Unleash Hells Fury vs "Burn X blood to attempt to block"

Can an Unleash Hell's Fury successfully attempt to block a vampire with a "burn X blood to attempt to block" clause? Unleash Hell's Fury Type: Action Requires: infernal Daimoinon Cost: 2 pool +1 stealth action. Requires an infernal vampire. Unique. [dai] Put this card in play. This card may attempt to block a action against you and is considered a 9-capacity infernal vampire with +2 intercept during that attempt; if successful, the acting minion takes 1 unpreventable aggravated damage, and this card is burned. [DAI] As above, and untap this vampire. Burn option. Dominion Type: Master Master. Put this card on a Black Hand vampire. Vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block this Black Hand vampire. A vampire can have only one Dominion. Force of Personality Type: Action Modifier / Combat Requires: Presence Cost: 1 blood [COMBAT] Strike: combat ends. [ACTION MODIFIER] Only usable as the action is announced. Vampires must burn a blood to attempt to block this action. Non-zombie allies cannot block this action. Archon Type: Political Action Requires: prince,justicar Requires a prince or justicar. Choose a Camarilla vampire. If this referendum is successful, put this card on the chosen vampire. This vampire may enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth action. Any vampire attempting to block this vampire burns 1 blood. Blood hunts cannot be called on this vampire. Any Camarilla vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I think no since it is a vampire at that time and can not fulfill the burn blood requirement.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Can an Unleash Hell's Fury successfully attempt to block a vampire with a "burn X blood to attempt to block" clause? > It depends on the wording. If it's "burn a blood to attempt to block", or similar, then the UHF will be unable to block. Dominion and Force of Personality are in that category. However, Archon is simply "burn 1 blood", and not a cost. Similarly, Camarilla Exemplary. Archon: Any vampire attempting to block this vampire burns 1 blood. CamEx: for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block that vampire burns 1 blood. In both cases, empty vampires can block an Archon or Camarilla Exemplary. It's just a burn blood effect that they ignore. (Like an empty vampire simply ignores Blood to Water.) Donal O' Connor would also be ignored by a UHF, as he would be by an empty vampire. Also, Crocodile's Tongue against a UHF cannot be cancelled (using CT's built-in cancel), because the UHf has no blood.

Well, I still have to check a few things. The card that declares a block attempt isn't a vampire, so effects that affect vampires' block attempt declarations wouldn't affect it. I think I remember something from LSJ about this.

> Pascal wrote: > Well, I still have to check a few things. > The card that declares a block attempt isn't a vampire, so effects that affect vampires' block attempt declarations wouldn't affect it. I think I remember something from LSJ about this. > It doesn't matter, I don't think. If it's a vampire, it's prohibited. If it's a card and then pseudo-becomes a vampire, it hasn't met the cost to attempt, and the attempt is ongoing. An ongoing attempt where the vampire is ineligible is then terminated. [LSJ 20100312] > > LSJ wrote: > > It seems that many block fail cards cause > > the block to fail outright and then prohibit additional block > > attempts. Many use the text "That minion cannot attempt to block this > > action again". So some questions arises in how does this text > > interact with the timing of when UHF is a minion and a non-minion. > > The card is played. The minion that is UHF is the target. The UHF card > may or may not be able to block again, but it is moot, since if it can > block, then it finds itself to be a minion who is prohibited from > blocking and so the attempt immediately ends itself. > And the fact that the prohibition is aimed at all vampires, or just this vampire, or whatever, would seem to be irrelevant. Added several minutes later: Along similar lines, a vampire who is attempting to block finds that the acting minion plays Mask. There isn't a period there where the would-be blocker has to attempt to block anew and, indeed, they can't back out (unless an effect allows it) - so you can find yourself going into combat with someone else, if you're still successfully blocking. But if Giotto comes in, you have to burn a pool for your attempt, even though you didn't attempt anew - you just got the acting minion playing switcheroo on you. [LSJ 20020626] > > LSJ wrote: > The vampire must burn a blood to attempt to block Giotto. > If he doesn't burn a blood, he isn't atempting to block. > And earlier in that thread: > > LSJ wrote: > If he plays the mask before the block is successful, the blocking minion > must then either pay a pool or not block him (i.e., he can decide not to > burn the blood and fail to block), thanks to the "to" wording on Giotto. > So I'd argue that if the blocker 'becomes' a vampire, the criteria are met, just as if the acting minion becomes Giotto part-way through. Specifically, it's not just a check at the "I declare that I am attempting a block" moment.

Can we get a ruling on this?

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Can an Unleash Hell's Fury successfully attempt to block a vampire with a "burn X blood to attempt to block" clause? > No, for the reasons given above. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thanks! I was under the impression that the lack of response by the rules director implies that the answer is correct but there are skeptics out there.