B. Ali untaps with Black Sunrise; attempts to block.
C. Block fails, as Ali doesn't have enough intercept. Everyone else
declines to block.
D. Nose fizzles, because now Ali is untapped.
Can Saulot Freak Drive now? We ruled "no", since the action wasn't
successful (negating basic FD), and Saulot was not blocked (negating
the superior version).
Correct?
cheers,
Jon
The action was successful (reached resolution unblocked).
Saulot can Freak.
I believe that if the action is canceled, that he can't though - is
this correct?
eg, Does something, Kiss of Ra - cancels the action. Now there is no
action to play an action modifier (freak drive) on.
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
Correct, for two reasons -- as you say, there is no action to modify. Moreover,
in the Kiss of Ra case, the action never reached resolution.
Point of pedantry: Kiss of Ra doesn't cancel the action, it ends it.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
I would say yes, since: "The action was successful (reached resolution
unblocked)."
Does the above aply?
Oortje
He could, if he could pay for the Freak Drive (implying either that he pays less
for Freak Drive or that the action costs pool -- if it costs blood, he has to
pay as much as he can and has none left over to pay for Freak).
Just triple-checking: If the action cost more blood than the vampire
had, he pays as much as he can and then the resolution fizzles - but
if the vamp has Perfectionist (assuming no reactions are played), he
can gain a blood from that and then use that blood to Freak Drive
(since both Perf and FD time in the 'after resolution' window, you can
order the two as you like)? Course, then he would immediately have to
hunt...
-John Flournoy
Correct.
> if the vamp has Perfectionist (assuming no reactions are played), he
> can gain a blood from that and then use that blood to Freak Drive
> (since both Perf and FD time in the 'after resolution' window, you can
> order the two as you like)? Course, then he would immediately have to
> hunt...
Heh. Sure. No reactions and yet he is still "surprised" by something that makes
him have to play an action modifier that costs him enough blood so that he can't
pay for the action. Right.
> > if the vamp has Perfectionist (assuming no reactions are played), he
> > can gain a blood from that and then use that blood to Freak Drive
> > (since both Perf and FD time in the 'after resolution' window, you can
> > order the two as you like)? Course, then he would immediately have to
> > hunt...
>
> Heh. Sure. No reactions and yet he is still "surprised" by something that
makes
> him have to play an action modifier that costs him enough blood so that he
can't
> pay for the action. Right.
an Imbued who untaps with Angel of Berlin and gets 3 intercept with
Winthrop, Unmasking and Second Sight. It wouldn't happen all the time, but
it's not that far-fetched, is it?
Stone
Does it mean that if the action costs pool, and that the player
doesn't have enough pool at end of resolution, he doesn't have to pay
as much as possible (ie : is there a difference between pool cost and
blood cost) ?
(I guess a scenario involves a Madness Network, a Direct Intervention
and a KRCG :)).
A minion could attempt to block, possibly gaining intercept from
effects on the table, without playing any reaction cards. The acting
minion could then play some kind of blood costing stealth or block
fails effect to avoid combat with the blocking minion, even though the
action will fail. Granted this would be a pretty stupid move, since
the possibility of it occuring should be obvious from the table state,
but it is certainly possible.
Another intereresting possibility is that an Imbued could untap or
equip with a Sport Bike via Angel of Berlin. No reaction cards
played, and not immediately obvious from table state.
No, it means the opposite.
Pay as much as possible (and be ousted). Giving rise to a whole new option of
why Freak Drive can't be played -- ousted Methuselahs cannot play cards.
What Stone said. Or a nasty-combat vampire burning a Zillah's Tears to
untap and block the bleed action, prompting the use of costs-blood
stealth/unblockable modifiers to avoid the combat.
Or any of several other non-reaction 'play this/burn blood to untap'
cards (Glutton, Special Report, Trophy: Domain and Eternal Vigilance,
for instance, or Hannbial or Torvus or General Dios' specials) for
that matter.
Alternately still, being blocked and burning the last blood on
superior Form of Mist to succeed at the action while fizzling the
resolution (which might be a useful thing if that vampire can Freak
and then hunt for multiple blood.)
