is Force of Will, and it's confusing wording

Force of Will: Only usable by a tapped vampire. Untap this acting vampire; he or she bleeds at +1 bleed as a direct action... (agg. dam. explanation omitted) Compare this to Movement of the Slow Body: Only usable by a tapped vampire in torpor. The action minion can untap... (if blocked/diablerie info omitted) Both actions untap the vampire, yet for some reason Tom has stated that the vampire must retap to do Force of Will, while Movement of the Slow Body does not the tapped vampire who untaps to retap (which would make the card useless). I was under the assumption that when you take an action you tap your vampire and then they take the action, or perhaps simultaniously, but definitely not take the action which allows the vampire to untap so that they can retap and continue the action. This would be like having WWEF say "untap this vampire. This vampire must now tap and has the option of playing reacition cards or attempting to block the current action (or something like that). Why have Force of Will untap the vampire in the first place? Unless the bleed is an entirely different action and/or optional. Rat's warning is an untap as a response to a bleed, but it in no way forces you to take any other reaction to the bleed. If force of will is one action and does not leave the vampire untapped as a result of this action then any mention of untapping should be stricken from the card (unless for effects of cards such as Vamp. Disease, in which case the card should state "untap and then retap to bleed at +1/+2 sup.

Biomech8 (biom...@aol.com) wrote: : Force of Will: Only usable by a tapped vampire. Untap this acting : vampire; he or she bleeds at +1 bleed as a direct : action... (agg. dam. explanation omitted) : Compare this to Movement of the Slow Body: Only usable by a tapped vampire : in torpor. The action minion can untap... (if : blocked/diablerie info omitted) : Both actions untap the vampire, yet for some reason Tom has stated : that the vampire must retap to do Force of Will, while Movement of the : Slow Body does not the tapped vampire who untaps to retap (which would : make the card useless). I was under the assumption that when you take an : action you tap your vampire and then they take the action, or perhaps : simultaniously, but definitely not take the action which allows the : vampire to untap so that they can retap and continue the action. This : would be like having WWEF say "untap this vampire. This vampire must now : tap and has the option of playing reacition cards or attempting to block : the current action (or something like that). Why have Force of Will untap : the vampire in the first place? Unless the bleed is an entirely different : action and/or optional. Rat's warning is an untap as a response to a Bingo. From what I read [I haven't seen the card], the Bleed is an entirely different, non-optional action. Which would explain it. The vampire untaps with FoW, but must immediately tap to initiate a bleed. : bleed, but it in no way forces you to take any other reaction to the : bleed. If force of will is one action and does not leave the vampire : untapped as a result of this action then any mention of untapping should : be stricken from the card (unless for effects of cards such as Vamp. : Disease, in which case the card should state "untap and then retap to : bleed at +1/+2 sup. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <4aehkk$34...@tiger1.ocs.lsu.edu>, npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) writes: >Bingo. From what I read [I haven't seen the card], the Bleed is an >entirely different, non-optional action. Which would explain it. The >vampire untaps with FoW, but must immediately tap to initiate a bleed. If that was the case would that mean two attempts to block? and would the fist action be undirected or directed? I think it was intended to be one action that either 1) allowed a tapped minion to take a bleed action at +1 (+2) or 2) an action that allowed a tapped minion to untap and bleed simultaniously, leaving the minion untapped after the bleed. I originally played with #1 but after reading the card found the text to support #2, though Tom insists that #1 is the correct interpretation. IF #1 is the correct interpretation then any mention of the word "untap" should be removed from the card. The card specifically states that it can only be taken by a tapped minon, so why is an untap in the card text. Unless the card takes two actions to complete. Tom???

Biomech8 (biom...@aol.com) wrote: : In article <4aehkk$34...@tiger1.ocs.lsu.edu>, npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole : Janine Purvis) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I would look for them to publish errata: Any stealth used by the minion to avoid being blocked when it untaps is kept when the minion attempts to bleed [this means you won't have to play twice as many stealth cards...] [ quoted text not captured ]

> Bingo. From what I read [I haven't seen the card], the Bleed is an >entirely different, non-optional action. Which would explain it. The >vampire untaps with FoW, but must immediately tap to initiate a bleed. yea exactly, The FoW is a card that forces the tapped vampire to untap AND BLEAD at +1 and Retap... The Oppertunity cost of this is the continues use of your vamp (he goes to torpor) if you were cool tho you'd simply follow the FoW with a Movement of the Slowed body and a raid healing wich you ten follow up with a freak drive and a restoration/the 5th tradition... oh and then doo it again... (and you should probably have a fame on it and pulse of the cannile... oh and daylight the +1 bleeds and huck in a cool modifier card too, like say conditioning) do this over and over... yea.. yea... ~Mage Bob *makin a new deck as we type*

