Form of Mist: Unplayable as currently ruled?

A bit of a click bait title... but you'll see what I mean soon enough. vtesone.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/did-you-know-that-part-132/ There's a ruling post here, you can read it, but it sums up to this: You can't play form of mist at superior if you don't "need" the stealth. There's a reference to an LSJ ruling. My problem is that the ruling seems... flawed. Talking it over with a few others we came to the following conclusions: 1. The ruling really didn't give a satisfactory explanation for how stealth could be "needed"... when there is no block attempt currently in progress. The block attempt ended, successfully, resulting in the current combat. The current opposing minion is, presumably, tapped, and therefore ineligible to be a blocker. The LSJ thread seemed to indicate that even so, you compare your stealth to that minion's intercept. Frankly, this is bizarre, breaks the rules, and makes no sense. I would suggest that the ruling be reviewed, and revised to make it less janky and more intuitive (you're already playing a card that lets you do something not normally possible: ie continuing a blocked action... the added stealth just falls under the golden rule). If the review does not lead to a revision, then clarification is needed: 1) Since your stealth is compared to the opposing minion's intercept, does that mean he MUST block if possible? After all, this ruling seems to assume a block attempt. OR 2)If the block attempt is optional. Can you point at ANY legal blocker and use their intercept as a springboard to enable you to play FoM? It makes as much sense as comparing your stealth to a tapped minion's intercept. As I said though, I think the ruling is flawed, and really FoM should just fall under the golden rule and be playable regardless. By the way, if this seems too trivial to talk about consider this: Animalism is quite commonly played. Stanislava is still the most commonly played vampire with protean... and as it stands, her ability actually screws her.

I think that it would be simpler if the stealth ruling only applies to modifier cards. This is what the detailed play summary says: IV. C 2 b "Acting minion can play an action modifier card to increase stealth only if the blocking minion has at least as much intercept as the acting minion's stealth." So perhaps it's just an oversight in the rules? — seems odd that you can't just tap a Monastery of Shadows for a non-obvious reason. With form of mist it seems irrelevant in most cases, you were blocked = you need the stealth. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

This is completely broken. If you still need to compare your stealth to the previous blocker's interecept, then it means that he is still attempting to intercept. In that case, Shadow Body is useless, because the previous blocker can just block again. Shadow Body 1 Strike: combat ends. As above, and if this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked.

> Ke. wrote: > I think that it would be simpler if the stealth ruling only applies to modifier cards. > > This is what the detailed play summary says: > > IV. C 2 b "Acting minion can play an action modifier card to increase stealth only if the blocking minion has at least as much intercept as the acting minion's stealth." > > So perhaps it's just an oversight in the rules? — seems odd that you can't just tap a Monastery of Shadows for a non-obvious reason. With form of mist it seems irrelevant in most cases, you were blocked = you need the stealth. > I suggest that we delete the DPS so people stop refering to it. Anyway, let's go back to the OP. > Malcolm wrote: > There's a ruling post here, you can read it, but it sums up to this: > You can't play form of mist at superior if you don't "need" the stealth. There's a reference to an LSJ ruling. My problem is that the ruling seems... flawed. > > Talking it over with a few others we came to the following conclusions: > > 1. The ruling really didn't give a satisfactory explanation for how stealth could be "needed"... when there is no block attempt currently in progress. > I'll quote the rulebook: > rulebook wrote: > Stealth can be added during an action only when needed (that is, only if the action is currently being blocked and the blocking minion has enough intercept to block the acting minion). > Is it currently being blocked? Yes (continuous tense) Is there an acting minion? Sure. Is there a blocking minion? Sure. What is the acting minion stealth? What is the blocking minion intercept? Compare them to see if steath can be added. The rest of the questions is moot. Apart of this, do you have real questions, or are all of you just bored? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

This reminds me of the most "this makes really no sense" LSJ: > > Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth. > There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed. > Form of Mist has no text to override that rule. > So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your > assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. > Also known as "I shot your raven spy doing combat and now I cant use FoM to continue, becouse I dont need the stealth anymore"