-John Flournoy
Such as Special Report, Eternal Vigilance, Zillah's Tears, the
specials of Torvus/Hannibal/General Dios, or Trophy:Domain followed by
needing to spend blood for extra stealth, for instance.
Or spending your last blood on a superior Form of Mist so that the
action is successful (even if the resolution fizzles), which might
still be worth it if you intend to Freak and then can hunt for >1
blood.
-John Flournoy
You wanting to Freak Drive (and then hunt) afterward kinda is.
witness1
-believe the lie
Huh. This raised a tangential question for me, and I couldn't find an
answer for it when I searched the newsgroup.
If a vampire with Perfectionist is acting, and successfully completes
an action during which no reaction cards were played but an imbued
power that acts as a reaction card is used, does that vampire gain
blood from the Perfectionist?
My hunch would be that he doesn't, due to the explanations of how
imbued-reaction powers work in relation to On the Qui Vive and Blind
Spot, but I dunno...
John Eno
He does. No reaction cards were played.
> My hunch would be that he doesn't, due to the explanations of how
> imbued-reaction powers work in relation to On the Qui Vive and Blind
> Spot, but I dunno...
While you are able to play [timing symbol] cards, you may use [timing
symbol] powers, otherwise not. It doesn't matter if you're allowed (or
disallowed) by rule text or card text.
witness1
-believe the truth
I think you may be correct here, but I'll wait for Scott to clarify.
Activating powers requires that all the conditions under which that
card type can be played be met (see below), but it does not count as
playing a card. By the same token, power activations cannot be
stopped by Direct Intervention or similar effects.
> While you are able to play [timing symbol] cards, you may use [timing
> symbol] powers, otherwise not. It doesn't matter if you're allowed (or
> disallowed) by rule text or card text.
Incorrect. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/df9843dbc7ffd17d
When correcting other posters, please be sure that what you're saying
is actually true.
> witness1
> -believe the truth
Do some research to verify that the truth is actually true, and then
believe it.
CthuluKitty is correct. The unattributed quote from witness1 is correct.
Remember, keep the attribution lines for your quoted material.
> Activating powers requires that all the conditions under which that
> card type can be played be met (see below), but it does not count as
> playing a card. By the same token, power activations cannot be
> stopped by Direct Intervention or similar effects.
Correct again.
>> While you are able to play [timing symbol] cards, you may use [timing
>> symbol] powers, otherwise not. It doesn't matter if you're allowed (or
>> disallowed) by rule text or card text.
>
> Incorrect. See:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/df9843dbc7ffd17d
>
> When correcting other posters, please be sure that what you're saying
> is actually true.
Correct, but I'm not sure that contradicts witness1's statement: "While you are
able to play reaction cards, you may use reaction effects from powers." (Which
he seems to contradict with his next statement, so I'm not sure what he meant).
Anyway, the point is that the converse is also true: "While you are not able to
play reaction cards, you may not use reaction effects from powers."
And that's the interesting part.
Exactly. (Even if the effect that allows you to play reaction cards is
a card, and not rule text).
> (Which
> he seems to contradict with his next statement, so I'm not sure what he meant).
>
> Anyway, the point is that the converse is also true: "While you are not able to
> play reaction cards, you may not use reaction effects from powers."
Exactly. (Even if the effect that disallows you from playing reaction
cards is a card, and not rule text).
> And that's the interesting part.
Right. The rule on using powers piggy-backs on the rules for playing a
card of the appropriate type. This doesn't make their use equivalent
to playing a card for any purpose other than determining when you are
(or aren't) allowed to use them.
witness1
> While you are able to play [timing symbol] cards, you may use [timing
> symbol] powers, otherwise not. It doesn't matter if you're allowed (or
> disallowed) by rule text or card text.
Oh now I see what you mean. It looked like what you were saying here
was "you can use reaction-timed powers even if rules or card text says
you can't play reaction cards" rather than "both rules text and card
text can allow or disallow the use of powers". That's quite an
ambiguous sentence you've got there.
Right. Sorry about that.
witness1
-believe, dammit!