LSJ:valerius and block fails

Valerius is attempting to block a minion. That minion's controller plays <block fails> card. Valerius is no longer blocking. Can the acting minion now play obf cards and the like against non-valerius minions? G

talonz wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] (assuming advanced Valerius) No. Once advanced Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion cannot play Obfuscte cards. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:12:52 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >talonz wrote: > >> Valerius is attempting to block a minion. That minion's controller >> plays <block fails> card. Valerius is no longer blocking. Can the >> acting minion now play obf cards and the like against non-valerius >> minions? > >(assuming advanced Valerius) > >No. Once advanced Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion >cannot play Obfuscte cards. Additional query. Spider-Killer attempts to bleed. This is at an innate +1 stealth. Can Valerius(ADV) attempt to block, fail, and still have his special apply? This seems to be yes, but I'm unsure whether 'attempts to block' requires the capacity to do so, even if subsequently made inelligible. Morgan Vening

Morgan Vening wrote: > Spider-Killer attempts to bleed. This is at an innate +1 stealth. Can > Valerius(ADV) attempt to block, fail, and still have his special > apply? This seems to be yes, Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Morgan Vening wrote: > > Spider-Killer attempts to bleed. This is at an innate +1 stealth. Can > > Valerius(ADV) attempt to block, fail, and still have his special > > apply? This seems to be yes, > > Yes. Valerius just gets better and better. I supposed he needs to play an eagle's sight to mess with cross-table obfuscate etc correct? David

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:12:52 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > talonz wrote: > >> Valerius is attempting to block a minion. That minion's controller >> plays <block fails> card. Valerius is no longer blocking. Can the >> acting minion now play obf cards and the like against non-valerius >> minions? > > (assuming advanced Valerius) > > No. Once advanced Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion > cannot play Obfuscte cards. This is odd. I thought that you needed to "attempt to block" after each effect the acting minion played to thwart the previous block attempt (most common effect being adding Stealth beyond the blocking minion's Intercept). What am I missing? -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: What am I missing? You are missing Seduction or OBT or NEC Stealth. ;-) Frank

Daneel wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:12:52 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >> Once advanced Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion >> cannot play Obfuscte cards. > > This is odd. I thought that you needed to "attempt to block" after each > effect the acting minion played to thwart the previous block attempt > (most common effect being adding Stealth beyond the blocking minion's > Intercept). What am I missing? Card text: "If Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion cannot play action modifier or combat cards that require Chimerstry [chi] or Obfuscate [obf]." [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:10:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:12:52 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>> Once advanced Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion >>> cannot play Obfuscte cards. >> >> This is odd. I thought that you needed to "attempt to block" after each >> effect the acting minion played to thwart the previous block attempt >> (most common effect being adding Stealth beyond the blocking minion's >> Intercept). What am I missing? > > Card text: "If Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion cannot play > action modifier or combat cards that require Chimerstry [chi] or > Obfuscate [obf]." Yes. But once Valerius no longer attempts to block (that is, the acting minion has increased his stealth, caused Valesius' block attempt to fail, etc.), the effect should stop. Apparently from what you wrote earlier, it doesn't. I'm curious why... "If Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion cannot play action modifier or combat cards that require Chimerstry [chi] or Obfuscate [obf]." ...is equivalent to: "An acting minion cannot play action modifier or combat cards that require Chimerstry [chi] or Obfuscate [obf] if Valerius currently attempts to block, has attempted to block or has succesfully blocked the current action." The ability makes sense either way as far as game mechanics are concerned (especially given how stealth cannot be increased unless needed). -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] you did not understand : once valerius attempted to block, the action is *tainted* and the "cannot play x cards" apply. there was a precedent with blessing of chaos :)

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsr1rar...@news.chello.hu... > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:10:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:12:52 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>>> Once advanced Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion >>>> cannot play Obfuscte cards. >>> >>> This is odd. I thought that you needed to "attempt to block" after each >>> effect the acting minion played to thwart the previous block attempt >>> (most common effect being adding Stealth beyond the blocking minion's >>> Intercept). What am I missing? >> >> Card text: "If Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion cannot play >> action modifier or combat cards that require Chimerstry [chi] or >> Obfuscate [obf]." > > Yes. But once Valerius no longer attempts to block (that is, the acting > minion has increased his stealth, caused Valesius' block attempt to fail, > etc.), the effect should stop. Apparently from what you wrote earlier, it > doesn't. I'm curious why... see the Rulings on Blessing of Chaos. Card text says: "attempts to block". You can attempt to block regardless of intercept because you first have to attempt before you can even start playing intercept. Which part of the card text says that the effect should stop once Valerius' block fails? He attempted it, and that all that was needed. as an aside: this happened in a game: Arika (controlled by my predator, playing a presence vote deck) plays KRC. My Casino reeds (with blessing of Chaos) tries to block, doesn't play intercept. Arika cannot play any presence cards during this action. (Voter Cap, BO, Awe) same with his other 2 minions calling votes. That's wat makes Blessing of Chaos such a powerful card.