> Jesper wrote: > This reminds me of the most "this makes really no sense" > > LSJ: > > > > Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth. > > There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed. > > Form of Mist has no text to override that rule. > > So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your > > assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. > > > Also known as > > "I shot your raven spy doing combat and now I cant use FoM to continue, becouse I dont need the stealth anymore" > You're mixing "fluff lore" and rules. Dogs are allowed to have bikes and guns per the rules. It doesn't make sense neither but it's how it is. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Is it currently being blocked? Yes (continuous tense) > No. The block has already been resolved as successful. When you are in combat, the action is not being blocked, it is blocked, without continuous tense. Cf rules, section 6.2.3: "If the action is blocked,..." The opposing minion is called the blocking minion, but this has nothing to do with continuous tense, it is just the active form to build an adjective from a verb: no matter whether the minion is currently blocking, usually blocks, has blocked recently or blocked once, it is called the blocking minion. "being blocked" is poor wording anyway because it does not match the wording used in the section 6.2.2 that it is supposed to refer to. There are no blocks at this stage, only block attempts. The wording issue seems to be that there is no good passive form for "attempt to block", so "attempt" got removed in passive form. See Section 6.2.2.1 for example: "If the action targets one or more other Methuselahs (or things controlled by other Methuselahs), then the action is called directed, and only the Methuselahs who are targeted (or control the targets) may use their ready untapped minions to attempt to block the action (...) If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator" Final nitpick: Ke is right of course. The stealth rule belongs to the section that describes how to resolve block attempts, i.e. between action declaration and action resolution. There is no reason to even try to apply it to another phase.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Final nitpick: Ke is right of course. The stealth rule belongs to the section that describes how to resolve block attempts. There is no reason to even try to apply it to another phase. > It's the section of the rulebook that explains how stealth and intercept work. That is the reason to apply it. If you go this (very, very, very wrong) route, you end up saying "Hey, wait, I can play stealth and intercept however I like outside of a block attempt, because Boris the Blade says we should never apply 6.2.2.2 outside of block attempts, so let me just dump all this stealth clogging my hand outside of the block attempt." (There was, if I recall rightly, a brief period around 1995-6 when Wizards did rule something similarly bonkers.) If you can cope with the fact that the rules prevent you from playing Lost in Crowds on an action when no-one even attempts to block - say, you're the only minion on the table - then you're applying the same rulebook text outside of a block attempt you say shouldn't be applied here. Note also the variety of cards that say "even if stealth is not yet needed" (or similar) that are played well, well away from block attempts. (For example, the fairly poor Stealth Ritus .) They have that text because it's long been established that without that text, you couldn't play them. See, for example, Fata Morgana, which now says at superior that you can play it either for bleed or bleed+stealth, but was originally printed as only bleed+stealth - meaning you couldn't play it without a block attempt. It is also inevitable in a CCG like V:TES where cards are written in relatively free-form English(*) that the rulebook will not cover all interactions - it can't, so that's why we have rulings and clarifications. Nothing in the rulebook tells you what "continue an action as if unblocked" even means, even leaving out the stealth, so there have been rulings on that - for example, can the blocker-who-is-in-combat-with-you re-block? "as if unblocked" might have meant that that minion was considered to be back in a block attempt with you, or something like that, but it wasn't. The rulebook essentially only deals with stealth occurring in two places - inherently from an action/action card, or during a block attempt. It doesn't deal with Stealth Ritus. It doesn't deal with Form of Mist. It doesn't deal with superior Repulsion, which gives you stealth in a somewhat-indirect fashion (by being permanent). So there are rulings explaining how this works, because the rulebook doesn't. In general, LSJ and Pascal have leaned towards "Make unusual things behave the same way as usual things" - though doubtless we can all think of something that's made us go "Huh?" when a ruling has gone in a direction we didn't expect. Why doesn't the rulebook get expanded to deal with every niche of the game, then? I for one would happily see a rulebook that included some more examples, or more optional examples (e.g. "click here to see some more examples", which unhides a few more thorny block attempt issues, or some more practical explanations of sequencing, or whatever). Back when it was a printed thing, it had to be kept short to fit in boxes - but I would happily have seen an online version that was the same text but with some extra examples in it (marked visually somehow as not being in the printed rulebook, for people who wanted to find them quickly). But leaving aside space constraints imposed by physical boxes, one purpose of the rulebook is to let people learn the game. If you make it a legal treatise, it becomes impenetrable for someone who doesn't know the rules at all. (That is sort-of what the Detailed Play Summary aims towards, though it's still only a summary.) If during the first couple of pages of the rulebook, it had to stop explaining the Object of the Game in simple terms in order to explain withdrawal (something that doesn't turn up until section 9.2), that you can also get victory points from Gambit Accepted, and that having an empty library doesn't just leave you "bereft of influence" but can also involuntarily oust you if someone plays Brinksmanship, it would be extremely hard work to read. (*) The alternative, which would be perfectly workable for any given game, is to set down a bunch of completely defined rule phrases and any card must only use those phrases, and no card can ever do something outside the box. Easily doable for, say, a board game with a card element. Some CCGs tend more towards this end of the spectrum, too. But V:TES isn't one of them.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > "Hey, wait, I can play stealth and intercept however I like outside of a block attempt, because Boris the Blade says we should never apply 6.2.2.2 outside of block attempts, so let me just dump all this stealth clogging my hand outside of the block attempt." > That is not a consequence of what I said. The rules do not list the cards that cannot be played in each phase because the list would be too long, instead they tell which cards can be played. There is no rule that tells you that maneuvers can only be played during the Determine Range step, yet that is how it works, isn't it? Similarly, one does not need the stealth rule to know that stealth and intercept cards (i.e.: the basic template ones without specific timing instructions) are played in section 6.2.2, or at least one would not need it if it were not for bad habits of inconsistent standards in timing specification. Within that phase, the stealth rule imposes extra constraints.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Jesper wrote: > > This reminds me of the most "this makes really no sense" > > > > "I shot your raven spy doing combat and now I cant use FoM to continue, becouse I dont need the stealth anymore" > > > You're mixing "fluff lore" and rules. > Dogs are allowed to have bikes and guns per the rules. It doesn't make sense neither but it's how it is. > Okay let me rephase that then: "You are in combat with me, becouse I blocked you with these cards generating intercept that I needed. Now you take away one of these cards in the combat. Now you have higher stelath then me and we are checking even we are in combat. So no you cant be allowed to continue the action. Becouse I keep checking if you can play stealth. So the card you played to continue the action you cant play now. " Ill bet that people have/are playing a FoM even when they killed a raven. Becouse they, and everybody else, belive that you would be able to.

