker, it
simply says a ready untapped vampire of the same sect as this reacting
vampire. Now proceeding on through the text, I am reading as an order
of operations, you choose someone who can't legally block then the
card fizzles, although you could play it to move it. I don't think
the card *should* work this way, although I feel that the text allows
it to work this way.
To be clear as to my intent, I would prefer the card to work as James
says, I don't think that the wording makes it so however.
Thank you all for your time
[ quoted text not captured ]
The card works as James says.
Similarly, Blissful Agony cannot choose a torporous vampire (and then fizzle the
subsequent combat).
And Bujo (cannot choose a political action card for which this Ravnos fails to
meet the requirements).
And Deflection and similar (cannot choose an illegal-because-of-Minor-Boon target).
In message <d8c57bea-4f5a-4abe...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups
.com>, "davewi...@gmail.com" <davewi...@gmail.com> writes:
>Second Tradition: Domain
>Type: Reaction
>Requires: prince,justicar
>Requires a ready prince or justicar.
>+2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped prince or justicar, even if
>intercept is not yet needed, to burn a blood to untap and attempt to
>block with +2 intercept.
>
>This card can't be played since the P or J can't attempt to block
>because you play the card "to burn a blood to untap and attempt to
>block"
So when they attempt to block, they're untapped. What's the problem?
>but Coterie Tactics:
>"Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
>this reacting vampire. "
>
>It does not say choose a *blocker*, or even an eligible blocker,
But you can't attempt what you can't do.
Similarly, you can't play Second Tradition to untap when the acting
minion is cross-table. Why not? You can't block, and Second Tradition
tells you to attempt to block.
>it
>simply says a ready untapped vampire of the same sect as this reacting
>vampire.
And it says they have to attempt to block. If they're unable to do
that, you can't play the card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 23, 2:12 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
> So when they attempt to block, they're untapped. What's the problem?
>
The problem is the placement of the period. The card states, untaps
**AND** attempts to block.
> >but Coterie Tactics:
> >"Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
> >this reacting vampire. "
Coterie doesn't say choose an eligible blocker, what I mean is
> >"Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as> >this reacting vampire, ***and who is an eligible blocker***. "
That text is missing as far as I can see.
I am asking if they card can be played, knowing that when you go to
try and block and can't it will fail. I simply want to make sure you
can't push it from your hand.
davewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:12 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:>> So when they attempt to block, they're untapped. What's the problem?
>>> The problem is the placement of the period. The card states, untaps
> **AND** attempts to block.
>>>> but Coterie Tactics:
>>> "Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
>>> this reacting vampire. ">
> Coterie doesn't say choose an eligible blocker, what I mean is>>> "Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
>>> this reacting vampire, ***and who is an eligible blocker***. "> That text is missing as far as I can see.
It isn't present, sure.
But is also isn't needed.
See Deflection, etc., which include the same sort of period usage.
> I am asking if they card can be played, knowing that when you go to
> try and block and can't it will fail. I simply want to make sure you
> can't push it from your hand.
You can't push it from your hand.
In message <132e462c-cf1d-4b1d...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroup
s.com>, "davewi...@gmail.com" <davewi...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Nov 23, 2:12 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:>>
>> So when they attempt to block, they're untapped. What's the problem?
>>>The problem is the placement of the period. The card states, untaps
>**AND** attempts to block.
So you're untapped and blocking. Hurrah! No problems at all.
>> >but Coterie Tactics:
>> >"Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
>> >this reacting vampire. ">
>Coterie doesn't say choose an eligible blocker, what I mean is>> >"Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
>> >this reacting vampire, ***and who is an eligible blocker***. ">That text is missing as far as I can see.
See also Second Tradition. You can't use it when you're not an eligible
blocker (to just untap) either, but it doesn't say "AND YOU MUST BE AN
ELIGIBLE BLOCKER AND NOT BE RIDING A PONY AND OOH SHINY" either.
This is a long-standing ruling - you can't attempt what you can't do.
You can't block? Okay, you can't use cards that force you to attempt to
block.
>I am asking if they card can be played, knowing that when you go to>try and block and can't it will fail. I simply want to make sure you
>can't push it from your hand.
And you've been told that the answer is no.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James,
if you choose to read and respond, make not doubt, you are choosing to
read and respond. There is no reason to be rude. My point was well
reasoned and logical. The logic presented on the cards is different.
Now LSJ has come here and commented and I accept that as the ruling,
final word, etc.
