Libertas when you atempt to bloock

Libertas Cardtype: Master Cost: 1 pool Master. Requires an anarch. Put this card on an anarch. Allies cannot block this anarch. Cards that require Dominate [dom] or Presence cost other minions an additional blood while this anarch is acting, attempting to block, or in combat. I have 3 question about Libertas when you atempt to bloock. 1) do acting vampire must pay also action card(I ask because card is played before block atempted)? 2) can you atempt to block and Libertas text to take efect even if is action on 1 stealt and you declare block atempt only to force acting minion to pay action card and modifiers(dom and pre)? 3) similar as question 2,but when acting minion play action card with 1 stealt,you use reaction card with text: unlock and atempts to block(you still have 0 intercept),if Libertas text force acting minion to pay dom and pre cards?

> beslin wrote: > > I have 3 question about Libertas when you atempt to bloock. > > 1) do acting vampire must pay also action card(I ask because card is played before block atempted)? > > 2) can you atempt to block and Libertas text to take efect even if is action on 1 stealt and you declare block atempt only to force acting minion to pay action card and modifiers(dom and pre)? > > 3) similar as question 2,but when acting minion play action card with 1 stealt,you use reaction card with text: unlock and atempts to block(you still have 0 intercept),if Libertas text force acting minion to pay dom and pre cards? > edit: ok I think I understand the question now... Let me know if this isn't right: So - Your vampire has libertas. - Predators vampire is trying to do superior govern the unaligned - Question 2: Even if you don't have sufficient intercept, you can say that you attempt to block (this is how it works with tangle atropos hand) to make the govern cost 1 extra blood. You don't have to catch the action. - Question 3: same as with question 2. Yes, govern costs extra. - I believe the extra cost is paid upon action resolution, as action cards are usually paid? I am not sure of this. If it is, then libertas can possibly make the action fail if predators vampire has only 1 blood to pay govern. ps. Its morning and I'm not a morning person. Lets hope I didn't mess things up more. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> beslin wrote: > Libertas > Cardtype: Master > Cost: 1 pool > Master. Requires an anarch. > Put this card on an anarch. Allies cannot block this anarch. Cards that require Dominate [dom] or Presence {pre} cost other minions an additional blood while this anarch is acting, attempting to block, or in combat. > The key part of this text for your questions is "while this anarch is... attempting to block". It isn't "If this anarch declares a block attempt, this effect persists for the rest of the action." It is only while the anarch is attempting to block. If the block attempt is over, it doesn't affect the acting vampire (unless you're in combat, obviously). [LSJ 20080818] > > LSJ wrote: > > If a vampire with Libertas blocks but fails in block attempt is the > > effect still applied until the end of the action? I'd guess no, > > Correct (card text). > > beslin wrote: > 1) do acting vampire must pay also action card(I ask because card is played before block atempted)? > It can't affect the cost the vampire pays for the action card. That payment occurs when the action is successful. The vampire with Libertas's block attempt has failed. The effect no longer occurs. [LSJ 20081027] > > LSJ wrote: > Libertas doesn't affect the cost of action cards. The cost is not paid while the > Libertas anarch is attempting to block. > > beslin wrote: > 2) can you atempt to block and Libertas text to take efect even if is action on 1 stealt and you declare block atempt only to force acting minion to pay action card and modifiers(dom and pre)? > It won't affect the action card. It potentially can affect the action modifiers if they are played during the attempt to block, such as if - starting from zero stealth and zero intercept - I bleed you, you attempt to block, and I play Bonding at superior to get stealth. That would be played while you were attempting to block, so the cost would be affected by Libertas. In the situation you describe, where the action is already at +1 stealth and you have zero intercept, the acting vampire might simply sit there and say "Okay, are you playing any intercept?" When you don't, and no-one else provides any cross-table intercept (such as tapping a newspaper for you), your block attempt fails, and you eventually pass on block attempts entirely. They can then go on to play, say, Threats, when you are not attempting to block. Additionally, as with Blessing of Chaos, the acting Methuselah does not have to give you the opportunity to declare a block attempt until they're done playing action modifiers in the first place. So I could declare a bleed attempt, play Seduction and/or Force of Personality in the "as the action is announced" window (you can't declare a block attempt here). Then in the normal course of the action, I have the impulse and so play Perfect Paragon at superior to give allies and younger vampires -1 intercept, before passing the impulse to you to allow you to declare blocks, play reactions etc. > beslin wrote: > 3) similar as question 2,but when acting minion play action card with 1 stealt,you use reaction card with text: unlock and atempts to block(you still have 0 intercept),if Libertas text force acting minion to pay dom and pre cards? > This is no different from situation 2. You can attempt a block even if you know you won't be able to be successful. But the acting vampire will probably wait for you to stop your attempt (when it fails) before playing anything that would be affected.

