Hello everybody.
I was asking myself if I can play Reform body in the following situation: I play amaranth in combat to diablerise an opposing vampire. Then, immediately a blood hunt is called and let's suppose I lose the referendum and the vote is for the burning of my vampire. Can I play Reform Body (as a combat card) to protect my vampire from being burned? When the referendum is called, am I not still in the combat phase? The rules mention that the blood hunt referendum is not an action and that action modifiers and reactions cannot be played, but I guess that since I am in combat I can still play Reform body as a combat card.
Am I right?
> smf4 wrote:
> Hello everybody.
>
> I was asking myself if I can play Reform body in the following situation: I play amaranth in combat to diablerise an opposing vampire. Then, immediately a blood hunt is called and let's suppose I lose the referendum and the vote is for the burning of my vampire. Can I play Reform Body (as a combat card) to protect my vampire from being burned? When the referendum is called, am I not still in the combat phase? The rules mention that the blood hunt referendum is not an action and that action modifiers and reactions cannot be played, but I guess that since I am in combat I can still play Reform body as a combat card.
> Am I right?
>
No, bloodhunt happens after combat if any.
-1 Strength
> smf4 wrote:
> . Can I play Reform Body (as a combat card) to protect my vampire from being burned?
>
No. Essentially, the Blood Hunt is treated as being not part of any action, so whatever the background to it is (a diablerie action, Amaranth, Veles Hunt, edit to add: I meant Abactor) is irrelevant.
[LSJ 20010809]
> LSJ wrote:
> > So can you use Reform Body (as a combat card) after being burned in a Blood
> > Hunt after an Amaranth?
> No. See the body of the message James cited for an extended explanation
> that should make that clear.
>
The extended explanation is in this post: [LSJ 20000426]
> LSJ wrote:
> So the "problem" is not really the Castle, it's in the hard-to-pin
> status (and timing) of the Blood Hunt referendum.
>
> The Blood Hunt should be part of the "resolution" of a diablerie
> (as specified in the Revised Rulebook, section 6.5.5).
>
> The Blood Hunt itself is not an action (as specified in each of the
> rulebooks) - it can't be blocked, can be called by a "non-active"
> Methuselah, and action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played.
>
> I've been overstating the last part when I've said "modifiers and
> reactions cannot be played because there is no action to modify
> or react to". The case is properly stated as the rulebooks state:
> "calling the Blood Hunt is not an action" - which doesn't mean
> that there is no action taking place. Action Modifiers (like
> Bewitching Oration) and Reaction cards (like Surprise Influence,
> Delaying Tactics, and Political Backlash) cannot be played on the
> Blood Hunt referendum because *that* is not an action - not because
> there is no action at all.
>
> To sum up:
> The Blood Hunt is conducted at the time of diablerie (during the
> resolution of a Diablerie action, for instance). After the Blood
> Hunt, the acting vampire (if he's still around) can play Freak
> Drive or be affected by "after action" effects like Daring the
> Dawn or Day Operation, etc.
>
> Hopefully that will resolve all of the conflicts about that.
> My apologies for the earlier (misleading) overstatements.
>
The bit I've highlighted is where I think LSJ was taking his thinking from - the Blood Hunt and its destruction are not an action, and action-y things can't be used at that point, and combat only happens during actions. Which is roughly what he goes on to say:
[LSJ 20010814]
> LSJ wrote:
> And the answer is "no" for the same reason - Blood Hunt is not part of
> the combat in the same way that it is not part of the action - it is
> its own little isolated event.
>
It's also in the Detailed Play Summary, VIII B:
A referendum is held to call a blood hunt to burn the diablerist. This is handled indepently of the action and any combat. [6.5.6]
> GreyB wrote:
> No, bloodhunt happens after combat if any.
>
Incorrect reasoning.
The Blood Hunt is isolated from the combat, and combat cards can't be played - but the underlying combat isn't over.
The following ruling is:
- the proposition that the diablerie and blood hunt are both conducted before combat ends (so an Illusions of the Kindred vampire is still around)
- LSJ ruling that's not true
- LSJ correcting himself
[LSJ 20010809]
> LSJ wrote:
> > > Since the diablerie is in combat (else the IotK vampire couldn't commit
> > > it), the Blood Hunt must be too - so the IotK vampire is still around to
> > > be targeted by it.
> >
> > The blood hunt comes after. The diablerie ends combat (since it results
> > in one of the combatants being no longer ready).
> >
> > This is also the basis for "diablerist cannot play Reform Body".
> > If the blood hunt happened in combat (which it doesn't), then he could.
>
> Scratch that. James is correct. The blood hunt is part of the
> diablerie, so occurs (in the case of Amaranth) before the Illusionary
> vampire is removed from the game.
