Harass + declare means

Harass [CE:C/PTr4, Anarchs:PAG, BH:PTr4] Cardtype: Action (D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable to continue, in that combat. Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less then four blood" as they announce the action? Matters in a situation where a tapped minion on less than four blood, the target of the Harass, can untap in repsonse to the action (as the tapped requirement is no longer being met...). Cheers, -Scrote

"scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1096650992.7...@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com... > Harass [CE:C/PTr4, Anarchs:PAG, BH:PTr4] > Cardtype: Action > > (D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any > tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable > to continue, in that combat. > > Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less > then four blood" as they announce the action? No. They simply pick the target. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

scrote wrote: > (D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any > tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable > to continue, in that combat. > > Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less > then four blood" as they announce the action? > > Matters in a situation where a tapped minion on less than four blood, > the target of the Harass, can untap in repsonse to the action (as the > tapped requirement is no longer being met...). I'm confused as to what you are confused by, I suppose--to play Harass, you need to have an appropriate target. An appropriate target is a vampire that is tapped or has less than 4 blood. If there is no one who fits this bill, you can't play Harass. If there is someone, you can play Harass and target the appropriate vampire (who is tapped or has less than 4 blood). Once the Harass is played, it doesn't matter what happens between the announcing of the action and the resulting combat. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

Peter D Bakija wrote: > scrote wrote: > > >>(D) Enter combat with a vampire who has less than 4 blood or with any >>tapped minion. This acting minion gets an optional press, only usable >>to continue, in that combat. >> >>Does a minion have to declare if they are using the "tapped" or "less >>then four blood" as they announce the action? >> >>Matters in a situation where a tapped minion on less than four blood, >>the target of the Harass, can untap in repsonse to the action (as the >>tapped requirement is no longer being met...). > > > I'm confused as to what you are confused by, I suppose--to play Harass, you > need to have an appropriate target. An appropriate target is a vampire that > is tapped or has less than 4 blood. If there is no one who fits this bill, > you can't play Harass. If there is someone, you can play Harass and target > the appropriate vampire (who is tapped or has less than 4 blood). Once the > Harass is played, it doesn't matter what happens between the announcing of > the action and the resulting combat. > And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying Mission inferior. Any valid target left? Sten During

Sten During wrote: > And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted > prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying > Mission inferior. Any valid target left? ??? You are losing me here. You need a valid target to play the card. Once the card is played, it doesn't matter what happens. The action has been played. To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4 blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion after the action has already been played. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:BD8345D0.19D9D%pd...@lightlink.com... > Sten During wrote: > > > And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted > > prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying > > Mission inferior. Any valid target left? > > ??? > > You are losing me here. You need a valid target to play the card. Once the > card is played, it doesn't matter what happens. The action has been played. > To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4 > blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you > have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion > after the action has already been played. no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search up relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it. -Bram Vink

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Sten During wrote: > > >>And then I play Second Tradition in response with my tapped, targeted >>prince at 7 blood, and you play Lost in Crowds superior and Spying >>Mission inferior. Any valid target left? > > > ??? > > You are losing me here. You need a valid target to play the card. Once the > card is played, it doesn't matter what happens. The action has been played. > To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4 > blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you > have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion > after the action has already been played. > That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ could either verify or declare me wrong. Sten During

"Darky" wrote > no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which > leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search up > relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it. Theoretically one could use a simple Wake to untap in response to the (d)Harass. Therefore "blocking" the attack BUT since the target is not-tapped (and presumably has more than 4blood) it renders the target invalid for the action. The Meth then bitches and whines like a lawyering rpg'er that they don't even have to combat because the target is invalid, and therefore the action invalid. solution: strike the whiney Meth for 3points blood (and I ain't talking pool) for being such a wally.

"carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:OGp7d.8948$JQ4.6...@news.xtra.co.nz... > > "Darky" wrote > > no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which > > leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search > up > > relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it. > > Theoretically one could use a simple Wake to untap in response to the > (d)Harass. Therefore "blocking" the attack BUT since the target is > not-tapped (and presumably has more than 4blood) it renders the > target invalid for the action. Wake doesn't untap your vampire though, it allows him to play cards *as if* untapped. A vampire that has played Wake with evenings freshness is still a legal target for ambush/harass. > The Meth then bitches and whines like a lawyering rpg'er that they > don't even have to combat because the target is invalid, and therefore > the action invalid. > > solution: strike the whiney Meth for 3points blood (and I ain't talking > pool) > for being such a wally. after you tell him he's wrong as well. :-) -Bram Vink

"Darky" <remove...@phil.uu.nl> wrote in message news:<415de542$0$771$3a62...@reader20.nntp.hccnet.nl>... [ quoted text not captured ] you are right, it is like Entrenching, if you have 4 blood and play Entrenching using an elder impersonation (leaving you to 3 blood) to avoid blockers, the action fizzles, because when it is about to resolve, you have only 3 blood instead of 4. But practicaly, if you harash/ambush someone and he plays a 2nd tradition or read the winds or untaps via Eternal Vigilance, then DO NOT use stealth, let him block and get in combat. I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to block" text, so there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target untapping.

"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Babble is your friend here! =) /henrik isaksson

"carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<OGp7d.8948$JQ4.6...@news.xtra.co.nz>... > "Darky" wrote > > no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which > > leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search > up > > relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it. > > Theoretically one could use a simple Wake to untap in response to the > (d)Harass. Therefore "blocking" the attack BUT since the target is > not-tapped (and presumably has more than 4blood) it renders the > target invalid for the action. > nor correct, Wake or Forced donot untap your minion, they just allow you to play reaction cards or block "as though untapped" for the duration of the action.

On 10/2/04 6:16 AM, in article c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com, "Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote: <snip> > you are right, it is like Entrenching, if you have 4 blood and play > Entrenching using an elder impersonation (leaving you to 3 blood) to > avoid blockers, the action fizzles, because when it is about to > resolve, you have only 3 blood instead of 4. > But practicaly, if you harash/ambush someone and he plays a 2nd > tradition or read the winds or untaps via Eternal Vigilance, then DO > NOT use stealth, let him block and get in combat. > I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in > respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to > block" text, so > there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target > untapping. It's not specific to a rush action, of course, but Zillah's Tears can be burned "at any time," which should allow a Sabbat vampire to unatp and not attempt to block. - Pat

"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> a écrit dans le message de news:c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com... > you are right, it is like Entrenching, if you have 4 blood and play > Entrenching using an elder impersonation (leaving you to 3 blood) to > avoid blockers, the action fizzles, because when it is about to > resolve, you have only 3 blood instead of 4. > But practicaly, if you harash/ambush someone and he plays a 2nd > tradition or read the winds or untaps via Eternal Vigilance, then DO > NOT use stealth, let him block and get in combat. > I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in > respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to > block" text, so > there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target > untapping. The best case i can see is nose of the hound (aus) which has inherent stealth vs Zillah's tears or Special report. Even, a Harrass played by muaziz would fall short with ZT or SpR : it's kind of bugging for a multirush deck to be stopped by a glitch in the rules =/

Darky wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht >>To play the card, you need a valid target--someone tapped or less than 4 >>blood. Once you play the card (before anyone can play Second Tradition), you >>have declared a target. It doesn't matter that you play Second Tradtion >>after the action has already been played. > > > no, you play the (in this case) untap before the action resolves, which > leaves it with no legal target, and therefore fizzling. too lay to search up > relevant links, but i'm pretty sure about it. Correct. "Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not tapped when it comes time to resolve the action. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Sten During wrote: > That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ > could either verify or declare me wrong. What ruling on Ambush? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Correct. > > "Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not > tapped when it comes time to resolve the action. What? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:BD8434B2.19DD3%pd...@lightlink.com... > Sten During wrote: > > > That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ > > could either verify or declare me wrong. > > What ruling on Ambush? > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F99B489.6050409%40white-wolf.com LSJ states in here: >Also note: > >d/ if your prey's first action is to ambush Torvus, you can burn the Edge >to untap him, making him an illegal target for Ambush and thus causing >Ambush to fizzle at resolution. -Bram Vink