David
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not quite clear on this card still, despite reading this thread,
so I want to check for the following scenarios:
Vamp A wakes and attempts to block with enhanced senses, the stealth
is increased to 3 so A then plays CT on untapped vamp B who plays
anther enhanced senses and now successfully blocks. Both taps and I
choose whether A or B enters combat.
a) is CT playable after vamp A was denied to block?
b) what happens if A denied to block after CT was played? Can B still
block?
c) if B can still block, does he lose the all the intercept, or the
intercept that A contributed?
If B lose all the intercept, then why? And does anything above change
if it was B who was denied to block?
In message <974854de-c43b-44a5...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups
.com>, Cantila <cant...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Vamp A wakes and attempts to block with enhanced senses, the stealth
>is increased to 3 so A then plays CT on untapped vamp B who plays
>anther enhanced senses and now successfully blocks. Both taps and I
>choose whether A or B enters combat.
This is all fine.
>a) is CT playable after vamp A was denied to block?
I'll take Elder Impersonation as the example. "The attempt fails (do
not tap that blocking minion). That minion cannot attempt to block this
action again."
Coterie Tactics requires both vampires (the one playing it and the one
chosen) to "attempt to block". Since vampire A can't attempt to block
(card text of Elder Impersonation), A can't play it or be chosen as one
of the Coterie vampires.
However, you could play Coterie Tactics with vampire B and choose
vampire C, as normal.
>b) what happens if A denied to block after CT was played? Can B still
>block?
Yes. Only A has been told he cannot block. B can carry on as before.
>c) if B can still block, does he lose the all the intercept, or the
>intercept that A contributed?
B keeps all of the intercept applied to B, but not the intercept applied
to A.
Example: E plays Enhanced Senses (+2) and has a Sport Bike (+1), and
ropes in F with Coterie Tactics. F plays Precognition (+1), has Mr
Winthrop (+1) and Guardian Angel (+1 against bleeds). So you've just
hit +6 intercept to block superior Spying Mission. The acting minion
plays Cloak the Gathering for +7. You tap KRCG News Radio and award the
intercept to E - E +4, F +3. The acting minion plays Elder
Impersonation, and chooses E. F still has 3 intercept against 7
stealth.
>If B lose all the intercept, then why?
Moot.
>And does anything above change if it was B who was denied to block?
If B is chosen to fail, A keeps A's intercept, but doesn't keep B's.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Example: E plays Enhanced Senses (+2) and has a Sport Bike (+1), and> ropes in F withCoterieTactics. F plays Precognition (+1), has Mr> Winthrop (+1) and Guardian Angel (+1 against bleeds). So you've just
> hit +6 intercept to block superior Spying Mission. The acting minion
> plays Cloak the Gathering for +7. You tap KRCG News Radio and award the
> intercept to E - E +4, F +3. The acting minion plays Elder
> Impersonation, and chooses E. F still has 3 intercept against 7
> stealth.
>
> >If B lose all the intercept, then why?
>
> Moot.
>
> >And does anything above change if it was B who was denied to block?
>
> If B is chosen to fail, A keeps A's intercept, but doesn't keep B's.
This is what I thought would happen, unfortunately that makes CT not
very good then :( I was hoping the vampire would get to keep all of
the intercept making CT a card that would circumvent deny cards (which
I think is needed). What reasons are there to play CT now then really,
other than in situations where vamp A is a combat monster but no good
way to intercept (like Lorrie) and vamp B playing CT is weak in combat
but good at intercepting? These occassions doesn't happen all too
often and as you tap two minions for it it's pretty "expensive".
Another situation came to mind:
Vamp B plays CT choosing vamp A, and then vamp A play CT choosing vamp
C.
I guess this is legal? And Vamp A could also play CT on vamp B just to
cycle the card if B is untapped, right?
In message <1c279895-4517-4966...@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups
.com>, Cantila <cant...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I was hoping the vampire would get to keep all of
>the intercept making CT a card that would circumvent deny cards (which
>I think is needed).
Cascading chains of "block fails", "no, your block fails fails", and so
on are generally best avoided, where possible. It just gets really
messy. And generally, offence being powerful enough to break through
defence is good - the game doesn't stagnate.
You can, of course, play Direct Intervention or Dark Influences to take
out a minion card that causes a minion to fail to block.
