Guide and Mentor - Perfectionist

(did a search for ' guide and mentor ' and nothing comes up. If I do a guide and mentor action to get a perfectionist, do I gain the blood from perfectionist as well (assuming successful and no reaction played)?

Yes, Perfectionist is on your vampire before the action is over. Guide and Mentor Master. Put this card in play. A vampire you control may search your library for a master: archetype and move 1 blood from the bank and that card to himself or herself as a +1 stealth action that costs X pool where X is the number of copies of that card on minions you control (requirements and cost apply as normal). Perfectionist Master: archetype. Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire can have only one archetype.

Matt, I disagree with you. The resolution of the action is to put the perfectionist on your vampire. The perfectionist has no knowledge that you just took a successful action. Vegas gNat

Nat, I ask you. When does one play Freak Drive? If there is always window to play it, (i.e. at the end, after resoling) why wouldn't you gain blood for Peferctionist? Warning: Spoiler! [for] Only usable at the end of a successful action (after resolving the action). Untap this vampire. [FOR] As above, but usable even if the action is blocked (play after combat, if any).

Doesn't it seem like you are going back in time to benefit from the perfectionist? It does to me. It was not in play for the action. If I equip an Ankara Citadel, Turkey...I only have to pay 1 blood because I can use the text on the Citadel, right? Paying for actions and resolving the action happen in the same step according to the rules.

6.2.3. Resolve the Action Warning: Spoiler! If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. If the action is blocked, then any card played to take the action is burned (it is moved to the ash heap) and the blocking minion is tapped and enters combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). The effects of the action do not take place when the action is blocked. Note that the action's cost, if any, is only paid if the action succeeds; the cost is not paid if the action is blocked. The costs of action modifiers and reaction cards are always paid when the cards are played, regardless of the success of the action. They are not exactly simultaneous. How(why) does an action fizzle if you can not pay the cost?

> tigernat wrote: > Doesn't it seem like you are going back in time to benefit from the perfectionist? It does to me. It was not in play for the action. > > If I equip an Ankara Citadel, Turkey...I only have to pay 1 blood because I can use the text on the Citadel, right? Paying for actions and resolving the action happen in the same step according to the rules. > Some cards have been ruled to be able to "see back in time"... Carlton being the obvious example. Other times rulings have forced cost and resolution to be simultaneous, and other times not so. Hence Ankara Citadel doesn't get a discount when you equip it, but playing Villein on a minion where the 'cost' of playing the Villein would oust you is resolved simultaneously with the effect of the card. I still strongly advocate that we should have read the "pay cost" part of the rule to mean 'un-interruptably' and not 'concurrently' Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Some cards have been ruled to be able to "see back in time"... Carlton being the obvious example. > That's just what the card text says. Has vampire X committed diablerie in the given time frame? Yes, then you can burn Carlton. Nothing on the card indicates that Carlton had to be in play when the diablerie happened, any more than you had to control a vampire at the point a diablerie occurred to play Sixth Tradition with that vampire. (Which, while unusual, is perfectly doable.)

> tigernat wrote: > Doesn't it seem like you are going back in time to benefit from the perfectionist? It does to me. It was not in play for the action. > It's arguable. The obvious precedent is Sniper Rifle. If the bearer blocks an action, he or she may, before range is determined, set the range for the first round of the resulting combat to long; if he or she does so, skip the determine range step that round, and the bearer's initial strike that round must be with this weapon. If you block without Sniper Rifle, equip it before range with Disguised Weapon, and then try to set range with it, you can't. "If the bearer blocks" means that you must be the bearer when you block. [LSJ 20010922] Compare Perfectionist: Once per turn, when this vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. Since this is also in the present tense, it would be necessary to know when a vampire "performs" the action. I would tentatively suggest that happens at the moment of successfully determining resolution, but I'm not 100% certain on that. An interesting setup might be what happens if I control a vampire, but you control the Perfectionist master card on that vampire. If I oust you during a bleed, the master card goes away during resolution. Has the "If this vampire successfully performs..." effect already been triggered, ready to give me a blood at the delayed moment? (Like Lutz disappearing during a referendum.) Or does it only trigger later meaning that - because you took the card with you when you were ousted - it's not there?