Uh, didn't Blessing of Chaos working differently? Wasn't it enough just to try to, even unsuccessfully, block with minion having BoC to get the effect of BoC on the minion acting? If it doesn't work apparently someone has taught the way BoC works in a wrong way around here then. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Uh, didn't Blessing of Chaos working differently? > Blessing of Chaos works differently overall, because it has different card text. [LSJ 20080818] > > LSJ wrote: > > If a vampire with Libertas blocks but fails in block attempt is the > > effect still applied until the end of the action? I'd guess no, > > Correct (card text). > > > but > > have to ask because afaik Blessing of Chaos has it's effect applied > > until the end of the action in similar situations. > > Also card text. > However, where the two cards overlap is that they both require a block to be declared, before they have any effect at all. Hence an acting vampire worried about either Blessing of Chaos or Libertas can potentially play the relevant action modifiers before the relevant would-be blocker has a chance to attempt to block. (It will depend on individual action modifiers as to whether they're playable or not of course.) The would-be blocker can't just force themselves into blocking - so, for example, an acting vampire who wants to play Threats to get it out of their hand without suffering from either Libertas or Blessing of Chaos can do so before giving anyone the opportunity to block. Why would you do that with Libertas, rather than just waiting for the block to fail? Perhaps you think the block won't fail, and you want to cycle into some stealth, and so are happy to play the Threats early/unnecessarily. Hence when I say: > > I wrote: > Additionally, as with Blessing of Chaos, the acting Methuselah does not have to give you the opportunity to declare a block attempt until they're done playing action modifiers in the first place. > ... the fact that the acting Methuselah does not have to give the would-be blocker a chance to block until after they're done playing some action modifiers, that's all I'm comparing the two for.