In article <4an8oq$p...@shellx.best.com>, up and crumbling <go...@shellx.best.com> wrote: >In article <4afc7c$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, >Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >>In article <4aehkk$34...@tiger1.ocs.lsu.edu>, npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole >>Janine Purvis) writes: >>>Bingo. From what I read [I haven't seen the card], the Bleed is an >>>entirely different, non-optional action. Which would explain it. The >>>vampire untaps with FoW, but must immediately tap to initiate a bleed. >>If that was the case would that mean two attempts to block? and would the >>fist action be undirected or directed? >>I think it was intended to be one action that either 1) allowed a tapped >>minion to take a bleed action at +1 (+2) or 2) an action that allowed a >>tapped minion to untap and bleed simultaniously, leaving the minion >>untapped after the bleed. > >Um, you seem a little confused. Force of Will is a single action with two >effects: untapping, and bleeding. The only reason it makes the vampire >untap is to allow it to legally take the action described on the card, since >actions require a vampire to tap. Basically, the vampire untaps for an No. Compare this to the card text on Movement of the slow body: "Only usable by a tapped vampire in torpor, untap this vampire." By your reckoning, this action wuld re-tap the acting vampire, leaving him in exactly the same state as when he started the action. Force of will *is* written as having two effects: untap and bleed, both of which occur *after* the action begins to resolve (not been blocked), which is /way/ after the vampire typically taps for the action. Tap: I attempt an action. becomes: (since the action is usable by a tapped minion): Remain tapped: I attempt the action. If unblocked, then this action is resolved: Movement slow body: the vampire is untapped Force of Will: the vampire is untapped and the Prey (or suitable (D) target Methuselah) is bled. --- Force of will needs errata to leave the acting minion tapped, or it needs a ruling that it causes two distinct actions: 1. An undirected action to untap the acting vampire 2. A (D) bleed at + 1 or +2, which is a separate action from 1. In the second case (ruling instead of errata), If WotC wants stealth to hold over from one action to the second, then errata will still need to be issued saying that stealth (and other Methuselahs' minions' intercept) resets only after both actions are concluded. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <4afc7c$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >In article <4aehkk$34...@tiger1.ocs.lsu.edu>, npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole >Janine Purvis) writes: > >>Bingo. From what I read [I haven't seen the card], the Bleed is an >>entirely different, non-optional action. Which would explain it. The >>vampire untaps with FoW, but must immediately tap to initiate a bleed. > >If that was the case would that mean two attempts to block? and would the >fist action be undirected or directed? > >I think it was intended to be one action that either 1) allowed a tapped >minion to take a bleed action at +1 (+2) or 2) an action that allowed a >tapped minion to untap and bleed simultaniously, leaving the minion >untapped after the bleed. Um, you seem a little confused. Force of Will is a single action with two effects: untapping, and bleeding. The only reason it makes the vampire untap is to allow it to legally take the action described on the card, since actions require a vampire to tap. Basically, the vampire untaps for an infinitesimal period, then retaps to take the (D) bleed, which can be responded to as usual with Rat's Warning, etc. gomi -- Paul Echeverri go...@pollywog.com "Two cans and a piece of string, baby. That's all the Internet you'll ever need!"

In article <4anbpc$o...@crl.crl.com>, L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >In article <4an8oq$p...@shellx.best.com>, >up and crumbling <go...@shellx.best.com> wrote: >>Um, you seem a little confused. Force of Will is a single action with two >>effects: untapping, and bleeding. The only reason it makes the vampire >>untap is to allow it to legally take the action described on the card, since >>actions require a vampire to tap. Basically, the vampire untaps for an >No. Compare this to the card text on Movement of the slow body: >"Only usable by a tapped vampire in torpor, untap this vampire." >By your reckoning, this action wuld re-tap the acting vampire, leaving >him in exactly the same state as when he started the action. Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. MotSB has a single effect: untapping. Its resolution is fairly straightforward. Action unblocked, vampire untaps. >Force of will *is* written as having two effects: untap and bleed, both of >which occur *after* the action begins to resolve (not been blocked), which >is /way/ after the vampire typically taps for the action. I see your point. Yes, that's the way it would go. >Tap: I attempt an action. > >becomes: (since the action is usable by a tapped minion): > >Remain tapped: I attempt the action. > >If unblocked, then this action is resolved: > >Movement slow body: the vampire is untapped >Force of Will: the vampire is untapped and the Prey (or suitable (D) target > Methuselah) is bled. Hm. That *is* problematic. Thanks for helping me see that -- it had entirely escaped my notice. [ quoted text not captured ]