Here are the cards that would raise the same doubt (cardtext using "successfully performs"): - Edge Explosion (to get a conviction before paying) - Herbert Westlin (Anonymous Freight) - Merged Lambach (though I can't find an example right now) - Maureen (playing UHF) - Orun (Exile) - Saqqaf (serpentis actions that cost 1 pool) - Sargon (Enticement) - Danse Macabre (for those who'd want to have an empty untapped vampire and a fizzled action more than an empty tapped vampire and a non-fizzled action) In all these cases, it looks like "successfully performs" is a check that is applied *after paying*, and *after resolving* (Herbert is probably the best argument here - but I can't find a reference). So I'll say if you fetch a Perfectionist via Guide and Mentor's action, and noone played a reaction card, you'll get the Perfectionist blood. Nota: Perfectionist should probably read "and no reaction cards were played" ...

"After further review, the call on the field stands."

> Pascal wrote: > In all these cases, it looks like "successfully performs" is a check that is applied *after paying*, and *after resolving* (Herbert is probably the best argument here - but I can't find a reference). > Michael diCarlo clearly gets his "successfully performs" benefit earlier than "after resolution" (since the combat is part of resolution). Card text: "If Michael successfully performs an action to enter combat with another minion, he may set the range in the first round of the resulting combat to long". Similarly, Bravo still seems to be just inside resolution (i.e. pre-'after resolving the action' effects): " Once per turn, when this vampire successfully performs an action to enter combat with another, he or she gains 1 blood from the blood bank when the combat ends, if he or she is still ready." Both of these, you could argue deviate from any standard timing based on the Golden Rule of Cards. (Or you could determine a standard timing and let them deviate from it based on...) In the case of Sargon, "Whenever Sargon successfully performs an action, you get the Edge." That happens after resolution, such that during an action where you get the Edge anyway, you can get the Edge twice. (And burn it for something like Sabbat Threat in between.) [LSJ 20090624] Reg Driscoll might care: "If Reg performs a successful equip action, you may move the equipment to any ready minion you control." (Unless performs a successful is different from successfully performs.) If the effect kicks in after resolution, maybe I've been able to use an effect/play a card that changes my mind. Forced March is "after resolving the action" - maybe the replacement card I draw means I decide to move the equipment instead of keeping it, or the other way round. All of the "gain a pool" vampires - Maureen, Saqqaf etc. - would care if The Rising is in play and control of the Edge was involved in the action. (Bleeds, Regaining the Upper Hand.) Cavalier says: "Once per turn, when this vampire successfully performs an action that costs 1 or more blood, he or she may burn an additional blood to untap."In [LSJ 20100420] , it's implicitly asserted that this means "end of the action". But my question would be: additional to what? The cost? Seems that way from the wording. But then compare The Damned: "The vampire with this card burns 1 additional blood for each bleeding action he or she successfully performs (after resolving the action)." What's that additional to?

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Cavalier says: "Once per turn, when this vampire successfully performs an action that costs 1 or more blood, he or she may burn an additional blood to untap."In [LSJ 20100420] , it's implicitly asserted that this means "end of the action". But my question would be: additional to what? The cost? Seems that way from the wording. But then compare The Damned: "The vampire with this card burns 1 additional blood for each bleeding action he or she successfully performs (after resolving the action)." What's that additional to? > Probably to the "cost of the bleed action, if any". I suppose the "additional" words on these cards don't really make logical sense. One gets the idea behind them ("do a little extra and you'll get something extra") What worries me is the "additional" word on Forced Awakening: If he or she does not successfully block this action, he or she burns an additional blood.. That one makes absolutely no sense at all...