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:BD8434FF.19DD4%pd...@lightlink.com... > LSJ wrote: > > > Correct. > > > > "Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not > > tapped when it comes time to resolve the action. > > What? An action in which you state a legal target, which becomes illegal (does no longer meet the requirements) before the action is resolved, fizzles. There's other examples, but ambush is probably the easiest one. -Bram Vink

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD8434B2.19DD3%pd...@lightlink.com... > Sten During wrote: > > > That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ > > could either verify or declare me wrong. > > What ruling on Ambush? > > This thread for instance: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=3C44A9CD.BCFAD2A9%40white-wolf.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dambush%2Btapped%2Bauthor:LSJ%26hl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.games.trading-cards.jyhad%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D3C44A9CD.BCFAD2A9%2540white-wolf.com%26rnum%3D5 Same rulings goes the other way, for instance with mind numb. Another player plays mind numb on your untapped vampire with DEM. He plays babble on another minion and mind numb fizzles. =) Or any burn/steal retainer or equipment when the target is gone when it's time to resolve. /henrik isaksson /henrik isaksson

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Sten During wrote: > > >>That would be contrary to the ruling on Ambush I believe. Guess LSJ >>could either verify or declare me wrong. > > > What ruling on Ambush? > Answer's given elsewhere in this thread. I assume it's a bad idea for your Salubri with superior obfuscate to play Faceless Night at superior when your target for Spirit Marionette blocks. Or any Combat Ends, continue... for that matter. Basic ruling, I assume, is that if there's not a valid target when the action resolves the action fizzles. Sten During

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >>Correct. >> >>"Enter combat with a tapped minion" will fizzle if the minion is not >>tapped when it comes time to resolve the action. > > > What? An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush) cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e., the target must meet the parameters specified. You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter combat with an untapped minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush) > cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e., > the target must meet the parameters specified. > > You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter > combat with an untapped minion. Ok then. [ quoted text not captured ]

"henrik isaksson" <PLEASEDONTSP...@spray.se> wrote in message news:<2s7dp4F...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message > news:c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com... > > I am not aware of any cards or effects that allow you to untap in > > respond to a "rush" action and doesn't include the "...and attempt to > > block" text, so > > there is no real danger for your harass to fizzle by the target > > untapping. > > Babble is your friend here! =) > > /henrik isaksson YES!, you are correct my friend, that is why i said "i am not aware...", lazy me didn't want to search at ELDB for a card or effect that can do such a thing. But i have suspected that there might be such a card that slipped my mind at the time. So, it is true, babble is my friend to make Ambush, Harass and Nose of the Hound (inferior auspex) users cry in agony. :)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<UlC7d.656750$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush) > cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e., > the target must meet the parameters specified. > > You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter > combat with an untapped minion. You may wish to reconsider this. "Fizzle" results previouslly were, iirc, for being unable to pay the cost when it came time to resolve the action. The ambush was legally played and a target legally selected, the only thing left to resolve is success and cost. Ambush doesnt care what the status of the minion is after it is played, so long as it was legal at play. Otherwise this ruling will make bums rush THE rush card. Not that it wasn't already imo, but that will be even more the case now. G

