If an ally, that can play discipline card, would take action that costs blood, and paying that cost would kill him, does action resolve in such case?
For example, Marijava Thuggee (3 life) plays Sacrificial Lamb (3 blood cost): does he gain the blood?
Marijava Thuggee, Ally, 2 pool
Ghoul with 3 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. Requires a ready Black Hand vampire. The thuggee can play cards requiring basic Obfuscate [obf] as a vampire. (..)
Sacrificial Lamb, Action, 3 blood, Obfuscate
[obf] Burn a vampire in torpor that you control. The acting vampire gains blood equal to the burned vampire's capacity (ignore excess blood). You may also transfer equipment from the burned vampire to this one. This action is not considered diablerie.
[OBF] (..)
> 1.6.3. Minion Cards
>
> Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play of the card, including duration effects (like "for the remainder of combat"). The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of 1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of a given capacity). If the ally gains life in excess of his capacity, it doesn't drain off.
>
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c2cac96c8c5d4a27
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/caaf483412a94dc1
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/883e842f51d49cd9
The Thuggee succeeds with the action to burn a vampire with capacity X. Thuggee pays cost and instantly burns. The vampire does not burn. But for the sake of argument if the Thuggee had 4 life he would successfully burn the vampire and gain X life.
So you need to do a bit of Leeching first and then get on with the evil Obfuscate shenanigans...
Hint: Often your crosstable allies aren't that hard to convince into allowing you the Leech on one of their guys.
Finnish Politics!
> chaitan wrote:
> The Thuggee succeeds with the action to burn a vampire with capacity X. Thuggee pays cost and instantly burns. The vampire does not burn.
>
I am not so sure about the "The vampire does not burn." Why shouldn't the action resolve?
Check this example where a Bima is bleeding with Govern + Conditioning, succeeds (the 5 pool are removed), and is then burned.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/cf60c6485a61eac3
It looks like I was wrong.
The three posts I linked to all refer to combat and since the resolution of the strike is separate from when you actually pay for combat cards it is not the same as paying for resolution of an action.
Here is a better link: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/1533d67007b43f60/c458a7184f579206
> 6.1.6. Action Card (or Card in Play)
>
> To take the action described by a card in play, announce the action and tap the acting minion. If the action is successful, it resolves as indicated on the card (and the cost, if any, is paid). If the action is unsuccessful, there is no effect.
>
> II. PLAYING CARDS AND OTHER EFFECTS [1.6]
> C. Pay cost and resolve effect ( unless canceled in step B ).
> 1. For actions
> a. Wait until action resolution to pay cost and resolve (if successful). (IV.D.2)
> b. If the action succeeds but the effect (or part of the effect) is no longer valid/legal (because the target leaves play, for example), the cost, if any, is still paid (since the action resolves unblocked) but the invalid portion of the action "fizzles" (is not applied).
> c. If the action succeeds but the cost cannot be paid, whatever portion of the cost that can be paid is paid and the action "fizzles" (has no effect) instead.
> d. The action card is "in limbo" (not in play and not in the ash heap) until it is put in play or sent to the ash heap (or removed from play) at resolution. [RTR]
>
So the action will resolve, the vampire will burn as the paying of the action and resolution of the action happens at the same time.
There is however the original question left then. As the paying and resolution happens at the same time will the ally burn? can acting methuselah choose order of events? I don't see any rule touching this topic.
> chaitan wrote:
> There is however the original question left then. As the paying and resolution happens at the same time will the ally burn? can acting methuselah choose order of events? I don't see any rule touching this topic.
>
The action resolves as a whole, meaning the ally doesn't burn since it pays the cost and apply the effect (burn the vampire; gain blood) at the same time.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > chaitan wrote:
> > There is however the original question left then. As the paying and resolution happens at the same time will the ally burn? can acting methuselah choose order of events? I don't see any rule touching this topic.
> >
> The action resolves as a whole, meaning the ally doesn't burn since it pays the cost and apply the effect (burn the vampire; gain blood) at the same time.
>
You may be correct but I still would like a reference to a rule that touch this topic because you can view it in three ways and until there is a ruling we only have opinions.
The three ways are:
Action resolves: Ally pay 3 blood and gain X blood and does not burn as Ankha said.
Action resolves: Ally pay 3 blood and gain X blood and burn. Rule state that "When an ally loses his last life counter, he is burned" At one point ally does have 0 life, even if it gains blood at the same time.
Action resolves: Ally pay 3 blood and burn.
I am working on that.
Here's a long discussion I had with LSJ on allies paying for cards before they resolve.
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > - Resolving an action from an action card
> >
> > This one is a bit big. The motto, I must say, is that I think Bima
> > playing Govern when on 1 life should burn without having the bleed
> > resolve. I know you've ruled the opposite (
> > groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5bb6dbd9f3413222
> > ), which means I got a part wrong in this explanation.
> >
> Only one type of effect has the cost paid independently from the resolution of
> the effect: strike. Everything else is pay for effect. You pay = the effect is
> applied.
>
> Now, actions are different from most effects (including strikes) in that the
> payment is not made when the card is played. But that doesn't change the "pay =
> effect" bit above.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > * Here are the points I hope are correct: Can you please confirm?
> > When an action not blocked, it first of all has to be paid.
> > If it is successfully paid, then the action is successful, and the
> > resolution takes place.