Additional does allow things to stack, so that text on Forced Awakening may have been a hangover from a time when minions could play the same reaction multiple times an action (if such a time existed in VTES). I would just like to see a separation exist between payment of a card's costs and the resolution of its effects. It is implied in the rulings regarding actions where the minion does not have enough blood to pay for the card. Otherwise, a minion may be able to gain blood as part of resolution and pay the cost out of the benefits of the card (as has been done with Villein and Eternals of Sirius). It would also easily allow us to push these "successfully performs" type questions into a Freak Drive Window, or into a "When this is not blocked Window" and out of Action Resolution. (In the case of Michael di Carlo, his action would resolve into a combat so he gains the benefit after the action resolves (i.e. combat begins, action is resolved but not concluded). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

[LSJ 20080506] Bima can play Govern + Conditioning, causing the target of the bleed to burn 5 pool (and Bima to burn). [LSJ 20080512] Bima actually burns *after* the bleed is resolved, and after the VP and 6pool were earned.

I can't see your problem with forced awakening floppy. You can EASILY have Dr Julius Sutphen with an archon on him playing sup force of personality, sup tenebrous form and safe passage at obe. Then younger maskini play a forced awakening and attempt to block but is not successfull. Forced will cause him to burn an additional blood.

Julius, Archon, Tenebrous Form, Force of Personality all have the effect of causing a minion who attempts to block to burn blood when announcing this attempt. That's way before resolution. That's before playing cards such as Darksight, or other +intercept cards that cost blood. Forced Awakening has you burn blood (right) before resolution. So it's not the same window at all, and tons of things might have happened between these two.

And Maskini special? I would think it happens in the same windows. Edit : it seems not, Maskini state "at the end of the action" which can be way after the fail block attempt.

> Pascal wrote: > [LSJ 20080506] Bima can play Govern + Conditioning, causing the target of the bleed to burn 5 pool (and Bima to burn). > I have not problem with this. The bleed resolves immediately, not concurrently, to the cost. It was unblocked, successfully paid for (i.e. a full cost was paid) so the action is resolved in full immediately (NOT concurrently). > Pascal wrote: > [LSJ 20080512] Bima actually burns *after* the bleed is resolved, and after the VP and 6pool were earned. > This is the sort of thing I have an objection to. The effect of paying the last life should basically 'end' the Bima. IANLSJ BUT... I would have wanted the rulings to have been. 1) Bima takes an action, and after the action is unblocked, it pays for the cost of a card (i.e. Govern the Unaligned) 2) The Bima burns when it has 0 life. 3) The successful action is resolved immediately after the costs are paid (i.e. there is no window for other cards to be played to affect the resolution of the action). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

There's no reason why Bima would burn before the action has fully resolved. You can swap 2 and 3 in the sequence you give. The reason would be: resolving the action is canonical: cost is paid, effect applied all together. Then some state-based things happen, such as an ally with no life burns. With your sequence, playing Eternals of Sirius while at 4 pool would be impossible: 1/ play Eternal of Sirius and pay the cost 2/ oh my... you're at 0 pool and ousted. We all know that the correct sequence is: 1/ play Eternal of Sirius and pay the cost 2/ apply the effect: gain 5 pool 3/ check your pool total: 5. You're not ousted. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

@Ankha: Yes, because pool total I think should be a constant-check, not a 'resolution only' check. Even though that is not the way LSJ has ruled. It's because I always read the rule, even in the CRR to be "Pay for action/card and then once paid nothing can stop its resolution occurring" and not "Pay for action/card and concurrently resolve it". It's all about a dispute on the meaning of "immediate". Immediate != concurrent. Immediate = without pause for other things. So yes, if you are 4 pool, I think you should die when you play Eternals of Sirius to gain 5 pool. (Since your pool total reaches 0 when you pay the cost and then when the card attempts to resolve it finds you missing from the table and sends the pool to the blood bank) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > So yes, if you are 4 pool, I think you should die when you play Eternals of Sirius to gain 5 pool. (Since your pool total reaches 0 when you pay the cost and then when the card attempts to resolve it finds you missing from the table and sends the pool to the blood bank) > But it don't work like that in VtES, and it don't work like that on other TCG either. And I don't believe this to be intuitive either.

