Permanent intercept + untap and attempt to block
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
block with +x intercept, how does other intercept on that minion count
at that point?
A few examples:
1) Let's say I have a tapped Tatiana Romanov in play and she has a
Trophy: Domain on her.
If Toy Boy bleeds me at 0 stealth, it would be illegal for Tatiana to
use the Trophy: Domain-effect to untap and attempt to block since she
doesn't yet need the intercept.
Is that correct?
2) In this next example I once again have a tapped Tatiana Romanov in
play and she still has Trophy: Domain on her. This time she also has a
Sport Bike.
If Toy Boy (this time equipped with the Enchanted Marionette) bleeds
me at 1 stealth, would it at that point be legal for Tatiana to use
the Trophy: Domain-effect to untap and attempt to block? Here she does
need intercept, but not as much as she currently has.
I assume this would be legal the same way it's legal to play superior
Enhanced Senses against an action at 1 stealth.
3) Yet again I'm having a tapped Tatiana Romanov in play, and she's
still got that Trophy: Domain on her.
Boy Toy goes for another bleed action at 0 stealth (no doll this
time). Using Trophy: Domain's untap+block effect would be illegal
here, but how about Second Tradition?
Second Tradition states that it can be used "even if intercept is not
yet needed", but does this include the intercept gained from other
sources as Trophy: Domain, Sport Bike etc?
I'm guessing yes, since it does seem to restrict the clause to the
intercept gained from the card (it could've said "even if *this*
intercept is not yet needed" which would've been different as far as I
can tell).
Emiliano Imeroni
> When a minion uses an effect that making xem untap and attempt to
> block with +x intercept, how does other intercept on that minion count
> at that point?
The rules (section 6.2.2) say that "intercept can be added during an
action only when needed". "Added" is your keyword: if a minion has
permanent intercept (i.e. Mr. Winthrop, Raven Spy, Trophy: Domain), he
is allowed to try to block even when intercept is not needed.
> A few examples:
>
> 1) Let's say I have a tapped Tatiana Romanov in play and she has a
> Trophy: Domain on her.
> If Toy Boy bleeds me at 0 stealth, it would be illegal for Tatiana to
> use the Trophy: Domain-effect to untap and attempt to block since she
> doesn't yet need the intercept.
> Is that correct?
No, it isn't. You can try to block 0-stealth actions untapping via
Trophy: Domain.
> 2) In this next example I once again have a tapped Tatiana Romanov in
> play and she still has Trophy: Domain on her. This time she also has a
> Sport Bike.
> If Toy Boy (this time equipped with the Enchanted Marionette) bleeds
> me at 1 stealth, would it at that point be legal for Tatiana to use
> the Trophy: Domain-effect to untap and attempt to block? Here she does
> need intercept, but not as much as she currently has.
> I assume this would be legal the same way it's legal to play superior
> Enhanced Senses against an action at 1 stealth.
Same as before. Tatiana can try to block.
> 3) Yet again I'm having a tapped Tatiana Romanov in play, and she's
> still got that Trophy: Domain on her.
> Boy Toy goes for another bleed action at 0 stealth (no doll this
> time). Using Trophy: Domain's untap+block effect would be illegal
> here, but how about Second Tradition?
> Second Tradition states that it can be used "even if intercept is not
> yet needed", but does this include the intercept gained from other
> sources as Trophy: Domain, Sport Bike etc?
> I'm guessing yes, since it does seem to restrict the clause to the
> intercept gained from the card (it could've said "even if *this*
> intercept is not yet needed" which would've been different as far as I
> can tell).
Again, you can try to block. The only "added" intercept that would
violate the above rule comes from Second Tradition, but card text
explicitly states that you can use it.
Ciao,
Emiliano
LSJ
> When a minion uses an effect that making xem untap and attempt to
> block with +x intercept, how does other intercept on that minion count
> at that point?
In whatever manner card text indicates it counts.
> A few examples:
>
> 1) Let's say I have a tapped Tatiana Romanov in play and she has a
> Trophy: Domain on her.
> If Toy Boy bleeds me at 0 stealth, it would be illegal for Tatiana to
> use the Trophy: Domain-effect to untap and attempt to block since she
> doesn't yet need the intercept.
> Is that correct?
No. She already has the intercept ("The vampire with this card has +1
intercept."), so the rule about gaining intercept doesn't apply.
The only effect she's newly applying from T:D is "untap and attempt to block."
> 2) In this next example I once again have a tapped Tatiana Romanov in
> play and she still has Trophy: Domain on her. This time she also has a
> Sport Bike.
> If Toy Boy (this time equipped with the Enchanted Marionette) bleeds
> me at 1 stealth, would it at that point be legal for Tatiana to use
> the Trophy: Domain-effect to untap and attempt to block? Here she does
> need intercept, but not as much as she currently has.
> I assume this would be legal the same way it's legal to play superior
> Enhanced Senses against an action at 1 stealth.
It's legal in any event, as in example 1).
> 3) Yet again I'm having a tapped Tatiana Romanov in play, and she's
> still got that Trophy: Domain on her.
> Boy Toy goes for another bleed action at 0 stealth (no doll this
> time). Using Trophy: Domain's untap+block effect would be illegal
> here, but how about Second Tradition?
Using T:D is still legal, as in 1).
> Second Tradition states that it can be used "even if intercept is not
> yet needed", but does this include the intercept gained from other
> sources as Trophy: Domain, Sport Bike etc?
> I'm guessing yes, since it does seem to restrict the clause to the
> intercept gained from the card (it could've said "even if *this*
> intercept is not yet needed" which would've been different as far as I
> can tell).
Moot, but yes, Second Tradition is legal by its explicit card text.
Salem
> sg3kmb6...@gmail.com wrote:
...
>> Second Tradition states that it can be used "even if intercept is not
>> yet needed", but does this include the intercept gained from other
>> sources as Trophy: Domain, Sport Bike etc?
>> I'm guessing yes, since it does seem to restrict the clause to the
>> intercept gained from the card (it could've said "even if *this*
>> intercept is not yet needed" which would've been different as far as I
>> can tell).
>
> Moot, but yes, Second Tradition is legal by its explicit card text.
Unlike Guard Duty, which is why it sucks so much!
reprint! update! reprint!
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
bwross
> LSJ wrote:
> > Moot, but yes, Second Tradition is legal by its explicit card text.
>
> Unlike Guard Duty, which is why it sucks so much!
>
> reprint! update! reprint!
Psst... the secret to playing Guard Duty is to make sure you have a
guard Hellhound to go with it. The Hellhound can't act so it's always
ready to attempt to block all those zero stealth burn location actions
and force them to play stealth so the guard will finally notice that
someone is Rampaging the place. :)
Brent Ross
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
>
> Unlike Guard Duty, which is why it sucks so much!
>
> reprint! update! reprint!
Indeed.. Guard Duty was the card I had in mind when posting the
questions, which is why I got slapped with a bunch of mooty answers :\
Salem
heh. "I'll play this card that sucks, so this other card that sucks
won't suck so much! Nah, that's silly. Perhaps if first I Clan
Impersonate Gargoyles..."
suolir...@gmail.com
> guard Hellhound to go with it. The Hellhound can't act so it's always
> ready to attempt to block all those zero stealth burn location actions
> and force them to play stealth so the guard will finally notice that
> someone is Rampaging the place. :)
>
> Brent Ross
At which point the acting minion will kick the puppy and delegate
burnination-duties to another minion. Not that it's a big loss.