Hi all
A rules question (or clarification really, pretty sure I have this right)
When an Ally has the ability to play a discipline card, if it costs blood, will it cost them life?
Take the Nocturn for instance - 1 life Demon with basic Obtenebration. There aren't many Obtenebration cards that don't cost blood (a dodge, a press to end, a maneuver, +1 intercept, inflict 1 damage action, +1 stealth on a non-bleed action).
Now that's fine, gives you some utility. But here's the follow up
If a card costs 1 blood, does the Nocturn pay in life - and if that's the case (ie, burn one life for +1 stealth during a bleed), will the action be successful before it dies? Similarly, if it burns 1 blood for, say, Shadow Strike, when will it die? Will it get to strike if it uses it at the strike stage - or if it uses it earlier for the maneuver will it still be alive to strike? I'm assuming it dies immediately so it would all be futile
Happy for any input, looked through the rules and couldn't quite figure it out
I've seen Nocturn play Shadow Twin. I've had more luck with them not playing with them. Using Weighted walking Stick and/or Target Vitals is a funny Surprise.
I suppose if some crazy scenario popped up where Unmasking was in play and 1 single Nocturn had to stop 2 bleeds to keep you alive you could block, Arms of the Abyss, then On the Qui Vive to block again. But most of the time it's a waste of a dodge, unless you really need to cycle cards.
For combat, it dies, so not much would matter. If you play a blood coating modifier, it dies, so the action fizzles.
> desmondkenny wrote:
> Hi all
>
> A rules question (or clarification really, pretty sure I have this right)
>
> When an Ally has the ability to play a discipline card, if it costs blood, will it cost them life?
>
See www.vekn.net/rulebook#1.6.3.minioncards
> Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a vampire." In these cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all effects generated by the play of the card, including duration effects (like "for the remainder of combat"). The ally's life represents his blood (to pay costs, for example). Any blood he gains or loses as a vampire equates to a gain or loss of life for the ally. For purposes of that card, the ally has a capacity of 1 by default (for use if the card requires an older vampire or a vampire of a given capacity). If the ally gains life in excess of his capacity, it doesn't drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead. The ally is treated as a vampire only for the effect generated from playing the card. In particular, the ally is not treated as a vampire for effects the card has from being in play (like "the vampire with this card" effects).
>
> desmondkenny wrote:
> If a card costs 1 blood, does the Nocturn pay in life - and if that's the case (ie, burn one life for +1 stealth during a bleed), will the action be successful before it dies?
>
Not if it burns its last life during the action, to pay an action modifier for instance.
> desmondkenny wrote:
> Similarly, if it burns 1 blood for, say, Shadow Strike, when will it die? Will it get to strike if it uses it at the strike stage - or if it uses it earlier for the maneuver will it still be alive to strike? I'm assuming it dies immediately so it would all be futile
>
The Nocturn plays the card to declare the strike, pays its costs, and burns because it has no life. Combat ends here.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> The Nocturn plays the card to declare the strike, pays its costs, and burns because it has no life. Combat ends here.
>
I'm confused by this interaction, comparing with the Bima ruling for actions: groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/bima$20card$20cost%7Csort:date/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/z2DGSFph6sM/IjJB89nbtlsJ
In the case of an action, the cost is paid at the time of resolution (not at time of declaration) as outlined in the rulebook. I've seen players oust their prey and themselves simultaneously because of this ruling, declaring the ousting bleed with Lorrie Dunsirn while both players sit at 1 pool - and we cited that Bima rule as the reason it worked.
Extending that logic, I thought that card costs were paid when the effect resolved (or failed to, in the case of a few cancellation effects). If that logic followed, the Nocturn would pay for the strike card in the strike resolution phase (assuming the strike is only a strike, not a strike plus some other earlier-in-the-round thing) and its effect should then be handled.
Instead, I see a statement that the cost payment window is different (declaration vs resolution) for at least some cards other than actions. Is there a source ruling for payment as declared? I'll need it for my playgroup....this kinda of stuff comes up a lot with Bill Troxel sits at one's table.
Thanks.
Strike cards are paid when the strike card is played, like for example, if you strike with entombment and the opponent plays majesty, you still pay the cost for the entombment even though the strike never resolves. If you manuever to long with Shadow Strike you pay the cost when you play it for the manuever.
Hmmm, fair enough - I overlooked the whole "play for your strike despite my S:CE" thing as I got hung up on the stupid Bima ruling,
Parsing that POS has been a thorn in my side since it was issued.
To be fair, paying at strike resolution would probably be an improvement over the current rule. It would be a simplification, would increase the value of currently unplayable strike cards, and would provide situations where Dodge might be more interesting than Combat Ends.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> To be fair, paying at strike resolution would probably be an improvement over the current rule. It would be a simplification, would increase the value of currently unplayable strike cards, and would provide situations where Dodge might be more interesting than Combat Ends.
>
I agree that it would be quite interesting. I think the current way flows more intuitively (you still strike regardless of if it hits), but truckloads of cards that would need light to intense erratta to otherwise be playable would suddenly become an option if S:CE didn't make them such a liability.
Top of my head:
Body Flare, Coma, and Bonecraft.
I'm not super adamant about a change being needed though, as this would be counterintuitive to cards that grant manuevers but are Also a strike (and cost, of course) .
But it's not a super alluring thing compared to other changes or even just cost errata on some cards.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> To be fair, paying at strike resolution would probably be an improvement over the current rule. It would be a simplification,
>
All the cards (except action cards) are paid when played. How adding a new exception would simplify the rules?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I also don't think changing strike costs to be paid when resolving the strike would simplify anything, quite the contrary. I consider the current system to be simpler. You play a card and you pay for it. Simple, yes?
The suggestion would introduce a period of time during which opponent can play cards that change your calculations, and introduce new rules quirks to remember, such as what happens when you take enviromental damage during strike resolution. Which happens first? Do you get to pay or not? Theft of vitae, etc. In fact any damage taken would already create a conundrum between paying for costs and losing blood at the same time.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Ankha wrote:
> All the cards (except action cards) are paid when played. How adding a new exception would simplify the rules?
>
But all the cards (except action cards) resolve when played, and action cards are paid when they resolve. So the general rule is: all cards are paid when they resolve.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > All the cards (except action cards) are paid when played. How adding a new exception would simplify the rules?
> >
> But all the cards (except action cards) resolve when played, and action cards are paid when they resolve. So the general rule is: all cards are paid when they resolve.
>
No, because your rule doesn't work for combat card. Did you mean "the general rule could be"?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director