Geoff wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<UlC7d.656750$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >>An action to enter combat with a tapped minion (e.g., Ambush) >>cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion (i.e., >>the target must meet the parameters specified. >> >>You cannot "enter combat with a tapped minion" to enter >>combat with an untapped minion. > > > > You may wish to reconsider this. "Fizzle" results previouslly were, > iirc, for being unable to pay the cost when it came time to resolve > the action. The ambush was legally played and a target legally > selected, the only thing left to resolve is success and cost. Ambush > doesnt care what the status of the minion is after it is played, so > long as it was legal at play. "Previously"? This *is* the "previously" ruling. Nothing has changed (except that now a few more people are aware of it). If the action is not valid when it comes time to resolve it (e.g., the cost cannot be paid, the acting minion isn't ready, the target doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid, or a necessary component of the action is missing) then the action fizzles. > Otherwise this ruling will make bums rush THE rush card. Not that it > wasn't already imo, but that will be even more the case now. No, this ruling changes nothing, since it is how it has been. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > "Previously"? > This *is* the "previously" ruling. Nothing has changed (except that > now a few more people are aware of it). > If the action is not valid when it comes time to resolve it (e.g., > the cost cannot be paid, the acting minion isn't ready, the target > doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid, or a necessary component of > the action is missing) then the action fizzles. Given that I am now one of the people who is now aware of this ruling, and was previously unaware, in regards to, say, Harass, what are the corner case situations where this actually happens? I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a tapped minion. The only way I can think of this action fizzling is: -Target plays 2nd Tradition or Special Report and attempts to block, as required, and then I cleverly circumvent their block with some stealth. I get there, they are untapped, action fizzles. Unlikely, but possible. And stupid. -Target plays 2nd Tradition or Special Report. They block me. Combat ensues. I play Form of Mist and continue the Harass. They play Cat's Guidance to untap (?) When I get to the second combat, it fizzles, as the minion is untapped. Maybe. -Another vampire of target plays Babble. Slightly more likely than above. -Umm, uh, they have a Godzilla's Tears on them, and they use it to untap in response to the attack attempt. Anything else I am missing? I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a vampire with less than 4 blood. The only way i can think of this fizzling is: -They block my action. I let them block. We strike each other. My opponent hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass continues via the Form of Mist, so the second combat fizzles. This highly convoluted chain of events work the way I think it does? Anything else on this front? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BD872BE5.19E8F%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> mumbled something about: >LSJ wrote: > >> "Previously"? >> This *is* the "previously" ruling. Nothing has changed (except that >> now a few more people are aware of it). >> If the action is not valid when it comes time to resolve it (e.g., >> the cost cannot be paid, the acting minion isn't ready, the target >> doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid, or a necessary component of >> the action is missing) then the action fizzles. > >Given that I am now one of the people who is now aware of this ruling, and >was previously unaware, in regards to, say, Harass, what are the corner case >situations where this actually happens? More often occurs with Nose of the Hound (built in +1 stealth) and Ambush, but could occur with Harass. Zillah's Tears and Eternal Vigilance are both convenient for this, though; you untap and attempt to block. The rusher is now left in the unuseful position of needing to add stealth to keep his maneuver (or press), but being unable to do so without fizzling his action. 2nd Tradition also works, although it's harder to stealth past a 2nd Tradition. There are more untap-effects available in the game now than there used to be; Torvus' special, of course, being one. I'm sure there are more that are out there than I'm able to think of off the top of my head. It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Derek Ray wrote: > It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the > rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning > the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle. Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >Derek Ray wrote: > >> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the >> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning >> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle. > >Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush... Alexandra is a slightly more likely scenario, too. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:pq75m05so8um0jkr3...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Peter D Bakija > <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > > > >> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the > >> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning > >> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle. > > > >Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush... > > Alexandra is a slightly more likely scenario, too. not really,since her card text is "once during your turn, you may tap or untap"... and i doubt you would rush yourself even if the rules allowed it ;)

