Hi
i noticed recently that Spying Mission text was different on Card List and in Keepers of Tradition version. How does this affect old rullings on the card? Is it still possible to have multiple Spying Mission on the same Methuselah?
Many thanks in advance
Name: Spying Mission
[Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:PM5/PN3, KMW:PB2, Third:U, LotN:PS2, KoT:U/PM4]
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Obfuscate
[obf] +1 stealth.
[OBF] Only usable when a bleed would be successful. The bleed burns no pool; it is unsuccessful. Instead, put this card on the acting vampire. The next time this vampire would successfully bleed the same Methuselah, burn this card for +2 bleed.
You can still stack them. If you use Spying Mission to burn no pool, then any existing Spying Mission does not burn because the current bleed is not successful.
I was asking because new text has both effects happening in the same "would successfully bleed" window, instead of burn-to effect triggering on successful as was the old wording.
> Nac wrote:
> I was asking because new text has both effects happening in the same "would successfully bleed" window, instead of burn-to effect triggering on successful as was the old wording.
>
This is the cardtext from KoT (2010?) and you are right. The card hasn't been reprinted yet.
But it will be fixed to reflect what you say in the next reprint.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Ok, now I'm a little bit confused.
What is now the ruling for the Card "Spying Mission"? At all?
Can I stack them now (because of the different spelling? And protect my Grand Prey to be ousted) or will I oust my Grand Prey? ^^
As Malkavian this an urgent question...
p.s.
(If you want, you can replace "Grand Prey" to all possible targets you will find )
Prince of Wiesbaden, Germany
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Nac wrote:
> > I was asking because new text has both effects happening in the same "would successfully bleed" window, instead of burn-to effect triggering on successful as was the old wording.
> >
> This is the cardtext from KoT (2010?) and you are right. The card hasn't been reprinted yet.
> But it will be fixed to reflect what you say in the next reprint.
>
Is a rewording for a reprint necessary? If two effects occupy the same window, you can choose their order. If you choose to play a new SM, then the bleed would no longer be successful so the already-in-play SM won't trigger.
> blackkn8 wrote:
> Ok, now I'm a little bit confused.
> What is now the ruling for the Card "Spying Mission"? At all?
>
It hasn't changed.
> blackkn8 wrote:
> Can I stack them now
>
As before, they stack, and it's mandatory (you cannot burn some of them if the bleed isn't successful because you play another copy).
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > Nac wrote:
> > > I was asking because new text has both effects happening in the same "would successfully bleed" window, instead of burn-to effect triggering on successful as was the old wording.
> > >
> > This is the cardtext from KoT (2010?) and you are right. The card hasn't been reprinted yet.
> > But it will be fixed to reflect what you say in the next reprint.
> >
> Is a rewording for a reprint necessary? If two effects occupy the same window, you can choose their order. If you choose to play a new SM, then the bleed would no longer be successful so the already-in-play SM won't trigger.
>
Except that you can't choose the order: you cannot burn the copy in play and play another Spying Mission.
Consider a vampire with a Spying Mission who is bleeding the same target. Either you play another Spying Mission when the "bleed would be successful" (meaning that the bleed is not successful anymore, and you cannot burn the first copy), or you burn the first copy of Spying Mission when "this vampire is about to successfully bleed", in which case it's too late to play another Spying Mission.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > kschaefer wrote:
> >
> > > Ankha wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nac wrote:
> > > > I was asking because new text has both effects happening in the same "would successfully bleed" window, instead of burn-to effect triggering on successful as was the old wording.
> > > >
> > > This is the cardtext from KoT (2010?) and you are right. The card hasn't been reprinted yet.
> > > But it will be fixed to reflect what you say in the next reprint.
> > >
> > Is a rewording for a reprint necessary? If two effects occupy the same window, you can choose their order. If you choose to play a new SM, then the bleed would no longer be successful so the already-in-play SM won't trigger.
> >
> Except that you can't choose the order: you cannot burn the copy in play and play another Spying Mission.
> Consider a vampire with a Spying Mission who is bleeding the same target. Either you play another Spying Mission when the "bleed would be successful" (meaning that the bleed is not successful anymore, and you cannot burn the first copy), or you burn the first copy of Spying Mission when "this vampire is about to successfully bleed", in which case it's too late to play another Spying Mission.
>
So, you're agreeing with me that the card still behaves the way that it always used to. You choose one of two options (play a new SM or burn the in-play SMs). The choice obviates the other option. This is what I said (perhaps not as clearly as you would have liked, since you repeated it).
So, why is there a rewording necessary? That's, I guess, the question I am trying to ask here.
> kschaefer wrote:
> So, why is there a rewording necessary? That's, I guess, the question I am trying to ask here.
>
Because the wording was contradictory with the ruling; now, they are in sync.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director