> >
> It is successful (unblocked) first. At which point it is paid for, triggering
> the resolution of the action's effect.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Somewhere around this ", and" lies the window for Yawp Court (this
> > window might only exist for Political Actions, though).
> >
> Yawp is played between pay and resolve, yes, by card text.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > For bleed actions, we have the Spying Mission / Major Boon window.
> >
> SM and MB are also played between pay and resolve, yes.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Now
> > here might be where I get it wrong. Are those two played in the
> > "regular resolution" window, or are they played just before it? The
> > burning part of sup' SM makes me think it cannot activate during
> > resolution, and since sup' SM can be played before an already-in-play
> > SM burns, I think sup' SM is played [strictly] before resolution.
> >
> Right.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Which leads me to this question :
> > * Suppose Lorrie has sup' OBF. Her controller is on 1 pool, her prey
> > is too. Lorrie announces a bleed for 1. This post explains what
> > happens if the bleed isn't blocked :
> > groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8c5ece1d65b8a50e
> > and resolves. Now suppose the prey declares no attempt to [block], and
> >
> > does not modify the bleed (no telepathic counter nor deflection)
> > howsoever. We arrive at the point where the action must be paid
> > (that's before the Spying Window ( see
> > groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e7e40a49bdcae1a8
> > ).
> > Suppose Lorrie's controller wonders whether playing sup' Spying
> > Mission is a good idea (perhaps self-ousting is a good move at this
> > moment of the game, or is part of a deal, .. ). Lorrie must've paid
> > her action, right?
> > So the question is: In this example, can Lorrie play Spying Mission ?
> > If she can, how many pool is her controller on when she plays it?
> >
> Yes. Zero.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Suppose Stanislava calls Vele's Hunt when her controller is on 3 pool.
> > The "pay -> effect" thing means the referendum is conducted, even
> > though Stanislava's controller has no pool left (for more than an
> > extremely short window). That seems weird to me.
> >
> It would be, but it fizzles out.
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Other weird thing : Lorrie's controller is on 1 pool, and has Frontal
> > Assault in play. Lorrie enters combat with a vampire controlled by
> > prey. "Pay -> effect" means that, when Lorrie and the vampire are
> > fighting, Lorrie's controller is on 0 pool. If Lorrie sends the
> > opposing vampire to torpor, her controller might even survive the
> > action.
> >
> No, it fizzles out.
>
This one is on the review for not being completely intuitive.
"Pay -> resolves" is OK as long as cards such as Yawp Court and Spying Mission don't exist. They do, so we create a step between "pay" and "resolve". In that step, the ally would burn.
But then, if allow such a pause, we deny a player to play stuff such as Eternals of Sirius on 4 pool. So it's probably better to keep it as it is - i.e. Bima bleeding with Govern still burns after the bleed for 3.
Regarding the initial question: The Thugee gains the blood and won't burn.
@Pascal: This seems to just be another chapter in the debate that we had over Villein.
VEKN Forum - Paying the Cost of Villein
I would suggest that amending/rewriting the Complete Rules Reference (CRR) around this particular problem would be a great result for the player base.
I think in the future it would be good to have: The Rules The Complete Rules Reference would be a place where the nitty gritty and overriding principles of how VTES issues will be ruled should be recorded. By reading the right section of the CRR, experienced players should be able to make an accurrate informed prediction of a card ruling from the team. Specific Card Rulings should be there to clarify the really fringe points or to explicitly state the outcome of applying the overriding principles set out in the CRR
This could also become a resource for the Design Team, since they would be able to predict reliably how a card would be ruled in interaction with the remainder of the card set. That would then make it easier for them to ensure that a card has its intended effect.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Pascal wrote:
> "Pay -> resolves" is OK as long as cards such as Yawp Court and Spying Mission don't exist. They do, so we create a step between "pay" and "resolve".
>
I don't think we should go the Magic way, ie. trying to create a whole step framework for exceptions such as Yawp Court.
I prefer "Pay -> resolved is always true, with some exceptions (Yawp court inserts a combat just before the referendum)"
rather than "Pay -> some weird window used by 2 cards during which we check state-based effects -> resolved"
The whole principle of card games is to twist the rules by adding explicit (on cards) rules, rather than to make all the cards fit in an hyper-detailled rule framework.
As a final note, even "creat[ing] a step between "pay" and "resolve"" doesn't mean that state-based effects (such as the life of an ally) should be checked during that step...
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
@Ankha:
If the pay step is successful (i.e. the full cost is paid) then the card will resolve in the "resolve effects" step. It won't matter if the ally 'dies' after paying, because the full payment was made.
Same as I suggested elsewhere, payment and effect are not simultaneous by the rules, it is just that once an effect should start it is instantaneous (and the word immediate is there to ensure there is no MtG-Style Stack).
It might create odd scenarios where you can kill someone and yourself by bleeding them out with a minion that would explode during the pay step and oust yourself via Tensions in the Ranks.
So in the scenario originally under debate, I would suggest you have a successful action (cost is fully paid and unblocked) which kills the Marijava Thuggee (cost is paid) but also burns the target vampire (card was fully paid for). However, since the Thuggee died (it reaches a point where it had 0 life) as part of payment it can't gain blood from the action (it isn't ready to gain from Sacrificial Lamb's gain blood effect).
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418