In fact, Boris has a point here. People say Form of Mist is the greatest hoser of 2nd Trad, but this ruling makes it impossible to use against a vampire that just used a 2nd Trad to untap and block. Why? Because now he's tapped, therefore can't block, therefore block related stuff is non sequitur??? A. My brain hurts. B. Floppy and Ankha: there are hundreds of things that break the game in bad ways and I know you guys are taking care of face-lifting allot of stuff. Instead of doing a gazilion changes (or not, while there's a possibility of reprints that could literary be game-changers), please do one or two little things (like you did with Psyche!).

Answer has been given, the troll has been fed, the topic can be closed. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Answer has been given, the troll has been fed, the topic can be closed. > I'm sorry, I'm a troll? I asked a reasoned question, I pointed out what appear to be massive holes in the ruling's logic. I then even asked for clarification about the ramifications of that ruling if the flaws aren't ironed out (or are decided to not be flaws). So far, no one has answered the, IMO, valid questions that have been raised, namely: 1)The rules clearly put 6.2.2.Resolve any block attempts, and 6.2.3.Resolve the action in different steps. The combat takes place during the "Resolve the action" step. Therefore any block attempt has been resolved, and there is no block attempt currently underway to compare stealth against. 2) If you ignore point 1, and say that FoM triggers a magical new block attempt, the current blocking minion is TAPPED... and therefore cannot block. Which means that you could never play FoM unless the opposing minion had played a wake beforehand. There were only 2 attempts at answering. One of them totally ignored the actual rule book, and its separation of block attempts from action resolution. The other re-iterated the flawed parallel between FoM and stealth cards which say "playable even if stealth is not yet needed". I call it a flawed parallel because there are no other combat cards that add stealth. Why? Because you're not allowed to play stealth in combat! FoM is already firmly in "Golden Rule" territory (card text trumps rules)... so when it says you keep going with +1 stealth, even though you've already been blocked, and are in combat... you keep going with +1 stealth. If you either justify, or hand wave 1 and 2... I still had some questions, unresolved by either the ruling or the rule book (the latter because this situation is outside the normal rules). 3)Since your stealth is compared to the opposing minion's intercept, does that mean he MUST block if possible? After all, this ruling seems to assume an ongoing block attempt. Example of why this could matter: OBF, PRO, with faceless night... the opponent Majesties up... is he then assumed to be attempting to block... therefore tapping if he doesn't have/want to play extra intercept to counter FoM? OR 4)If the block attempt is optional. Can you point at ANY legal blocker and use their intercept as a springboard to enable you to play FoM? It makes as much sense as comparing your stealth to a tapped minion's intercept. Sorry to be pushy, but none of my questions were answered rigorously, and the last 2 weren't addressed at all. Edit: I'm pushing this because, as almost everybody realizes the game is already quite complicated and arcane. This is a giant hurdle to new players... and while you can try to keep them away from sharp corners during their intro period... it helps to smooth out as many corners as we can. In situations like this, you're left with the choice of either blasting the newbie with all the rulings and errata on a card when they first encounter it (which drives deeper the sense of enormity to learn the game)... or you can wait till they trip over this or something like it in game. That leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. If they're lucky, and it happens in a casual game, maybe you just rewind... but in a tournament, you may just lose the player... or at least a lot of their enthusiasm. Since the "Golden Rule" option allows everything to work smoothly and intuitively, while the current ruling is incomplete AND complicated AND non-intuitive (and from a tight reading of the rules, just wrong)... I see no upside and many downsides to keeping it as is.

In case any of you haven't read the current text of Form of Mist: Form of Mist Strike: dodge. Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting and needs stealth when this strike resolves, he or she may burn 1 blood after combat ends to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked. A vampire may play only one Form of Mist at superior each action.

We all agree the streamlining of rules is on the agenda. I think your hang up here is in resolution(s). I bleed, you block, I SCE. This action is over. Form of mist adds if I'm acting and needed stealth (because if Enkidu rushes you we are fighting after a successful action, etc) the action keeps going. Now, the action was already announced, blockers declared, stealth/intercept math done, combat started. We pick back up in the same action. I'm acting. You blocked successfully. FOM gave me an additional stealth. its the same action. Stealth/intercept is the same. I cant play duplicate action modifiers. I think its the same block attempt, for the purposes of aching beauty or whatever. We do math. I bled with Rachel Brandywine, you block with second trad on Anson. I FoM. We are tapped, im bleeding with Rachel(Googly Moogly) you are blocking with Anson. You have 2 intercept, me 1 stealth. I can play crocs tongue. You pay. I play deny, we are tied, I play confusion at DEM. Im currently past you. You can play intercept, and i can play stealth if you do. Action is still going, block attempt failed, i have priority to do whatever if I hadn't pumped, etc. You can bounce or reduce or say its through, I get priority and you burn pool. Its the same action, but a different step. Golden rule is card beats rules, so rules say its done, card puts us back to what was done, everything is the same as it was since its the same action. We are all aware this shows complexity, but is frankly less terrible than other stuff. Its a known issue. I think the troll comment referenced a trend this week with a certain player picking at wording on card names that this was similarly constructed as.