>What reasons are there to play CT now then really,
>other than in situations where vamp A is a combat monster but no good
>way to intercept (like Lorrie) and vamp B playing CT is weak in combat
>but good at intercepting? These occassions doesn't happen all too
>often and as you tap two minions for it it's pretty "expensive".
Those don't happen very often *now*. It doesn't strike me as impossible
that someone might create a deck designed around Coterie Tactics and a
setup like the one you describe. Lorrie, a bunch of weenie AUS vamps,
and Eluding The Arms of Morpheus to untap Lorrie as necessary? Doesn't
seem so impossible.
Why would anyone build that deck previously? Would be silly, usually.
But now? Not so silly.
Also, decks with permacept seem like a good possible option. I have
this vampire with a Raven Spy and a Mr Winthrop, and this vampire with
another Raven Spy. I couldn't put them all on the same vampire, because
I wanted to bring them out as speedily as possible, but can use Coterie
Tactics to combine them. This could potentially paper over some of the
cracks that some permacept decks have with a slow start - not a
universal panacea, by any means, but a possible avenue to explore.
>Another situation came to mind:
>
>Vamp B plays CT choosing vamp A, and then vamp A play CT choosing vamp
>C.
>
>I guess this is legal?
Not to create some sort of three-way block, no.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_KeepersOfTradition
Coterie Tactics do not stack. Each one creates a block attempt. That
attempt must be concluded before another can be played to create a
new block attempt.
You can, however, play CT with vamp B and A, fail to block, and then
play it with vamp A and C.
>And Vamp A could also play CT on vamp B just to
>cycle the card if B is untapped, right?
If vamp A has already played one choosing C, no - no duplicate reactions
from the same reacting minion.
However, yes, you could go:
- Action starts.
- B plays one, choosing A - block unsuccessful. This CT is finished.
- A plays one, choosing B - block still unsucessful. (Or maybe you
might draw into something new by cycling it.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Cantila wrote:
> I'm not quite clear on this card [Coterie Tactics] still, despite reading this thread,> so I want to check for the following scenarios:
>
> Vamp A wakes and attempts to block with enhanced senses, the stealth
> is increased to 3 so A then plays CT on untapped vamp B who plays
> anther enhanced senses and now successfully blocks. Both taps and I
> choose whether A or B enters combat.
Correct.
> a) is CT playable after vamp A was denied to block?
A wasn't denied to block in your example.
If some effect had been played that prohibits A from blocking, then A cannot
block, and so Coterie Tactics cannot be played is such a way as to have A block.
> b) what happens if A denied to block after CT was played? Can B still
> block?
Yes. The dual-block attempt manufactured by CT ends as soon as the "A cannot
block" effect is played.
After that attempt ends, other block attempts may be made as usual (but not by
A, since A is prohibited from blocking).
> c) if B can still block, does he lose the all the intercept, or the
> intercept that A contributed?
He keeps his intercept. A keeps A's intercept. But B cannot use A's intercept.
And A cannot use his own intercept, of course, since he cannot block.
> If B lose all the intercept, then why?
Moot.
> And does anything above change
> if it was B who was denied to block?
No.
On 30 Nov, 18:49, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <1c279895-4517-4966-bafc-88a4e7b47...@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups>
> .com>, Cantila <canti...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >I was hoping the vampire would get to keep all of
> >the intercept making CT a card that would circumvent deny cards (which
> >I think is needed).
>
> Cascading chains of "block fails", "no, your block fails fails", and so
> on are generally best avoided, where possible. It just gets really
> messy. And generally, offence being powerful enough to break through
> defence is good - the game doesn't stagnate.
>
> You can, of course, play Direct Intervention or Dark Influences to take
> out a minion card that causes a minion to fail to block.
>
> >What reasons are there to play CT now then really,
> >other than in situations where vamp A is a combat monster but no good
> >way to intercept (like Lorrie) and vamp B playing CT is weak in combat
> >but good at intercepting? These occassions doesn't happen all too
> >often and as you tap two minions for it it's pretty "expensive".
>
> Those don't happen very often *now*. It doesn't strike me as impossible> that someone might create a deck designed aroundCoterieTactics and a> setup like the one you describe. Lorrie, a bunch of weenie AUS vamps,
> and Eluding The Arms of Morpheus to untap Lorrie as necessary? Doesn't
> seem so impossible
Lorrie cannot play Eluding since she's prohibited from playing
reaction cards. However Aus midcaps and Anima Gathering with Coterie
and Fillip could be a workable idea.