[ quoted text not captured ] Can two minions be attempting to block at the same time? I don't think so. That would imply that there is a definite termination to a block attempt (and as such, the "attempting to block" can cease). > this happened in a game: > Arika (controlled by my predator, playing a presence vote deck) plays > KRC. > My Casino reeds (with blessing of Chaos) tries to block, doesn't play > intercept. Arika cannot play any presence cards during this action. > (Voter > Cap, BO, Awe) > same with his other 2 minions calling votes. That's wat makes Blessing of > Chaos such a powerful card. We've always played it in a way that only _current_ block attempts make the playing of such cards impossible. It is way powerful even that way. I think that what you describe is an example of a broken effect. -- Bye, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand what the card is supposed to do. I just don't see why (card text, game balance, logic). -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:25:14 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts >> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht >>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:10:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>>> Card text: "If Valerius attempts to block, the acting minion cannot >>>> play >>>> action modifier or combat cards that require Chimerstry [chi] or >>>> Obfuscate [obf]." >>> >>> Yes. But once Valerius no longer attempts to block (that is, the acting >>> minion has increased his stealth, caused Valesius' block attempt to >>> fail, >>> etc.), the effect should stop. Apparently from what you wrote >>> earlier, it >>> doesn't. I'm curious why... >> >> see the Rulings on Blessing of Chaos. Card text says: "attempts to >> block". >> You can attempt to block regardless of intercept because you first >> have to >> attempt before you can even start playing intercept. Which part of the >> card >> text says that the effect should stop once Valerius' block fails? He >> attempted it, and that all that was needed. > > Can two minions be attempting to block at the same time? > > I don't think so. No. > That would imply that there is a definite termination to a block attempt > (and as such, the "attempting to block" can cease). True, but that doesn't erase the fact that the first minion attempted to block. If Valerius attempts to block, some for-the-remainder-of-this-action effect is generated. If a Blessing-from-Chaos minion attempts to block, some for-the-remainder-of-this-action effect is generated. >> this happened in a game: >> Arika (controlled by my predator, playing a presence vote deck) plays >> KRC. >> My Casino reeds (with blessing of Chaos) tries to block, doesn't play >> intercept. Arika cannot play any presence cards during this action. >> (Voter >> Cap, BO, Awe) >> same with his other 2 minions calling votes. That's wat makes Blessing of >> Chaos such a powerful card. > > We've always played it in a way that only _current_ block attempts make > the playing of such cards impossible. It is way powerful even that way. That's your right (as house rules go). But it's not what the card says. Blessing doesn't say "while this minion is currently attempting to block...". > I think that what you describe is an example of a broken effect. I think it is not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:38:48 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> Can two minions be attempting to block at the same time? >> >> I don't think so. > > No. > >> That would imply that there is a definite termination to a block attempt >> (and as such, the "attempting to block" can cease). > > True, but that doesn't erase the fact that the first minion attempted > to block. > > If Valerius attempts to block, some for-the-remainder-of-this-action > effect is generated. If a Blessing-from-Chaos minion attempts to > block, some for-the-remainder-of-this-action effect is generated. What differentiates between "while this minion is blocking" and "for the remainder of this action" effects? >> We've always played it in a way that only _current_ block attempts make >> the playing of such cards impossible. It is way powerful even that way. > > That's your right (as house rules go). I've played it like this because it never occured to me that the card can be interpreted in any other way (including the way that seems to be the official interpretation). I presume other members of my playgroup have a similar motive. > But it's not what the card says. Original text: "If this vampire attempts to block, the acting vampire cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation, Chimerstry [chi], Dominate [dom] or Presence [pre].". > Blessing doesn't say "while this minion is currently attempting > to block...". Neither does it say "once this minion has attempted to block an action, for the remainder of the action ...". The way I see it, no time window or duration is specified. The text seems to indicate a continuous-when-activated effect instead of a triggered-then-lasting effect (hence the lack of timing reference). Just like +bleed against methuselahs controlling a member of a certain clan does not apply if the target of the bleed is changed, it seems intuitive that if the minion who is currently attempting to block changes, any effects related to the former block attempt are no longer in effect. >> I think that what you describe is an example of a broken effect. > > I think it is not. Without going into the extremes, I think that - in general - infinitely reusable effects are not that healthy to the game. When played right, BoC allows you to shut down, for example, a Presence-based political deck. The cost is almost negligible. Sure, there is an opportunity cost associated with using the card, but in practice it is quite a moderate cost. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsr1zme...@news.chello.hu... > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:25:14 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts > <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote: *snip things LSJ already answered* > I think that what you describe is an example of a broken effect. > why? Blessing of Chaos only works on Dem, Chi, Dom and Pre and Valerieus's ability only on chi and obf. *both can still be Seduced. you may not even declare a block attempt. *Against dem, dom, chi and presence bleed modifiers it just means (unless your opponent is stupid) that you'll know for how much the bleed will be, because they can play those before you attempt ot block. It will also mean that your opponent cannot use the stealth of Bonding or Fata Morgana. *It works GREAT against pres vote decks and majesty using S:CE-ers. But is that broken? * Valerius has an easier time blocking minions who rely on obf for stealth. You cannot however base your entire intercept engine around this, because there are other ways than obf to gain stealth. again, not broken, imo. *also: in the snipped above example: if he would've been bleeding or taking other 0 stealth actions, my block would have succeeded, and Casino would've been tapped. Now I need a wake or untap effect to attempt to block the others too. How exactly do you think it's (=Blessing of Chaos) broken? Under the right circumstances it's great, but in just as many cases it's a dead card in your deck.