There is a very simple rule: you can't add stealth if the acting minion has already more stealth than the blocking minion has intercept. That's all. Many you're not comfortable with "blocking minion". The blocking minion is the minion that has blocked the action, and is still blocking the action. Because yes, the action is still "being blocked" after the block attempt succeeded, even in combat. That's why Form of Mist states that the action "continues [...] as if unblocked." groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/EX-3_9zu5Zw/5CxtqNcawM0J > LSJ wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that > > if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked > > by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that > > Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all > > because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and > > the vampire with intercept is tapped. > He needs stealth. > There is a current blocking minion with intercept >= stealth. > > > And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of > > FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule > > that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting > > vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be > > perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire > > didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02. > Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of > the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Malcolm wrote: > I'm pushing this because, as almost everybody realizes the game is already quite complicated and arcane. This is a giant hurdle to new players... > Can we please stop invoking this during discussions of rules issues? Or at least ask rules questions and discuss them with the blanket assumption that we're all concerned about it? Every rules question represents a potential hurdle to new (and current) players.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Malcolm wrote: > > I'm pushing this because, as almost everybody realizes the game is already quite complicated and arcane. This is a giant hurdle to new players... > > > Can we please stop invoking this during discussions of rules issues? Or at least ask rules questions and discuss them with the blanket assumption that we're all concerned about it? Every rules question represents a potential hurdle to new (and current) players. > Sorry Ben, but you will notice I didn't include it in my initial post... and really only felt the need to bring it up in response to being called a troll. I wasn't actually speaking to the rules at that point, but rather my motives.