>
Also, this gem from a certain floppyzedolfin:
[LSJ 20090506]
> LSJ, wrote:
> > Blood Hunt, if any, is called right after Amaranth is played. Taste of
> > Vitae (or whatever other card) cannot be played before the Blood Hunt
> > is called. If the vampire survives the Blood Hunt, he may still play
> > Taste of Vitae.
>
> Correct.
>
Holy complication batman...
Would've been a lot simpler if the blood hunt was something a Methusaleh could call after an action where diablerie happened has been resolved. I now see it's an automatic referendum in the rulebook, has it been changed in the last 20 years? I realy thought it was something a Methusaleh could call and it even being optional..
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> Holy complication batman...
>
> Would've been a lot simpler if the blood hunt was something a Methusaleh could call after an action where diablerie happened has been resolved. I now see it's an automatic referendum in the rulebook, has it been changed in the last 20 years? I realy thought it was something a Methusaleh could call and it even being optional..
>
I looked at the rulebooks of the different editions.
In Jyhad, it was optional. In Sabbat Wars, it was still optional but it was made clear that Blood Hunt wasn't part of the action so no action modifiers etc. could be played. Since Camarilla Edition, the Blood Hunt is automatically called.
I may have skipped some editions, but it's been like this for more than 14 years. And I can't see why being optional would be more simple than being automatic.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> In Jyhad, it was optional. In Sabbat Wars, it was still optional but it was made clear that Blood Hunt wasn't part of the action so no action modifiers etc. could be played. Since Camarilla Edition, the Blood Hunt is automatically called.
>
Righto, never read rulebooks past Sabbat Wars and only even skimmed the sabbat wars rulebook...
> And I can't see why being optional would be more simple than being automatic.
>
Well not the optional part, but a very old (perhaps wrong) interpretation in our region was that it happened (could be called by any methusaleh) after the action (including combat) was concluded. Which for one would've made this thread never exist.
So now it happens (for at least 14 years) inside a special bubble inside an action... check
-1 Strength
> GreyB wrote:
> Well not the optional part, but a very old (perhaps wrong) interpretation in our region was that it happened (could be called by any methusaleh) after the action (including combat) was concluded. Which for one would've made this thread never exist.
>
We can help make threads like this not exist anymore with a simple tweak to the rulebook. Let's read the offending part:
> "This referendum is not an action, so it cannot be blocked, and action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Otherwise, this referendum is handled just like any other."
>
Combat cards are not mentioned in the list of cards that cannot be played. Hence this thread and all the others.
> GreyB wrote:
> Holy complication batman...
>
> Would've been a lot simpler if the blood hunt was something a Methusaleh could call after an action where diablerie happened has been resolved. I now see it's an automatic referendum in the rulebook, has it been changed in the last 20 years? I realy thought it was something a Methusaleh could call and it even being optional..
>
A few rulings / rules changes have affected the Blood Hunt over time:
1) In Sabbat, there was the concept of the Wild Hunt, in the rules supplement. Except cards still talked about Blood Hunts. So the weird idea of the Wild Hunt was abolished.
2) When the "atomic diablerie" ruling was made, the Blood Hunt referendum was the final part of diablerie. Now, the Blood Hunt referendum takes place after the atomic diablerie. The atomic diablerie ruling is now in the rulebook: 6.5.5 "The steps of diablerie are treated as a single unit. No effects can be used to interrupt the diablerie; effects may be played either before or after, as appropriate."
3) The referendum to call the blood hunt is non-optional.
4) Exactly why you can't play action modifiers etc. As LSJ says in the bit I quoted, just before the orange highlight-y text:
I've been overstating the last part when I've said "modifiers and
reactions cannot be played because there is no action to modify
or react to".
So there was some confusion on the point. The referendum and blood hunt were clarified to happen at the time of the diablerie (during combat, during action resolution, or whenever the diablerie happened).
Because the diablerist can burn there and then, it can stop later card plays. For example, if an acting vampire plays Amaranth and gets burned, they can't play cards after combat, such as Freak Drive etc.
So after the Blood hunt concluded, can I play "Reform body" as a reaction to be burned if the blood hunt concludes to burn my vampire?
Juanxo.
Baron of Santiago, Chile
I've always hated that actions/reaction cards can't be played in the blood hunt. Your power to influence votes? Nope, not available now. Yet another reason Dread Gaze sucks.
> JUANXO wrote:
> So after the Blood hunt concluded, can I play "Reform body" as a reaction to be burned if the blood hunt concludes to burn my vampire?
>
No (nor as a combat card).