Daneel wrote: > What differentiates between "while this minion is blocking" and "for the > remainder of this action" effects? The presence or absence of "while" or "is attempting to block", for example. That is: card text. > > Original text: "If this vampire attempts to block, the acting vampire > cannot play action modifiers requiring Dementation, Chimerstry [chi], > Dominate [dom] or Presence [pre].". > >> Blessing doesn't say "while this minion is currently attempting >> to block...". > > Neither does it say "once this minion has attempted to block an action, > for the remainder of the action ...". > > The way I see it, no time window or duration is specified. The text > seems to indicate a continuous-when-activated effect instead of a > triggered-then-lasting effect (hence the lack of timing reference). If he attempts to block, X occurs. Bob takes an action. Chaotic-blessed minion attempts to block. X occurs. X: The acting minion becomes unable to play action modifiers that requires Dem, Chi, Dom, or Pre. > Just like +bleed against methuselahs controlling a member of a certain > clan does not apply if the target of the bleed is changed, it seems > intuitive that if the minion who is currently attempting to block > changes, any effects related to the former block attempt are no longer > in effect. If it said "If this minion attempts to bleed a Methuselah who controls a Toreador, this action gets +1 bleed", it would. But, as you note, that's not what it says. It says "when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Toreador". > Without going into the extremes, I think that - in general - infinitely > reusable effects are not that healthy to the game. When played right, > BoC allows you to shut down, for example, a Presence-based political > deck. The cost is almost negligible. Sure, there is an opportunity cost > associated with using the card, but in practice it is quite a moderate > cost. Welcome to hosers. I haven't seen Blessing of Chaos dominating the tournament scene. I haven't seen it played at all, actually, even in the NAC nor the EC (2004 nor 2003). [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > Can two minions be attempting to block at the same time? > > I don't think so. > > That would imply that there is a definite termination to a block attempt You're completely correct here. The rules on block attempts even note "If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes" - this is part of that 'only one attempt at a time' logic, as well as establishing that a blocking attempt does have an end. > (and as such, the "attempting to block" can cease). This is true, but irrelevant, because Valerius's text does not trigger on if he is "attempting to block" but if he merely makes an attempt. While it's understandable that you (or other people) might feel that the way the card _should_ work is 'only when he's currently attempting to block', the way the card _does_ work (and is worded) is that once he attempts to block, further use of Obf/Chi cards is prohibited. And yes, that's very powerful if you happen to have an Obfuscate or Chimerstry deck behind you. But in a lot of games, it might as well say 'you may skip and dance and prance in your chair' for all the good it does you. There are plenty of vampires (and library cards) with extremely powerful yet limited-use/corner-case abilities already. This is just another. Heck, a lot of the time, I'd rather have _either_ of Count Germaine's specials, as they're more likely to be useful. With regards to 'this card is broken' - by all means, provide the group with evidence of it. Play a Valerius deck in a tourney and see if you can stomp people with it. I've seen one Valerius deck make a final table (but not win) in a smaller tourney so far, and haven't even heard of anybody else trying it successfully yet. > -- > Bye, > > Daneel -John Flournoy