Ohlmann, Again, it is about how you read the word "immediate". How other CCG/TCGs work is irrelevant to how VTES is played. This is like complaining that D&D is not WoW and not VtM just because they are all 'RPGs'. IN VTES... IF the word "immediate" is taken to mean "cannot be prevented from occurring" then once the cost is fully paid, the cards effects will be resolved. BUT that does not mean that there cannot be a point where the player reaches 0 pool in the meantime and thereby result in them being ousted. The effects of the card would then resolve attempting to give an ousted player pool, which results in the card putting blood into the blood bank (since that is where all undelivered blood and pool counters go). The previous LSJ rulings have construed the word "immediate" to be a synonym for "concurrent". Consequently many of these cost-type issues have arisen in the past (and will not doubt continue in the future). Yes, it is a difference in basically Semantics. But if the rules (the CRR since the Rulebook mentions nothing about the windows available other than 'if paid it will occur) were meant to be 'concurrently pay cost and resolve their effects' then why was that wording used instead of 'immediately'? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Ohlmann, > Again, it is about how you read the word "immediate". > Yes. You read it another way than the intended one, and you complain you're not heard. > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > How other CCG/TCGs work is irrelevant to how VTES is played. This is like complaining that D&D is not WoW and not VtM just because they are all 'RPGs'. > Luckily I didn't do that. I was pointing out that the way VtES work in regard to resolution, player ousting, ally destruction, and everything, is currently the same as magic, who have rules that work, so it's not stupid at all.

Ohlmann, The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards. And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Ohlmann, > The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards. > Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. If the rule and ruling say that it should be read in a way, there is exactly no reason to expect it to be interpreted otherwise. Which is what you try. This have nothing to see with the fact that thoses rules and ruling don't follow the supposed original intent. You want to impose a new way to read the rules. For reasons I have said, the current reading, in addition to be well-known and working, is also more intuitive. So you're more or less fighting the wrong battle. > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules. > Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. I believe you find easier to answer to strawman. What I was meaning, and what I clearly said, is that another game show that the current way of resolving actually work without problems and is widely understood. Staying at the same interpretation is therefor validated.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > [Eternals of Sirius]Yes, because pool total I think should be a constant-check, not a 'resolution only' check. > It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five. This is different from two distinct effects occuring simultaneously, which essentially doesn't happen in V:TES outside of strike resolution. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It's all about a dispute on the meaning of "immediate". Immediate != concurrent. > This appears to be a dispute that you have invented so that you can have an argument with yourself and prove the superiority of your point over a point that wasn't at issue. Ho hum.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > Ohlmann, > > The 'intended' meaning has long been a casualty of VTES rulings. It has also been absent from the text of a number of cards. > > > Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. > > If the rule and ruling say that it should be read in a way, there is exactly no reason to expect it to be interpreted otherwise. Which is what you try. This have nothing to see with the fact that thoses rules and ruling don't follow the supposed original intent. > > You want to impose a new way to read the rules. For reasons I have said, the current reading, in addition to be well-known and working, is also more intuitive. So you're more or less fighting the wrong battle. > Many people at a variety of times have commented on the learning curve to VTES. One of the ways that the learning curve can be reduced is to make the rulings either "confirmations of the rule" or to make amendments to the rules or effective amendments to the cards. I am not advocating for a 'new way to read the rules'. I'm asking for the rules to be rewritten to mirror the way they are 'meant to be read'. People tend to dislike amendments to the cards themselves, mostly because of the fact that VTES does not cycle cards out of tournament play. This is a valid enough reason not to amend card texts frequently, but that creates a set of problems where if the rules are not changed we create a 'third set' of rules (i.e. individual card rulings) (in reality a 4th set, since the CRR is generally held up to be part of the rules). 1) I think we should merge the CRR into the rules so that the rules are more complete and don't need to be read in parallel with another document. 2) I think when Card Rulings change the core mechanics of the game, we should amend the rules to in effect make the ruling unnecessary (i.e. if a Ruling changes the game, then change the game). 3) Card Rulings would then become basically a place where interactions between two cards are detailed and not the 'core functioning' of the card. > Ohlmann wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > And what you are suggesting by your comparison, is that VTES would benefit from being more like MtG. I'm suggesting that VTES by its very nature cannot be MtG, shouldn't emulate MtG and should define itself on its own terms with its own rules. > > > Luckily, that's not what I was talking of. I believe you find easier to answer to strawman. > > What I was meaning, and what I clearly said, is that another game show that the current way of resolving actually work without problems and is widely understood. Staying at the same interpretation is therefor validated. > It isn't a strawman argument. You are advocating for us to adopt MtG system for resolving actions. I am saying that it is not required to do so despite how MtG may be considered to be an "industry leader". We can choose so, or not. I advocate not, mostly because the other functioning of VTES is sufficiently different to MtG to mean a different solution may be better than a copied solution from MtG. Also, as is obvious, VTES rules were never written with the same perspective as MtG because of the very different structural differences in the game. > JamesAtZephyr wrote: > It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five. > Exactly, the Eternals of Sirius ruling has said that "immediate" is a synonym for "concurrent". My point entirely. If that is the effect of the ruling, then the Rulebook or the CRR should be changed to reflect that. And as far as it being a dispute of my own creation... I have been advocating for a good time to have the CRR and Rulebook be amended to make major game-mechanic rulings (like the Eternals of Sirius ruling) not need to be recorded against "Eternals of Sirius" or even as a "Ruling on Paying Costs" but actually in the rules. To be honest, I'd want to see the CRR vanish and merge into the Rulebook. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ankha wrote: > We all know that the correct sequence is: > 1/ play Eternal of Sirius and pay the cost > 2/ apply the effect: gain 5 pool > 3/ check your pool total: 5. You're not ousted. > Yes, we know this, but allow us the right to think this is very silly. > Ohlmann wrote: > But it don't work like that in VtES, and it don't work like that on other TCG either. > Fabrice "Luckily" a surtout oublié sa conjugaison anglaise Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > JamesAtZephyr wrote: > > It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five. > > > Exactly, the Eternals of Sirius ruling has said that "immediate" is a synonym for "concurrent". My point entirely. > Still no. Please stop making crap up.