Thanks for the time and effort James! The ability of acting player to play action modifiers before the blocker has a window is clear and easy to understand and that was never in doubt. The effect on action modifiers is a different case. Blessing of Chaos: "If this vampire attempts to block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation , Chimerstry, Dominate or Presence. " If this works as I've been taught in the past (not being able to play those action modifiers after block ATTEMPT) apparently "attempts to block" = "has attempted to block". Libertas: "Cards that require Dominate or Presence cost other minions an additional blood while this anarch is acting, attempting to block, or in combat." So "attempting to block" = "is/would be blocking" (since apparently trying to block but not being able/willing to match intercept will result in unsuccessful block after which the Catch-22 acting minion can ignore Libertas.) Which is rather silly as it makes cycling a bleed increase to get more useful card more expensive (probably not the effect that was sought with the card). So stealth increase is basically the only thing that be more costly but there are very few Dominate or Presence cards that increase stealth. So the effect on blocking is less than marginal if a successful block is needed (surely this can't have been the intention!) Dominate has Bonding and Shroud of Absence that increase stealth. Presence has Virtuosa (which see "plenty" of use) and Power of One that do the same. Yes, Libertas does have other effects too so the blocking thing ain't the only thing it does. But the whole thing boils down to the difference between "attempts to block" and "is attempting to block". Both, in my mind, as an ESL speaker, can well mean something that is happening at the moment. But the former means "attempts or has attempted to block" and the latter apparently does not. In my honest opinion this is way too close to one another and would either require a bit more thought on exact wording or changing Libertas to work like the extremely similar one card instead of confusing players. I'm under the assumption that the great idea some years ago was to make cards that work similar way be worded similarily. I do not know if Scott actually meant Libertas to work the same way as Blessing of Chaos. If this was the case rewording would be needed to make it work like Blessing of Chaos. If this was not the case a rewording would be needed so it would be more clear that it works differently. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > The effect on action modifiers is a different case. > > Blessing of Chaos: > "If this vampire attempts to block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation , Chimerstry, Dominate or Presence. " > > If this works as I've been taught in the past (not being able to play those action modifiers after block ATTEMPT) apparently "attempts to block" = "has attempted to block". > > Libertas: > "Cards that require Dominate or Presence cost other minions an additional blood while this anarch is acting, attempting to block, or in combat." > > So "attempting to block" = "is/would be blocking" (since apparently trying to block but not being able/willing to match intercept will result in unsuccessful block after which the Catch-22 acting minion can ignore Libertas.) > The words you're underlining aren't the significant ones. Libertas's effect on reactions happens "while this anarch is... attempting to block". Thus it can only happen while there is a block attempt in progress. If I prohibit you from talking while I am shouting, you can resume talking after I stop shouting. Blessing of Chaos kicks in if you attempt to block. Unlike Libertas's use of "while", this doesn't explicitly limit how long the effect lasts. LSJ ruled/clarified that it persisted for the rest of the action.

Has there been a ruling/clarification for Libertas (from LSJ)? The effect while blocking seems to be so very miniscule (four cards half of which ain't basically even ever used). Hence I think that the "while" implies only to acting. Just that the economics with words got in the way. Wouldn't be surprised if thos was the intent: "Cards that require Dominate or Presence cost other minions an additional blood if this anarch attempts to block, is acting, or is in combat." The overall reasoning behind the "while... attempting to block" is so odd and rather unlike much anything in the game that it makes me feel that the intent certainly can't have been what you suggest. Even if that in close scrutiny is how the card reads ruleswise. Don't you think? Finnish Politics!

"if A does X" and "while A is doing X" are two distinct things. You're troubled because X is the same in both cases, and you'd like the rest of the sentence "if" vs "while" to work the same way, but it's not. I don't say it's a good thing to have closely related effects that are in fact different, but it is hard to avoid. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Lönkka wrote: > The overall reasoning behind the "while... attempting to block" is so odd and rather unlike much anything in the game that it makes me feel that the intent certainly can't have been what you suggest. Even if that in close scrutiny is how the card reads ruleswise. Don't you think? > I thought the reasoning was to make deflections (and obediences and majesties) cost extra while the libertas-vampire was bleeding. The "attempting to block" was somewhat random addition on top of that.. I'm really struggling to think of meaningful cards that this affects.... I can think of only presences "pay more to block" cards. I mean there ARE cards that it affects, but I think most of them are quite rare. "Hey, lets put this here just for kicks" ps. From deckbuilding perspective, notice that libertas is not unique. You can stack those on same vampire. Wanna pay 5 to deflect? Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Lönkka wrote: > Has there been a ruling/clarification for Libertas (from LSJ)? > www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77292-libertas-when-you-atempt-to-bloock?start=0#92789 includes it, where - when asked if the effect persists to the end of the action after the failed block - LSJ said no.