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:49:45 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> What differentiates between "while this minion is blocking" and "for the >> remainder of this action" effects? > > The presence or absence of "while" or "is attempting to block", for > example. That is: card text. > >> The way I see it, no time window or duration is specified. The text >> seems to indicate a continuous-when-activated effect instead of a >> triggered-then-lasting effect (hence the lack of timing reference). > > If he attempts to block, X occurs. > > Bob takes an action. > Chaotic-blessed minion attempts to block. > X occurs. > > X: The acting minion becomes unable to play action modifiers that > requires Dem, Chi, Dom, or Pre. > >> Just like +bleed against methuselahs controlling a member of a certain >> clan does not apply if the target of the bleed is changed, it seems >> intuitive that if the minion who is currently attempting to block >> changes, any effects related to the former block attempt are no longer >> in effect. > > If it said "If this minion attempts to bleed a Methuselah who controls > a Toreador, this action gets +1 bleed", it would. > > But, as you note, that's not what it says. It says "when bleeding a > Methuselah who controls a ready Toreador". My command of English seems to be insufficient to really get your point. I think it'll go into the "memorize, do not attempt to understand" folder I use for similar stuff. Anyway, thanks for your time and effort. >> Without going into the extremes, I think that - in general - infinitely >> reusable effects are not that healthy to the game. When played right, >> BoC allows you to shut down, for example, a Presence-based political >> deck. The cost is almost negligible. Sure, there is an opportunity cost >> associated with using the card, but in practice it is quite a moderate >> cost. > > Welcome to hosers. > > I haven't seen Blessing of Chaos dominating the tournament scene. I > haven't > seen it played at all, actually, even in the NAC nor the EC (2004 nor > 2003). I'm not sure that dominating tournament play is the only way to be broken. Surely you wouldn't think that Drawing out the Beast decks or Meat Hook - Ex Nihilo decks dominated tournament play. Or even decks that used Succubus Club. I think that on the one hand a card does not need to be overpowered in order to be broken; on the other, a card/combo does not need to be overpowered in order to dominate tournament play (and vice verse). As for what personal experience is worth: a few tourneys back I was playing a Ravnos Breed deck using OBF CHI FOR PRE. During a prelim round my prey's first action was a Blessing of Chaos, and I didn't happen to hold any Direct Intervention... -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: >> I haven't seen Blessing of Chaos dominating the tournament scene. I >> haven't >> seen it played at all, actually, even in the NAC nor the EC (2004 nor >> 2003). > > I'm not sure that dominating tournament play is the only way to be > broken. Surely you wouldn't think that Drawing out the Beast decks > or Meat Hook - Ex Nihilo decks dominated tournament play. Or even > decks that used Succubus Club. I think that on the one hand a card > does not need to be overpowered in order to be broken; on the other, > a card/combo does not need to be overpowered in order to dominate > tournament play (and vice verse). No, but they were at least fielded in the tournaments. If a card is actually broken, it's presence would be known at a championship tournament. > As for what personal experience is worth: a few tourneys back I was > playing a Ravnos Breed deck using OBF CHI FOR PRE. During a prelim > round my prey's first action was a Blessing of Chaos, and I didn't > happen to hold any Direct Intervention... Yes. It happens. Once I had a Malkavian stolen with Malkavian Dementia. While he was away, he burned himself. That's hosers for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:47:26 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >>> I haven't seen Blessing of Chaos dominating the tournament scene. I >>> haven't >>> seen it played at all, actually, even in the NAC nor the EC (2004 nor >>> 2003). >> >> I'm not sure that dominating tournament play is the only way to be >> broken. Surely you wouldn't think that Drawing out the Beast decks >> or Meat Hook - Ex Nihilo decks dominated tournament play. Or even >> decks that used Succubus Club. I think that on the one hand a card >> does not need to be overpowered in order to be broken; on the other, >> a card/combo does not need to be overpowered in order to dominate >> tournament play (and vice verse). > > No, but they were at least fielded in the tournaments. > If a card is actually broken, it's presence would be known at a > championship tournament. > >> As for what personal experience is worth: a few tourneys back I was >> playing a Ravnos Breed deck using OBF CHI FOR PRE. During a prelim >> round my prey's first action was a Blessing of Chaos, and I didn't >> happen to hold any Direct Intervention... > > Yes. It happens. > > Once I had a Malkavian stolen with Malkavian Dementia. While he > was away, he burned himself. That's hosers for you. That's nasty. I've seen that once too (though the Malkavian in question was Anatole, and he found the Inner Peace rather than burning himself). Also, it may be a metagame thingy, but according to my experience the only competitive deck that includes Malkavian Dementia is the one which is built to use 2+ MPAs (and a corresponding increased number of Master cards). Whereas Blessing of Chaos is one of the first cards a Dementation deck considers if it wants to shift towards blocking or toolbox. I've seen it many times at tournaments (though only once have I been painfully hosed by it). -- Bye, Daneel