This leads me toanother question, if vamp A blocks through Eagle's
Sight, can he play CT on vamp B? I would guess not sicne B is not an
eligible blocker unless it's Anneke.
What if the action is at +1 stealth, can A plays Eagel's and fail to
block, B plays Eagle's and fail, and then A plays +1 intercept and CT
on B?
> Why would anyone build that deck previously? Would be silly, usually.
> But now? Not so silly.
>
> Also, decks with permacept seem like a good possible option. I have
> this vampire with a Raven Spy and a Mr Winthrop, and this vampire with
> another Raven Spy. I couldn't put them all on the same vampire, because
> I wanted to bring them out as speedily as possible, but can useCoterie
> Tactics to combine them. This could potentially paper over some of the
> cracks that some permacept decks have with a slow start - not a
> universal panacea, by any means, but a possible avenue to explore.
I was thinking of this too but deny block cards are available in a lot
of disciplines now and are so good that most stealth decks plays with
them making CT not so useful after all :(
Cantila wrote:
> This leads me toanother question, if vamp A blocks through Eagle's
> Sight, can he play CT on vamp B? I would guess not sicne B is not an
> eligible blocker unless it's Anneke.
Correct. That goes back to the general rule: CT cannot select a minion as a
blocker if that minion cannot attempt to block the action.
> What if the action is at +1 stealth, can A plays Eagel's and fail to
> block, B plays Eagle's and fail, and then A plays +1 intercept and CT
> on B?
Sure.
In message <e9049649-c9f9-4bcc...@r40g2000yqj.googlegroup
s.com>, Cantila <cant...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Lorrie cannot play Eluding since she's prohibited from playing
>reaction cards. However Aus midcaps and Anima Gathering with Coterie
>and Fillip could be a workable idea.
Yes, I was just reading my post back before I read your reply and
thought "Oh, bum." I was either getting Lorrie confused with someone
else, or was getting EtAoM with Fillip - although you then need a 5 cap
hanging around. I do wonder what I was thinking.
It doesn't really require the inability to play reactions, though, just
a vampire who's better at it than the other, and you can either untap or
get around it in other ways.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 30, 8:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > What if the action is at +1 stealth, can A plays Eagel's and fail to
> > block, B plays Eagle's and fail, and then A plays +1 intercept and CT
> > on B?
>
> Sure.
So the effect on Eagle's Sight and Falcon's Sight are ongoing for the
rest of the action?
The text on the card/s would've made me guess it was just a one time
thing since the block attempt is made when the card is played.
I suppose this means the ability to block persists through bleeds
getting bounced and similar stuff (if there is any similar stuff)?
Eagle's Sight
Type: Reaction
Requires: Auspex
[aus] +1 intercept.
[AUS] This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action,
ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking
actions.
Falcon's Eye
Type: Reaction
Requires: Spiritus/Animalism
[ani] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept.
[spi] +1 intercept.
[SPI] This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action,
ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking
actions.
www.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>> What if the action is at +1 stealth, can A plays Eagel's and fail to
>>> block, B plays Eagle's and fail, and then A plays +1 intercept and CT
>>> on B?>> Sure.>
> So the effect on Eagle's Sight and Falcon's Sight are ongoing for the
> rest of the action?
> The text on the card/s would've made me guess it was just a one time
> thing since the block attempt is made when the card is played.
> I suppose this means the ability to block persists through bleeds
> getting bounced and similar stuff (if there is any similar stuff)?
Correct.
(Didn't realize I was making that assumption before -- thanks for clarifying
that for me).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 30 nov, 22:03, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> www.hen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 8:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>> What if the action is at +1 stealth, can A plays Eagel's and fail to
> >>> block, B plays Eagle's and fail, and then A plays +1 intercept and CT
> >>> on B?
> >> Sure.
>
> > So the effect on Eagle's Sight and Falcon's Sight are ongoing for the
> > rest of the action?
> > The text on the card/s would've made me guess it was just a one time
> > thing since the block attempt is made when the card is played.
> > I suppose this means the ability to block persists through bleeds
> > getting bounced and similar stuff (if there is any similar stuff)?
>
> Correct.
>
> (Didn't realize I was making that assumption before -- thanks for clarifying
> that for me).
>
Little question from me just to be sure : In the linked topic, you say
that Eagle's Sight is a singular occurrence :
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/36f1d93b03333d67?dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8
Is this case different because the resolution (here, the action being
blocked) of the action has not yet been reached when CT is played (in
this very example, of course) ?