> Reyda wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > We all know that the correct sequence is: > > 1/ play Eternal of Sirius and pay the cost > > 2/ apply the effect: gain 5 pool > > 3/ check your pool total: 5. You're not ousted. > > > Yes, we know this, but allow us the right to think this is very silly. > Sure. So one half of the players will find the other very silly, and the other half will find the others very silly. Anyway, both are equally silly so we'd better stick to the current rules rather than creating a sterile debate for the sake of it. Valid arguments for change (rather than "I find it silly") are of course welcome I guess, but I haven't seen one. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > > > JamesAtZephyr wrote: > > > It's not a resolution-only check. The Eternals of Sirius ruling established that the cost and effect are simultaneous. So you are on 4 pool. When your pool changes, it goes to 5 pool. There isn't a point when you go to zero pool and then back up to five, nor do you go up to nine pool then down to five. > > > > > Exactly, the Eternals of Sirius ruling has said that "immediate" is a synonym for "concurrent". My point entirely. > > > Still no. Please stop making crap up. > James, con·cur·rent /kənˈkərənt/ Adjective 1. Existing, happening, or done at the same time. 2. (of two or more prison sentences) To be served at the same time. im·me·di·ate /iˈmēdē-it/ Adjective 1. Occurring or done at once; instant. 2. Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority". si·mul·ta·ne·ous /ˌsīməlˈtānēəs/ Adjective Occurring, operating, or done at the same time. I have made up nothing. I am talking about the definition of the word as used in the CRR and how we should change it. If the effects are to be 'concurrent' or 'simultaneous' (which ARE synonyms)... then we should use one of those words. If we want the cost and its effect to be distinct BUT to occur closely together (even so closely as to allow no other card-play/effect to intervene) then we should stick with "immediate". The rulings made in the past, particularly the one on the Eternals of Sirius, has clearly stated that in the CRR "immediately" should be replaced with either "concurrently" or "simultaneously". Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > If we want the cost and its effect to be distinct BUT to occur closely together (even so closely as to allow no other card-play/effect to intervene) then we should stick with "immediate". > Immediately simply refers to when it happens. As opposed to being delayed, like for actions and strikes (which are described above it), which have a different formulation. Please, please stop rewriting the rules every day.