Force of Will is an action usable by a tapped vampire. If that action is successful, the vampire pays the 1 blood and then takes another action, this time to bleed at +1 (or +2) as a (D) action. Modifiers from the action that caused the vampire tapped to take (if any) do not carry over to Force of Will, and modifiers to Force of Will do not carry over to the bleed action. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <4ao8ln$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Force of Will is an action usable by a tapped vampire. If that action is successful, >the vampire pays the 1 blood and then takes another action, this time to bleed at +1 >(or +2) as a (D) action. Modifiers from the action that caused the vampire tapped to >take (if any) do not carry over to Force of Will, and modifiers to Force of Will do not >carry over to the bleed action. Must this minion bleed? Or can it be used just like a Freak Drive? Having two actions in one seems pretty crazy to me... I think (as if it matters :-) that it should be one action taken by a tapped minion to bleed at +1(+2) Is this bleed action a specific action, or general? Can someone Force of Will and then Govern the Unaligned (bleed at +2) and get the +2 for superior Force of Will?

Remember, Movment of the slow body was taken out form vtes. -- ||||||| BRAD /\wa...@pioneer.nevada.edu |^_.^ _^|. o O (all I did was smoke) /vvvvvvvvvvvv \-----------------------C\[@]-[@]/)-------, ____ `^^^^^^^^^^^^ /========================| : U .:|=======" / /\ WARD \/ wa...@cs.unlv.edu `.(===):' ( ==/=*~) \---/ \/____/

In article <4aofcn$f...@news.nevada.edu>, wa...@nevada.edu (BRADLEY WARD) writes: >Remember, Movment of the slow body was taken out form vtes. It doesn't mean that I won't continue to play with it :-) How many out of print cards in other CCG games are used regularly? (especially M:t$) Which is why the cards taken out of V:TES and ignored by WotC (ie. concealed weapon, chainsaw, Rötshreck, etc.) makes me upset. There is nothing wrong with MotSB except that the circumstances under which it must be used are strict, though in combination with Force of Will it kicks!

In article <4auqsh$k...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >>Is this bleed action a specific action, or general? >It's a bleed action, so normal modifiers can apply. [Rearranged the answer to the question.] >>Can someone Force of >>Will and then Govern the Unaligned (bleed at +2) and get the +2 for >>superior Force of Will? What is the answer to this question? GtU or Legal Manipulations or Computer Hacking are Actions and not Action Modifiers. Buest Guess: No, because FoW provides the vampires next action (bleed +1/+2) and does not modify the next bleed. Yours Lutz l...@cs.tu-berlin.de -- Happiness? - - - Roger Taylor

In article <4auqsh$k...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>Is this bleed action a specific action, or general? Can someone Force of >>Will and then Govern the Unaligned (bleed at +2) and get the +2 for >>superior Force of Will? > >It's a bleed action, so normal modifiers can apply. If it's a bleed _action_ you could not use Govern the Unaligned (since it is an action). IF the bleed at +1 (+2) is treated as an _action modifier_ then Govern the Unaligned could be used. Which is it?

Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >Must this minion bleed? Or can it be used just like a Freak Drive? The action must be used to bleed. >Having two actions in one seems pretty crazy to me... I think (as if it >matters :-) that it should be one action taken by a tapped minion to bleed >at +1(+2) Yes, well, that's not how it's written. >Is this bleed action a specific action, or general? Can someone Force of >Will and then Govern the Unaligned (bleed at +2) and get the +2 for >superior Force of Will? It's a bleed action, so normal modifiers can apply. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lutz Hofmann <l...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: >>>Can someone Force of >>>Will and then Govern the Unaligned (bleed at +2) and get the +2 for >>>superior Force of Will? >What is the answer to this question? GtU or Legal Manipulations or >Computer Hacking are Actions and not Action Modifiers. > >Buest Guess: No, because FoW provides the vampires next action (bleed +1/+2) > and does not modify the next bleed. Right, you cannot combine the Force of Will bleed with bleed-actions such as Computer Hacking. (Sorry for misreading the original question.) [ quoted text not captured ]