Again, we need to proceed from a position where the rulebook covers the common situations and lays down general rules, but because V:TES has free-form card text, things may not be explicitly handled by the rulebook because they're specific to a small number of cards. Where this leaves an ambiguity or a hole, a ruling needs to be made one way or the other (or one of several possibilities, whatever). The nature of rulings is that there is more than one possible way to go with something, and this is the one chosen. You could do option A, you could do option B, you could do option C but that introduces extra overhead, you could do option D but that seems counter-productive, you could do option E but that would seem to interpret the card in a way that means the card does nothing, you could do option F which seems textually valid but that would mean that an excellent card gets better etc. Pick one - and, in general, assume that LSJ or Pascal have picked the option in good faith. On top of that, V:TES has, for most of its life, also followed the general principle of precedent - if it works like this in one situation, it should follow the same rules (so far as possible) in another situation. (One or two of the Wizards net-reps and decsiions pre-LSJ were somewhat more cavalier in their "Do it this way, because it's cool" elements. I think a gentleman named Spike was involved.) Taking completely unrelated examples to the current shouting: - the rulebook does not define what "steal blood" means except as a combat effect. So how does it work on Leech? That's not a combat effect. But generally, we cope just fine making them behave in exactly the same way, except that the action-based version doesn't require strike resolution and all that. - "equipping" a minion can happen in several ways, including some non-action ways (e.g. Concealed Weapon). But they behave very similarly in a lot of ways. Ditto a bunch of things like "recruit" with Piper. > Malcolm wrote: > So far, no one has answered the, IMO, valid questions that have been raised, namely: > 1)The rules clearly put 6.2.2.Resolve any block attempts, and 6.2.3.Resolve the action in different steps. The combat takes place during the "Resolve the action" step. Therefore any block attempt has been resolved, and there is no block attempt currently underway to compare stealth against. > There is a general principle that stealth is only playable when there is a blocking minion with sufficient intercept, expressed under 6.2.2. Blocking minion is actually defined in a way that most people ignore: Rules Glossary: Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action. So you do, in fact, have a blocking minion with sufficient intercept (excluding things like killing a retainer in combat). Form of Mist isn't played during a block attempt, but the block combat is part of the block. Combat occurs as part of the block - not after the block. (So Cats' Guidance and Freak Drive are played after the combat, not before). [RTR 19980623] So, since 6.2.2 says: Stealth can be added during an action only when needed (that is, only if the action is currently being blocked and the blocking minion has enough intercept to block the acting minion) The block combat is part of the block, so it can reasonably be said that "the action is being blocked", and there is a "blocking minion" with intercept. Could you interpret this a different way? Apparently so. But this is the nature of rulings: there is more than one valid interpretation, pick one. One has been picked. > Malcolm wrote: > 2) If you ignore point 1, and say that FoM triggers a magical new block attempt, the current blocking minion is TAPPED... and therefore cannot block. Which means that you could never play FoM unless the opposing minion had played a wake beforehand. > The rules on when stealth is necessary don't actually say anything about the tapped status of the blocking minion. There are two ways in which you can be a blocking minion - both during an attempt, and being the actually successful blocking minion. Being a blocking minion during an attempt requires you to be untapped, or to play a wake-like effect, or similar. Being the blocking minion using the second leg of the definition of "blocking minion" does not require you to be tapped - indeed, a lot of the time, the successfully blocking minion will be tapped by virtue of having successfully blocked. Note that the term "blocking minion" is used on quite a few cards long, long after the block attempt has been dealt with, dealing with a minion in the block combat or