> Bloodartist wrote: > I thought the reasoning was to make deflections (and obediences and majesties) cost extra while the libertas-vampire was bleeding. The "attempting to block" was somewhat random addition on top of that.. I'm really struggling to think of meaningful cards that this affects.... I can think of only presences "pay more to block" cards. I mean there ARE cards that it affects, but I think most of them are quite rare. > Leaving aside "playing any playable card to cycle it to get to something better when something unwanted happens" (e.g. any bleed modifier - Threats, Aire of Elation etc.), the following are pretty decent in the right decks: - Power of One, for stealth (a very solid card for Anarch Presence, added in the same set) - Shroud of Absence (a solid card for Obt/Dom, given that it's free stealth) - True Love's Face (probably not the best card in the world, but if you have a lot of OBF/PRE it's solid enough)

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Has there been a ruling/clarification for Libertas (from LSJ)? > > > www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77292-libertas-when-you-atempt-to-bloock?start=0#92789 includes it, where - when asked if the effect persists to the end of the action after the failed block - LSJ said no > > OK, thanks. > That's about it then. > > I missed that earlier silly me! > > Still I'm saying that how the card works when blocking is _highly_ confusing. > > -Not many cards work the way Libertas does (usable only when the block would be successful). > -Wording is so similar to Blessing of Chaos, yet handled the exact opposite way. > -While I'm not that big on nitpicky rules knowledge I'd say that my english is reasonably good. I think the choice of wording here, especially since there is no shortage on the card for space, is causing most of the problem and I can imagine how much misunderstandings the cards causes among especially the ESL players with not that solid command of english language and grammar. > > With slightly more clear wording the should be way more explicit. Ain't that the big idea? To make the cards more easy to understand. > > Luckily this isn't a card that sees a _lot_ of gameplay (although it should be a staple among many an anarch deck). > Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Still I'm saying that how the card works when blocking is _highly_ confusing. > > -Not many cards work the way Libertas does (usable only when the block would be successful). > New cards that work differently to previous cards are created all the time, yes. > Lönkka wrote: > -Wording is so similar to Blessing of Chaos, yet handled the exact opposite way. > Changing one or two words in an English sentence can significantly change the meaning, yes. > Lönkka wrote: > -While I'm not that big on nitpicky rules knowledge I'd say that my english is reasonably good. > You say this: Hence I think that the "while" implies only to acting. Just that the economics with words got in the way. But that cannot possibly be true. Card text: Cards that require Dominate [dom] or Presence {pre} cost other minions an additional blood while this anarch is acting, attempting to block, or in combat. If "while" applies only to "acting", then lets remove that whole chunk. Cards that require Dominate [dom] or Presence {pre} cost other minions an additional blood while this anarch is acting, attempting to block, or in combat. In fact, "while this anarch is" is clearly essential for each of: - while this anarch is acting, - while this anarch is attempting to block, - while this anarch is in combat. > Lönkka wrote: > I think the choice of wording here, especially since there is no shortage on the card for space, is causing most of the problem and I can imagine how much misunderstandings the cards causes among especially the ESL players with not that solid command of english language and grammar. > > With slightly more clear wording the should be way more explicit. Ain't that the big idea? To make the cards more easy to understand. > Cards can, of course, be made more explicit and clearer, but if you are proceeding from the principle that "while this vampire is X, Y or Z" means that the "while" applies only to X, when each of X, Y and Z relies on the "is" for grammatical sense, there is no reasonable way to proceed. This isn't V:TES doing something strained and bizarre with grammar (as all games can do, once you get into weird jargon clashing awkwardly), it's just how English grammar functions at a very basic level.

