Blood Cult Awareness Network and Feast of the Soul's Secrets

Questions came up in FB per below 1) If Blood Cult Awareness Network is in play, does the new card Feast of the Soul's Secrets at superior cost 2 blood and gets -1 stealth? Assume below ruling is applicable and the answer is yes?! groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/Kok_AGc9i68/m/tiI176IwHKkJ 2) If the FotSS action succeeds but the bleed amount is reduced to zero, does it still incur an additional cost since it doesn't meet the criteria stated on BCAN? I would say it still meets the criteria of BCAN as the superior FotSS action doesn't stop being an action that adds counters to an uncontrolled vampire just because the conditional requirement isn't met to allow the effect to resolve in full and thus the cost with the addition of BCAN is to be paid. Blood Cult Awareness Network Cardtype: Event Inquisition. Requires a ready imbued in play. Whenever there are any ready imbued in play, any action to put a vampire or ghoul in play or to add counters to an uncontrolled vampire gets -1 stealth and costs an additional blood or life. Feast of the Soul's Secrets Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 Blood Discipline: Dominate [dom] Bleed with +2 bleed. [DOM] As above, and if the bleed is successful, add 2 blood to a younger vampire you control or in your uncontrolled region.

> inm8 wrote: > Questions came up in FB per below > > 1) If Blood Cult Awareness Network is in play, does the new card Feast of the Soul's Secrets at superior cost 2 blood and gets -1 stealth? > > Assume below ruling is applicable and the answer is yes?! > groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/Kok_AGc9i68/m/tiI176IwHKkJ > Indeed. It is an action that "add counters to an uncontrolled vampire". > inm8 wrote: > 2) If the FotSS action succeeds but the bleed amount is reduced to zero, does it still incur an additional cost since it doesn't meet the criteria stated on BCAN? > Yes, it still costs 1 additional blood. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

If the player choose to use FotSS basic effect while BCAN are in play he avoid the extra blood cost and stealth penalty, correct? David Resende - Prince of Teresina

Yes as that is not an action that add counters to an uncontrolled vampire

> Ankha wrote: > > > inm8 wrote: > > 1) If Blood Cult Awareness Network is in play, does the new card Feast of the Soul's Secrets at superior cost 2 blood and gets -1 stealth? > > > > Assume below ruling is applicable and the answer is yes?! > > groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/Kok_AGc9i68/m/tiI176IwHKkJ > > > Indeed. It is an action that "add counters to an uncontrolled vampire". > I think the original ruling is partially complete and the we never addressed the resolution end of the action. It's clear that the questions was about declaration. When you declare the action of Feast of Soul's Secrets at superior, it will get -1 stealth and cost an additional blood, meaning you have to have enough available blood when you announce the action to cover the additional cost. The superior affect _could_ add blood to the uncontrolled, so we must account for that. When the action resolves, you know if the bleed is successful and if so, what vampire will be targeted. Since payment and resolution are atomic and we check costs twice (once when announcing and again when paying), the additional cost for Blood Cult Awareness Network may no longer be applicable. The original ruling is clear the the cards, like Undue Influence and Feast of the Soul's Secrets, need to start with the Blood Cult Awareness Network modifications, but it unclear to me from that too short of a ruling that if should _always_ affect an action, even if at resolution time, there is no blood given to uncontrolled vampires.

Assume you want an answer from Ankha but here is my take on it. The referenced ruling of LSJ for Undue Influence which was confirmed here to be applicable was about whether the action though conditional on the success of the bleed still counts as an action that add counters to an uncontrolled vampire….which it does. The second question here (which at least I was unable to find an old ruling for) which Ankha has ruled on answers that BCAN’s effect Is applicable independently from whether the condition that allows the adding of counters is met or not as that doesn’t change what kind of action it is, BCAN cares about the kind of action it is and not whether the effect is applied successfully when increasing the cost of the action (which is only paid if the action reaches resolution successfully). “[…] any action […] to add counters to an uncontrolled vampire […] costs an additional blood or life.” To be dependent on the successful application of the effect it would need to say “[…] any action […] that successfully adds counters to an uncontrolled vampire […] costs an additional blood or life.”