after the block combat. So while the term "blocking minion" is probably more commonly used to talk about the would-be blocker, it's not only used there. Examples: Shadow Boxing Only usable after a combat resulting from a block. Not usable if the blocking minion is ready. This vampire burns 1 blood to continue the action as if unblocked. The block combat has happened, but there is still a blocking minion. Ambulance After a combat between this acting minion and a blocking minion, you may tap the Ambulance to continue the action as if unblocked. Similar with Ambulance. Backstab Only usable by a blocking vampire. Only usable on the first round of combat. [cel] This vampire gets first strike on his or her initial strike this round. Backstab - a more specific form than just "blocking minion", it requires a vampire. But it's much the same thing, and we're in combat. So we're pretty clear that we have blocking minions for the duration of the block combat and indeed afterwards, I think. > Malcolm wrote: > I call it a flawed parallel because there are no other combat cards that add stealth. Why? Because you're not allowed to play stealth in combat! FoM is already firmly in "Golden Rule" territory (card text trumps rules)... so when it says you keep going with +1 stealth, even though you've already been blocked, and are in combat... you keep going with +1 stealth. > This is the "Ah, card text says something, so I can obliterate anything else I want" maneuver. That's not how the Golden Rule operates or, pretty much, has ever operated. The effect of the Golden Rule is that - to the extent the card contradicts the rules - the card takes precedence. The rest of the card interacts with the game in the normal way. For example, it has been argued - using much the same interpretation of the Golden Rule - that Enkil Cog should let you declare any action, even when tapped . But no, Enkil Cog contradicts the normal rules on when you take actions. It doesn't contradict the rules on being tapped. It doesn't contradict the rules on being ready - so a torporized vampire cannot announce a bleed by saying that Enkil Cog lets him announce an action, so he can announce any action he damn well pleases. In so far as stealth and intercept can't be played in combat, Form of Mist has to contradict that or it would be unplayable. After that, it works the same way as other stealth. That's the ruling. > Malcolm wrote: > 3)Since your stealth is compared to the opposing minion's intercept, does that mean he MUST block if possible? After all, this ruling seems to assume an ongoing block attempt. > No, they don't, and no, it doesn't. It supposes there is a blocking minion with sufficient intercept. There (in most cases) is, much like there's a blocking minion to play Backstab, or a blocking minion after combat for Shadow Boxing. One might have said that the blocking minion recommenced their block attempt - but that's not necessary. > Malcolm wrote: > 4)If the block attempt is optional. Can you point at ANY legal blocker and use their intercept as a springboard to enable you to play FoM? It makes as much sense as comparing your stealth to a tapped minion's intercept. > No, because they're not a blocking minion. Remember: Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action. Is the other random minion you want to point at currently attempting to block? No. Are they the minion who has successfully blocked? No. So they're not a blocking minion. So they're not relevant to the test set out in 6.2.2.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > The nature of rulings is that there is more than one possible way to go with something, and this is the one chosen. > It all comes down to this: "LSJ said." Malcolm Spyre, I'm with you, I don't like the ruling either. Sup. FoM doesn't give you stealth during combat with a blocking minion, it's giving you stealth after combat with the blocking minion when there's not necessarily any blocking minion at all. Since you can't gain stealth unless someone's blocking, you shouldn't be able to play Sup FoM unless the minion played a Wake card and is still blocking. I see that LSJ wanted to enforce "no unnecessary stealth" no matter what. I would have ruled that FoM uses Golden Rule to gain stealth outside of block attempts. But, that's not what LSJ did. It's so corner case, only like 6 people are even aware of it. It's really a non-issue. Just play it how you want with your own play group. I doubt most event judges would be up on this. You sure seem to have hit a nerve though. You are such a troll.

