LSJ,
I think many in our playgroup misinterpret Forced Awakening. From the
threads that came up with the search terms "forced awakening
author:LSJ", it seems apparent that if a vamp plays FA, he/she *must*
attempt to block. If the attempt fails, then the vamp burns a blood.
(card text)
In addition, if the vamp plays FA then merely misdirects a bleed,
he/she burns a blood for FA too.
Furthermore, a vamp cannot play FA then _not_ attempt to block (just to
cycle cards) and in so doing *not* burn a blood. (In the card text,
it's reading "can" as an option, not as a capacity that must be taken.)
It is now very clear why Wake has a place in non-wallish decks, since
FA has a glaring penalty! So the deciding factor between WWEF and FA is
not simply the "Do not replace" clause, but also the requirement to
attempt to block (and the corresponding penalty if it fails)!
Am I correct? Or is my moment of nirvana about to be shattered by the
power-that-is, who utters monosyllabic affirmations and rejections?
FA Card text:
This reacting vampire _can_ attempt to block and play reaction cards as
though untapped. If he or she does not successfully block this action,
he or she burns an additional blood.
/Cry Wolf
Cry Wolf <gsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LSJ,> I think many in our playgroup misinterpret Forced Awakening. From the
> threads that came up with the search terms "forced awakening
> author:LSJ", it seems apparent that if a vamp plays FA, he/she *must*
> attempt to block. If the attempt fails, then the vamp burns a blood.
> (card text)
That's wrong.
You can play Forced Awakening and *not* block.
It just says that if you don't block, you burn a blood.
Card text does not say "This vampire *attempts to* block". It says
"can".
Cry Wolf wrote:
> LSJ,
>
> I think many in our playgroup misinterpret Forced Awakening. From the
> threads that came up with the search terms "forced awakening
> author:LSJ", it seems apparent that if a vamp plays FA, he/she *must*
> attempt to block. If the attempt fails, then the vamp burns a blood.
> (card text)
No. The minion need not attempt to block.
If there are any posts from me that indicate otherwise, please send me a URL or
a Message-ID.
> In addition, if the vamp plays FA then merely misdirects a bleed,
> he/she burns a blood for FA too.
If he fails to block in any manner, yes.
> Furthermore, a vamp cannot play FA then _not_ attempt to block (just to
> cycle cards) and in so doing *not* burn a blood. (In the card text,
> it's reading "can" as an option, not as a capacity that must be taken.)
Right.
While he can choose not to attempt to block, he'll burn a blood for not
successfully blocking.
> It is now very clear why Wake has a place in non-wallish decks, since
> FA has a glaring penalty! So the deciding factor between WWEF and FA is
> not simply the "Do not replace" clause, but also the requirement to
> attempt to block (and the corresponding penalty if it fails)!
No. FA does not require s block attempt, just like WwEF does not require a block
attempt.
> Am I correct? Or is my moment of nirvana about to be shattered by the
> power-that-is, who utters monosyllabic affirmations and rejections?
The latter. (That's three syllables! Monosyllabism is hard to achieve when given
an either-or query.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Cry Wolf wrote:
> LSJ,
>
> I think many in our playgroup misinterpret Forced Awakening. From the
> threads that came up with the search terms "forced awakening
> author:LSJ", it seems apparent that if a vamp plays FA, he/she *must*
> attempt to block. If the attempt fails, then the vamp burns a blood.
> (card text)
>
IANLSJ,
uh no. the card text says you "can" block not "must".
> In addition, if the vamp plays FA then merely misdirects a bleed,
> he/she burns a blood for FA too.
because the vampire did not block successfully block this action.
>
> Furthermore, a vamp cannot play FA then _not_ attempt to block (just to
> cycle cards) and in so doing *not* burn a blood. (In the card text,
> it's reading "can" as an option, not as a capacity that must be taken.)
You can play the card, not attempt to block, and burn a blood for it.
Oscar Garza
Organized Play Coordinator
White Wolf
[ quoted text not captured ]
Second Tradition, Read the Winds, and Black Sunrise are examples of
cards which require the reacting vampire to "attempt to block" per card
text.
Jeff
LSJ wrote:
> Cry Wolf wrote:
> > LSJ,> > In addition, if the vamp plays FA then merely misdirects a bleed,
> > he/she burns a blood for FA too.
>
> If he fails to block in any manner, yes.
_That's_ what I wanted to say! If the vamp fails to block
_in_any_manner_.
(That's what you get for writing posts in the wee hours of the morning.
:s )
> > Furthermore, a vamp cannot play FA then _not_ attempt to block (just to
> > cycle cards) and in so doing *not* burn a blood. (In the card text,
> > it's reading "can" as an option, not as a capacity that must be taken.)
>
> Right.
> While he can choose not to attempt to block, he'll burn a blood for not
> successfully blocking.
So just to reword, the Meth can cycle. He/She will just make the vamp
burn a blood for it.
> > It is now very clear why Wake has a place in non-wallish decks, since> > FA has a glaring penalty! So the deciding factor between WWEF and FA is
> > not simply the "Do not replace" clause, but also the requirement to
> > attempt to block (and the corresponding penalty if it fails)!
>
> No. FA does not require s block attempt, just like WwEF does not require a block
> attempt.
That should have been "but also the penalty for failing to block
_in_any_manner_!"
> > Am I correct? Or is my moment of nirvana about to be shattered by the
> > power-that-is, who utters monosyllabic affirmations and rejections?
>
> The latter. (That's three syllables! Monosyllabism is hard to achieve when given
> an either-or query.)
>
Again, I didn't mean monosyllabism, but "one-word" responses like
"Correct", "Right", "Wrong", "No", etc.
Thanks everyone.