Crocodile temple Q.

Crocodile Temple, The Master Requires Follower of Set Master: unique location. You may tap this card at the end of a successful (D) action against you to inflict 1 damage on the acting minion (after resolving the action). ---------------------------------- I'm playing FoS. I have a croc's temple in play. I've taken control of another meth's vampire temporarily (temptation / mind rape etc). One of my minions is in torpor. If I have their vampire diablerise mine sucessfully, could I tap the Croc's temple to inflict its damage on that minion after resolving that diablerie? Its a (d) action "at" me (under the new (d) action definition, I think) but is it "against" me?

[ quoted text not captured ] You cannot take a (D) action against yourself. Any action directed at yourself is by definition an undirected action.

BeAst <john...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote: >Crocodile Temple, The >Master >Requires Follower of Set >Master: unique location. >You may tap this card at the end of a successful (D) action against >you to inflict 1 damage on the acting minion (after resolving the >action). > >---------------------------------- > >I'm playing FoS. I have a croc's temple in play. I've taken control of >another meth's vampire temporarily (temptation / mind rape etc). One >of my minions is in torpor. If I have their vampire diablerise mine >sucessfully, could I tap the Croc's temple to inflict its damage on >that minion after resolving that diablerie? No. A vampire you control taking a diablerie action against another vampire you control is undirected. The fact that there is temporary control isn't relevant (except that it motivates you to want to smack people). Your prey and predator could block this action. >Its a (d) action "at" me >(under the new (d) action definition, I think) but is it "against" me? It's not a (D) action under the new definition or the old definition. You can't have a (D) action against yourself. The action is by you against something you control (or pool, hand etc.). Therefore, it is an undirected action. If you take an action that affects someone else (e.g. diablerie, their pool, hand etc.), that's a directed action against that Methuselah. If you take an action that affects someone else (minions, pool, hand etc.) and it also affects you, that's a directed action against the target. e.g. "(D) Bleed, and untap a minion you control if successful" is a directed action against the bleed target - although you get a benefit too. It's not directed against you. If you take an action that affects multiple Methuselahs, all of the targets can block and it's a (D) action against those Methuselahs. (Under the old rules, this would be an undirected action.) Example: superior Shepherd's Innocence, Border Skirmish. If it affects multiple Methuselahs _and_ me, it's still a (D) action against those other Methuselahs. In all circumstances, calling a referendum is an undirected action, irrespective of who the referendum will affect (or might affect). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > You can't have a (D) action against yourself. Technical nitpick: The new definition of Directed Action is an action that targets at least one other Methuselah, but may also target yourself. So if you played Wave of Insanity at superior, for example, and you controlled an ally as well as other Methuselahs, it would still be a (D) action. But you are correct, in the sense that I still think you are prohibited from playing effects that respond to D actions targeting you even in the above case. LSJ, confirm?

On Aug 10, 8:13 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > You can't have a (D) action against yourself. > > Technical nitpick: > The new definition of Directed Action is an action that targets at least > one other Methuselah, but may also target yourself. James covered this in his original post.