> Ankha wrote: > That's all. Many you're not comfortable with "blocking minion". > I have no problem with that. The minion needs to remember that until after combat to be able to play Fast Reaction or Cat's Guidance. I have a problem with redefining the word "need". Stealth has no effect in combat, therefore a vampire cannot possibly need stealth during combat. The rules on that part are poorly written but not wrong. It is the ruling alone that created that mess. > > LSJ wrote: > He needs stealth. > There is a current blocking minion with intercept >= stealth. > Do you see what he did here? The rules do not say "There is a current blocking minion", they say "the action is being blocked". LSJ chose to interpret it as the passive form "a minion is blocking the action", but that is only one of two grammatically valid interpretations. In the same section 6.2.2 we also have at least one case where "the action can be blocked" is used as the passive form of "a minion can attempt to block the action". Which one do you think is the correct one? The one that that says that a vampire needs stealth during combat or the one that talks about block attempts in the section dedicated to block attempts? Everyone can make mistakes, even LSJ. Using precedents is good, but it does not mean that one should stick to buggy rulings forever. EDIT: Under the current interpretation, a vampire is also considered to be needing stealth after a successful block, but before combat. Example: Nahum Enosh attempts to equip a Sengir Dagger, gets blocked, plays Gift of Bellona and replaces it with a Lost in Crowds. He can cycle Lost in Crowds now to draw into more combat, although stealth cycling is exactly what the rule was supposed to prevent. And if the blocker wants to play too, they can keep playing as much stealth and intercept as they want while the rest of the table facepalms. Same goes for any vampire who is happy to be blocked but still wants to cycle his stealth.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Under the current interpretation, a vampire is also considered to be needing stealth after a successful block, but before combat. Example: Nahum Enosh attempts to equip a Sengir Dagger, gets blocked, plays Gift of Bellona and replaces it with a Lost in Crowds. He can cycle Lost in Crowds now to draw into more combat, although stealth cycling is exactly what the rule was supposed to prevent. And if the blocker wants to play too, they can keep playing as much stealth and intercept as they want while the rest of the table facepalms. Same goes for any vampire who is happy to be blocked but still wants to cycle his stealth. > How so? The rules are quite clear on when action modifiers and reactions can be played "Action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time before resolution during an action (unless otherwise noted on card text)" That being blocked counts as reaching resolution is something that should probably be more clearly stated in the rules, but it's been confirmed several times (usually in relation to questions about Change of Target). Once Gift of Bellona has been played, it's not longer legal to play Lost in Crowds. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> Malcolm wrote: > I'm sorry, I'm a troll? > > I asked a reasoned question, I pointed out what appear to be massive holes in the ruling's logic. I then even asked for clarification about the ramifications of that ruling if the flaws aren't ironed out (or are decided to not be flaws). > Let's be honest for a moment : there is a rash of absolutely inane questions based on so strange interpretation of rules that, for someone who only go in the forum irregulary, it really look like thoses question are only trying to "corner" the rule guys for fun. Now, your question look a lot more reasonable than the guy who seem to believe non-native english speaker are automatically incapable of answering questions. But still, your basic point is at best very strange, because it hinge on thinking that being in the middle of a block (during a combat) mean the blocked already ended.