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:yiFpe.1212$VK4...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net... > Daneel wrote: >>> I haven't seen Blessing of Chaos dominating the tournament scene. I >>> haven't >>> seen it played at all, actually, even in the NAC nor the EC (2004 nor >>> 2003). >> >> I'm not sure that dominating tournament play is the only way to be >> broken. Surely you wouldn't think that Drawing out the Beast decks >> or Meat Hook - Ex Nihilo decks dominated tournament play. Or even >> decks that used Succubus Club. I think that on the one hand a card >> does not need to be overpowered in order to be broken; on the other, >> a card/combo does not need to be overpowered in order to dominate >> tournament play (and vice verse). > > No, but they were at least fielded in the tournaments. > If a card is actually broken, it's presence would be known at a > championship tournament. > didn't Robyn's deck contain a Blessing of Chaos?

In message <opsr159v...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I think that on the one hand a card > does not need to be overpowered in order to be broken; This is actually one of the few definitions of "broken" that large numbers of people tend agree with when discussing such things. Broken is typically used to mean "overly powerful for insufficient cost, taken to quite an extreme". That is, a card which is a bit cheap for the effect isn't usually too problematic, but when the inequality is large it is more problematic. In some cases, it's used to mean that a card is sufficiently powerful that once people start using it effectively you either have to play it or play anti-it in order to do well. (This is what happened with e.g. Return to Innocence. You either had to play it and go for fast ousts, or assume you were going to get it played on you and defend against it.) Cards may, of course, be distasteful, unusual or somehow considered inappropriate. For instance, cards with a large element of randomness to them can fall into such categories (turning things into a crap-shoot, rather than a skilled game) without being inherently overpowered. However, if a card is not over-powered (or you are not discussing if a card is over-powered, etc.), I would suggest finding a less loaded word than "broken". This will aid the clarity of both your posts for others, and the responses. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Sorry to jump in at this juncture, repeating something I asked previously but it seems to have gotten lost ... It is clear that Valerius or a Blessings of Chaos vampire may "attempt" to block even if they cannot generate the intercept to do so. As such, can Valerius "attempt" to block cross-table without eagle's sight or other such card and affect the acting minion? Or must he have the capacity to block? Additionally if I bleed with Minion A, Valerius attempts to block and I Mask 1000 Faces. Can I actually do that? Would the new vampire be under Valerius' effects? David

quetzalcoatl wrote: > Sorry to jump in at this juncture, repeating something I asked > previously but it seems to have gotten lost ... > > It is clear that Valerius or a Blessings of Chaos vampire may "attempt" > to block even if they cannot generate the intercept to do so. > > As such, can Valerius "attempt" to block cross-table without eagle's > sight or other such card and affect the acting minion? Or must he have > the capacity to block? The latter. Similarly, Day Operation would thwart the attempt. > Additionally if I bleed with Minion A, Valerius attempts to block and I > Mask 1000 Faces. Can I actually do that? Would the new vampire be under > Valerius' effects? You can Mask, and then the new minion begins suffering the restriction. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote:... > You can Mask, and then the new minion begins suffering the restriction. ... Mask is obf, and action modifier, so can you only play it because it is not played by the minion currently acting?

on a side nore, Valerius with DEM and blessings of Chaos. he heh heh

In message <1118284679....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. Valerius only affects the acting minion - this guy with OBF playing Mask over here isn't affected (yet). Similarly, you could use Cloak the Gathering on the action, if it was other vampires playing it at superior. [ quoted text not captured ]