Peter D Bakija wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Anneke. Temptation (to steal the target). Maybe others. They'd be obvious by card text, I'd wager. > > I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a vampire with less than 4 blood. > The only way i can think of this fizzling is: > > -They block my action. I let them block. We strike each other. My opponent > hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike > is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste > pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure > if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the > second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass Interesting question. I'll get an answer before the end of the day... > continues via the Form of Mist, so the second combat fizzles. This highly > convoluted chain of events work the way I think it does? > > Anything else on this front? Temptation again. Blood Tears + untap. Maybe others. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD872BE5.19E8F%pd...@lightlink.com>... > I have a vampire. I play Harass to attack a vampire with less than 4 blood. > The only way i can think of this fizzling is: [snip] > Anything else on this front? I've fizzled a low-blood Harass by tapping some Corporeal Reservoirs.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike > > is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste > > pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure > > if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the > > second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass > > Interesting question. I'll get an answer before the end of the day... http://groups.google.com/groupsselm=3CA5C0D9.5E86E1E1%40white-wolf.com > If I block an action, and the acting minion plays Form of Mist, can I > play Cat's Guidance before the action is complete, to untap and try to > block again? Yes. CG is played after the block-combat ends. [LSJ 20020330] -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:3y8yal6...@newred.gradwell.net... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > hits me, and does damage. I play an additional strike. My additional strike > > > is Form of Mist at superior. Round ends. Opponent plays Taste. The Taste > > > pushes them up over 4 blood. Opponent plays Cat's Guidance (see, I'm unsure > > > if my opponent can play Cat's Guidance after the first combat and before the > > > second combat from the Form of Mist...), and is untapped when my Harass > > > > Interesting question. I'll get an answer before the end of the day... > > http://groups.google.com/groupsselm=3CA5C0D9.5E86E1E1%40white-wolf.com > > If I block an action, and the acting minion plays Form of Mist, can I > > play Cat's Guidance before the action is complete, to untap and try to > > block again? > > Yes. CG is played after the block-combat ends. > [LSJ 20020330] Thanks for digging that up, James. Actual link contains a questionmark, though: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CA5C0D9...@white-wolf.com -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD872BE5.19E8F%pd...@lightlink.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Babble [BH:C/PM] Cardtype: Reaction Discipline: Dementation [dem] Give another ready minion +1 intercept. [DEM] Tap this vampire to untap another ready minion. Not usable by a blocking minion. Which is why I asked the question in the first place. Cheers, -Scrote [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:10:27 +0200, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] ah but you're forgetting the swathe of malk oot rush decks using madness network during your turn.... *cough* [ quoted text not captured ]

scrote wrote: > Babble [BH:C/PM] > Cardtype: Reaction > > Discipline: Dementation > > [dem] Give another ready minion +1 intercept. > [DEM] Tap this vampire to untap another ready minion. Not usable by a > blocking minion. > > > Which is why I asked the question in the first place. Yeah. I already got that one. See how it is third in the list I posted? :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD89CB8D.1A093%pd...@lightlink.com>... > scrote wrote: > > > Babble [BH:C/PM] > > Cardtype: Reaction > > > > Discipline: Dementation > > > > [dem] Give another ready minion +1 intercept. > > [DEM] Tap this vampire to untap another ready minion. Not usable by a > > blocking minion. > > > > > > Which is why I asked the question in the first place. > > Yeah. I already got that one. See how it is third in the list I posted? > > :-) So you did. Guess I wasn't paying enough attention. It was pretty funny when the situation came up actually. I was playing a social game on the Australian NAtionals weekend (just gone). Borrowed a Muddled VH deck that tooled up the MVH and intercepted with them. I ended up bleeding the owner of the deck and when he tried to harass my tapped guy on five blood I babbled him. The rusher was most impressed. Cheers, -Scrote [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:oem7m01fkuk4ou3md...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:10:27 +0200, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> > scrawled: > > > > >"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de > >news:pq75m05so8um0jkr3...@4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Peter D Bakija > >> <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: > >> > >> >Derek Ray wrote: > >> > > >> >> It's also possible to trick a rusher by blocking with a dingus, the > >> >> rusher adds stealth to force aim at the original minion, then burning > >> >> the untap (Zillah's, Eternal, etc) to force the action to fizzle. > >> > > >> >Hmm. I knew there was a reason I always used Bum's Rush... > >> > >> Alexandra is a slightly more likely scenario, too. > > > >not really,since her card text is "once during your turn, you may tap or > >untap"... and i doubt you would rush yourself even if the rules allowed it > >;) > > ah but you're forgetting the swathe of malk oot rush decks using > madness network during your turn.... > > *cough* i was leaving it open for you to mention it and show us your v:tes culture...