> drnlmza wrote: > How so? The rules are quite clear on when action modifiers and reactions can be played > > "Action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time before resolution during an action (unless otherwise noted on card text)" > > That being blocked counts as reaching resolution is something that should probably be more clearly stated in the rules, but it's been confirmed several times (usually in relation to questions about Change of Target). Once Gift of Bellona has been played, it's not longer legal to play Lost in Crowds. > Point taken (and it was James who first suggested earlier that restricting the stealth rule to section 6.2.2 would allow players to dump stealth in other phases). But that only makes the reach of the stealth rule more buggy: if there is already another written rule that prevents stealth from being played outside of section 6.2.2, then what is the point of having the stealth rule span the whole action? Let us review the consequences: 1) As the action is declared: you need to add extra legalese to cards like Stealth Ritus because by default they are unplayable. Creating extra clutter on cards is a problem. 2) Between declaration and resolution, things work as intended. 3) After block resolution, only specific cards can be played, so an extra rule is not needed. FWIW, one can still use untimed effects like Maris Streck or media stations at that point. It might not be problem now, but it could be if there was an effect allowing to discard cards for stealth or intercept for example (I thought there was already one, but couldn't find it). 4) During combat, we got that senseless ruling on Form of Mist. If anything, FoM should treated as Stealth Ritus, because the stealth it grants is only useful against future block attempts. 5) After resolution, again there is no playable card that grants stealth, so no need for an extra rule.

> Let's be honest for a moment : there is a rash of absolutely inane questions based on so strange interpretation of rules that, for someone who only go in the forum irregulary, it really look like thoses question are only trying to "corner" the rule guys for fun. > I can speak only for myself, but trying to "corner" the rules guys is not the intent. The intent is to suggest how to make the rulebook clearer. And let's be honest about something else: the rules guys, or the one in particular calling posters trolls, should not react by lumping all posters who express frustration with the rulebook as trolls. If you don't like the posts, don't respond. Or at least understand that the "troll" posts are not 100% serious questions. These are people making fun. Let's lighten up and not be so sensitive. > Now, your question look a lot more reasonable than the guy who seem to believe non-native english speaker are automatically incapable of answering questions. > That is one poster out of a handful. This poster was probably making fun of the rules. Big deal. > But still, your basic point is at best very strange, because it hinge on thinking that being in the middle of a block (during a combat) mean the blocked already ended. > It may be strange to you, but this is not exactly intuitive to somebody who doesn't fully understand how to play the game. Is it fair to call this poster a troll? No. Should we all grow up a little and realize we are talking about a card game and not take posts making "strange" points so seriously? Yes.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Let's be honest for a moment : there is a rash of absolutely inane questions based on so strange interpretation of rules that, for someone who only go in the forum irregulary, it really look like thoses question are only trying to "corner" the rule guys for fun. > > > I can speak only for myself, but trying to "corner" the rules guys is not the intent. The intent is to suggest how to make the rulebook clearer. And let's be honest about something else: the rules guys, or the one in particular calling posters trolls, should not react by lumping all posters who express frustration with the rulebook as trolls. > I had my moderator hat on at that time. The troll I was designating was Jesper, but others apparently joined the fray. We had contact since then, and here's the answer I made: > I'm glad to hear that. Nevertheless, the "Rules question" forum is dedicated to answering rules questions. Once the question has been answered, reopening the topic again and again is not constructive, and make it hard for people that looks for the answer to the original post to find what they want in 3 pages of endless discussion. I'll quote someone you agreed with: > > > 2wayspeaker wrote: > > I hang out on the rulesboard a lot and am happy about the clear and expansive responses provided by Ankha and James. For me personally it's a good answer. But for the person looking for it it's bad because it's a 12 post long topic that might or might not answer theirs and includes a lot of speculation and guesswork as well as the answer. > > > If you want to be constructive, create a new topic in the "Generic V:TES Discussion" section with a summary of points you'd like to see addressed. It's easier for the rule team to see what can be done, instead of browsing all posts to see the interesting points. Starting multiple fires in out-of-topic posts and playing the devil's advocate too long is assimilated to trolling and can't be constructive (I'm stressing that point because you look sincere). > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > If you don't like the posts, don't respond. Or at least understand that the "troll" posts are not 100% serious questions. These are people making fun. Let's lighten up and not be so sensitive. > It's not a fun I share. For the comfort of all users of the forums, moderator exist and moderate topic. That's what I do. I don't like living in trash, so I clean up the mess from times to times. Honestly, the last four "hot" topics are not constructive (or at least the 1% of interesting arguments is lost in noise), and I'll certainly not look at them again. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director