> inm8 wrote: > Assume you want an answer from Ankha but here is my take on it. > > The referenced ruling of LSJ for Undue Influence which was confirmed here to be applicable was about whether the action though conditional on the success of the bleed still counts as an action that add counters to an uncontrolled vampire….which it does. > > The second question here (which at least I was unable to find an old ruling for) which Ankha has ruled on answers that BCAN’s effect Is applicable independently from whether the condition that allows the adding of counters is met or not as that doesn’t change what kind of action it is, BCAN cares about the kind of action it is and not whether the effect is applied successfully when increasing the cost of the action (which is only paid if the action reaches resolution successfully). > Yes, by definition, an action requires to be successful to have its effect applied. So BCAN gives the action -1 stealth, even though the action could be unsuccessful (it could be blocked), solely based on the effect the action card would have if it successful. This extends to additional conditions such as "the action must be successful AND the bleed must be greater than 0". Whether all conditions are met or not in the end doesn't change how BCAN interacts with it. > inm8 wrote: > “[…] any action […] to add counters to an uncontrolled vampire […] costs an additional blood or life.” > > To be dependent on the successful application of the effect it would need to say > > “[…] any action […] that successfully adds counters to an uncontrolled vampire […] costs an additional blood or life.” > Perhaps, but we'd better avoid making that distinction. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > inm8 wrote: > > The referenced ruling of LSJ for Undue Influence which was confirmed here to be applicable was about whether the action though conditional on the success of the bleed still counts as an action that add counters to an uncontrolled vampire….which it does. > > > Yes, by definition, an action requires to be successful to have its effect applied. > So BCAN gives the action -1 stealth, even though the action could be unsuccessful (it could be blocked), solely based on the effect the action card would have if it successful. > This extends to additional conditions such as "the action must be successful AND the bleed must be greater than 0". > Whether all conditions are met or not in the end doesn't change how BCAN interacts with it. > When we declare the action, like Feast of the Soul's Secrets, the card is in a quantum state where it adds counters to an uncontrolled vampire. I have no issue with this. It should cost an additional blood to declare and receive -1 stealth. That means that you need to be able to pay for that additional cost when declaring the action. (Though we know that costs can be altered at resolution.) When the quantum state collapses and we know at resolution what is actually happening, why do we continue to apply the additional blood cost if the action no longer adds blood to an uncontrolled vampire? We allow cost reevaluation for other effects, such as High Orun, which alters the declared action's cost at resolution. What is the rubric for knowing what effects allow for a reevaluation of the cost and what effects do not? Why can some affects, which alter the cost, be applied only at declaration and are fixed, while other can apply at resolution and are not? What I'd like to have clearly spelled out is that guideline because right now it seems unclear why some effects can be applied at resolution time and other cannot. And conversely, why things that are no longer applicable at resolution are still applied given the reevaluation of costs for other effects.

Here's a non-BCAN example: The Slow Withering is in play. Vampire A plays Feast of the Soul's Secrets at superior, declaring the bleed with the additional blood cost. Gets blocked and Amaranths in combat to diablerize the opposing vampire. Then continues the action using Momentary Delay. The action is successful. They are now immune to The Slow Withering's effect. Does vampire A pay 1 or 2 blood at resolution time? By your BCAN statements, it would seem the answer would be 2. Is that, in fact, the case?

> kschaefer wrote: > When the quantum state collapses and we know at resolution what is actually happening, why do we continue to apply the additional blood cost if the action no longer adds blood to an uncontrolled vampire? > BCAN cares about the “type” of action and not the outcome….the “type” doesn’t change because the condition for the effect isn’t met. Similarly a minion is only allowed to perform one bleed (“type”) action per turn which even if unsuccessful (bleed amount = 0) it doesn’t allow the minion to bleed again.

> kschaefer wrote: > Here's a non-BCAN example: > The Slow Withering is in play. > > Vampire A plays Feast of the Soul's Secrets at superior, declaring the bleed with the additional blood cost. Gets blocked and Amaranths in combat to diablerize the opposing vampire. Then continues the action using Momentary Delay. The action is successful. > > They are now immune to The Slow Withering's effect. Does vampire A pay 1 or 2 blood at resolution time? By your BCAN statements, it would seem the answer would be 2. Is that, in fact, the case? > The cost in this scenario at the time of successfully reaching action resolution would be 1 blood because of card text explicitly saying that the effect of TSW is to be ignored at the time when the cost is actually paid. The Slow Withering Cardtype: Event Gehenna. Requires 1 or more other Gehenna events in play. Do not replace until a vampire commits diablerie. Cards requiring 1 or more Disciplines at the superior level cost +1 blood. Vampires who commit diablerie ignore this effect until a Gehenna event is played. Feast of the Soul's Secrets Cardtype: Action Cost: 1 Blood Discipline: Dominate [dom] Bleed with +2 bleed. [DOM] As above, and if the bleed is successful, add 2 blood to a younger vampire you control or in your uncontrolled region. Amaranth Cardtype: Combat Only usable by a vampire who can commit diablerie. Only usable when the opposing vampire should go to torpor. Diablerize the opposing vampire instead. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. Momentary Delay Cardtype: Action Modifier Requires a vampire with capacity 7 or more. Only usable after resolution of an action blocked by an ally or a vampire with capacity 5 or less. Not usable if, during this action, more than 1 round of combat has occurred or{} this vampire has lost 3 or more blood or ended combat before the press step. The action continues as if unblocked.