To be fair, compared to many other examples the comparison between Blessing of Chaos and Libertas and their wording is very different from ones like Black Cat, which was discussed in (almost unneccessary) length some time ago. The different effects are clear within the boundaries of English AND game terms, even though they are different. It is clear, if you read them, that the effects are different. They are even explicit. There is a world of difference between this example and that of Black Cat, where, in all honesty, within both English and game terms it could be interpreted differently than it is ruled. Once you know how it _should_ be read, it kind of makes sense. But it could be, with the knowledge most have, interpreted differently. I have no trouble with interpreting the cards' text. Logically they could have the same effect, but there is no confusion in the actual effect. I guess I'm trying to say that there are two separate issues to consider. 1) simplifying some cards and their effects to work the exact same way, instead of just similarly. This would require errata. The text is clear, but for simplicity (in game as a whole, comparing similarly working cards) they could be errated to work exactly the same. 2) clarifying card texts with updated or extra text to make them clearer to read and their effects more explicit. Black Cat is (in my opinion) a prime example of this. This would not be errata as such, but improving on the English on the cards. Two separate topics, those two. As far as I understand it, Lönkka would be advocating option 1. There is no issue with option 2 in Libertas' case. I am 100% of the opinion that VtES would benefit from both 1 and 2 on many cards. Which, of course depends on the cards themselves. Things like Ammo cards being 'used' instead of 'played' would be both. Black Cat should be either, not both. Within the latest batches of BC bundles there was a card (can't remember which from the top of my head) which would've really benefited from using oxford commas. As opposed to some view points, I don't think adding keywords to card texts would solve either issue in the long run. Using good, clear, common English would in my opinion be top priority. User centered approach should be used. Libertas, in my opinion, does not suffer from lingual problems. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > The different effects are clear within the boundaries of English AND game terms, even though they are different. It is clear, if you read them, that the effects are different. They are even explicit. > Libertas is clear. Blessing of Chaos is ambiguous. Besides, requiring extra tracking of the game history is a fundamental design flaw in a board / card game. The game state is supposed to be on the table, that is the whole point of playing such a game int he first place.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > it's just how English grammar functions at a very basic level. > I have to disagree with this one. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > it's just how English grammar functions at a very basic level. > > > I have to disagree with this one. > Here is a sentence: Do not disturb your father. This is a simple statement that applies at all times. It tells you not to disturb your father, with no qualifications. However, we now want to refine that to only apply at certain times or in certain situations. To do so, we choose to use a dependent clause. That clause will provide situations when the main clause applies. It's okay to disturb your father if he is not singing, and if he is not reading, and if he is not in the bath. How do we construct that dependent clause: he is singing, reading, or in the bath This obviously doesn't make sense on its own, as it is a dependent clause, but it includes the subject of the clause (he) and a verb. We then attach the dependent clause to the main clause by use of a subordinating conjunction - in this case, "while". Do not disturb your father while he is singing, reading, or in the bath The subordinating conjunction applies to the entire dependent clause. If "while" does not apply to "is... attempting to block" or "is... in combat", then you have no subordinating conjunction to introduce the dependent clause. That's not how English grammar works. In English, if you want a subordinating conjunction to apply to one of the situations but not the others, you can set up multiple different dependent clauses and provide them as alternatives, each with their own subordinating conjunction. Do not disturb your father while he is on the phone, until he has drunk his first coffee in the morning, or after he has drunk his first beer. You can of course also introduce dependent clauses with a relative pronoun (e.g. "which", "that", "who"), but that's not relevant here.

I think the problem is less about how subordinating conjunctions and coordinate series work in English and more about the problems that arise when two common English conjunctions (in this case, "if" and "while") are associated with different in-game effects. To expect one to link "if" with an effect persisting after a block attempt and "while" with an effect ceasing after the block attempt is asking a lot. You're basically inviting arguments over semantics at that point. Blessing of Chaos should explicitly state that the effect persists after the block attempt. Or at least a formal ruling stating such should appear in the card rulings. Libertas would then be fine by comparison, as no such disclaimer or ruling appears for that card.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I think the problem is less about how subordinating conjunctions and coordinate series work in English > Except Lönkka has explicitly stated that the "while" doesn't apply to "is... attempting to block". If stop you require word be grammar, game no work.

Snarky. Much? Finnish Politics!

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > I think the problem is less about how subordinating conjunctions and coordinate series work in English > > > Except Lönkka has explicitly stated that the "while" doesn't apply to "is... attempting to block". > That statement by Lönnka was made as a result of "if" and "while" having specific meaning applied to them in VTES on the basis of rulings, not a result of Lönnka misunderstanding English grammar. Also, if anybody was actually interested in a grammar lesson, I think the last place to look would be a VTES forum.