The blood hunt is handled independently of any action or combat, so you can't play action modifiers or reactions. That includes Dread Gaze etc. for votes in polling, but carrying out the burning of the vampire is also part of the blood hunt.
I have some question about Reform Body & Amaranth,but first want to ask for rules of Reform Body.
Reform Body,
Combat/Reaction,
Vicissitude
Only usable by a vampire that would be burned. Usable by a vampire in torpor. Usable by a locked vampire.
[vic] This vampire goes to torpor instead.
[VIC] As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood.
Amaranth,
Combat,
Only usable by a vampire who can commit diablerie when the opposing vampire would go to torpor. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. Diablerize the opposing vampire instead.
1) So correct way to play Reform Body:if in combat vampire have 2 blood,and take 4 aggravated damage,need to be burned,first burn all blood to have,then play Reform Body and goes torpor(if have sup,gain also 2 blood),right?
2) If someone want to diablerie vampire,this vampire in torpor can play Reform Body without burn any blood,right? and action is counted as sucesful,acting vampire can play ac.mod. after sucesful action(or blood hunt need to be called)?
3) vampires A and B in combat,vampire B lose all blood and need to go in torpor. A vampire play Amaranth,if there exist window for Reform Body(and blood hunt)?
4) vampires A and B in combat,B need to be burned because take more aggravated damage. B vampire play Reform Body,if there window for Amaranth of vampire A?
1. Yes. Math says you burn, so you can play RB, the rule where you burn is replaced by card saying you go to torpor instead. Gain 2 if @
2. Action is successful, so as a reaction you play RB, again, using its instead line to replace your burning. Diablery isn't successful. No stopping for bloodhunt, because it wasn't successful. So they can freak drive, yes.
3. Works, they amaranth, burning g is part of diablery, "Instead" line triggers, go to torpor.
4. Not sure. Probably, because you're going to torpor in combat. Like with the card. So I'm pretty sure you're a target. The other unknown is you can probably play RB again to replace the being burned part of diablery.
But not certain....
As per card text Lay low is played after the diablerie (I am assuming diablerie with amaranth here). Since Lay low is both a combat card and an action modifier, then the combat must - after the diablerie - have been resumed again, otherwise Lay low wouldn't be playable. Right? Or is Lay low a case of card text doing something contradictory to the rules?
Name: Lay Low
Cardtype: Action Modifier/Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Requires an anarch.
Only usable when a blood hunt referendum passes and would burn this anarch. Move this anarch to the uncontrolled region (breaking any temporary control effects). Any cards and counters on this vampire remain with him or her (but are out of play as long as the vampire remains uncontrolled).
Lackeyname: Kris
> Khaan wrote:
> As per card text Lay low is played after the diablerie (I am assuming diablerie with amaranth here). Since Lay low is both a combat card and an action modifier, then the combat must - after the diablerie - have been resumed again, otherwise Lay low wouldn't be playable. Right? Or is Lay low a case of card text doing something contradictory to the rules?
>
> Name: Lay Low
> Cardtype: Action Modifier/Combat
> Cost: 1 blood
> Requires an anarch.
> Only usable when a blood hunt referendum passes and would burn this anarch. Move this anarch to the uncontrolled region (breaking any temporary control effects). Any cards and counters on this vampire remain with him or her (but are out of play as long as the vampire remains uncontrolled).
>
I feel like it wouldn't hurt making it instead of printed icons;
It describes its own oddball window, "would" replaces the real rules where she would burn to insert the cards effect instead.
Or I'm wrong and theres another reason, but currently theres no reaction that would enable lay low via rulebook 6.5.2, where you block a leave torpor action and eat them. So making it would make it less garbage.
But I think its like psyche, where it explains when to play it, even outside of typical windows.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> I feel like it wouldn't hurt making it instead of printed icons;
> It describes its own oddball window, "would" replaces the real rules where she would burn to insert the cards effect instead.
> Or I'm wrong and theres another reason, but currently theres no reaction that would enable lay low via rulebook 6.5.2, where you block a leave torpor action and eat them. So making it would make it less garbage.
> But I think its like psyche, where it explains when to play it, even outside of typical windows.
>
per the rulebook
Reflex cards: A minion can play a reflex card to cancel a specified kind of card played against him as it is played.
But i'd totally be okay with expanding the role and definition of reflex cards to fill in those weird cases that dont really fit in very well.
I put together a deck with:
A vampire plays Illusions of the kindred
The illusion fetches flamethrower with Horrid reality, and
Amaranths the opposing vampire, and
Plays lay low when/if blood hunt referendum passes, and
goes into uncontrolled with the flamethrower intact.
My understanding of various rulings is that this works both with an acting and reacting vampire as Lay low is playable as a combat card.
Lackeyname: Kris