[LSJ] Strike with conviction

François

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 11:02:22 AM4/21/06

to

Hello,

I would like to confirm the following about Strike with conviction :

Strike with conviction
Conviction
"(...). Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action."

If the bleed is blocked, do I burn the card ?

Thank you,

François

XZealot

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 11:14:02 AM4/21/06

to

Yes, you burn it to be able to attempt the bleed.

Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp

Matthew T. Morgan

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 11:21:58 AM4/21/06

to

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, XZealot wrote:

>> I would like to confirm the following about Strike with conviction :
>>
>> Strike with conviction
>> Conviction
>> "(...). Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action."
>>
>> If the bleed is blocked, do I burn the card ?
>
> Yes, you burn it to be able to attempt the bleed.

Nope. Apparently burning the Conviction is the cost of the action. The
cost is not paid if it's blocked.

http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3565#50202

Matt Morgan

LSJ

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 11:29:26 AM4/21/06

to

Correct. The (D) action is "burn to bleed at +1 bleed".

Rehlow

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:33:14 PM4/21/06

to

Neato. I thought Strike with Conviction was already a pretty good
Conviction card and now it got just a little bit stronger. Do I take
the bleed or block and risk taking +1 damage in combat from them buring
the Strike with Conviction for its other effect (assuming I am a
monster) or suffering some other Power or Imbued card that costs
Conviction (that the Imbued is now able to pay for with the Strike with
Conviction they did not have to burn to attempt the bleed).

Later,
~Rehlow

XZealot

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:51:09 PM4/21/06

to

Then the language is non-intuitive.

"If x then to be able to do y" does not imply that y has to be
successful for x to occur.

The card should have been written as a action modifier if that was the
intent, such as "burn to get +1 bleed".

witness1

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:21:44 PM4/21/06

to

XZealot wrote:
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, XZealot wrote:
> >
> > >> I would like to confirm the following about Strike with conviction :
> > >>
> > >> Strike with conviction
> > >> Conviction
> > >> "(...). Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action."
> > >>
> > >> If the bleed is blocked, do I burn the card ?
> > >
> > > Yes, you burn it to be able to attempt the bleed.
> >
> > Nope. Apparently burning the Conviction is the cost of the action. The
> > cost is not paid if it's blocked.
> >
> > http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3565#50202
>
> Then the language is non-intuitive.

I agree that it seems unintuitive on its own. However, the rules state
that the cost of an action is not payed until the action is successful.
So the only interpretation is whether burning Strike With Conviction is
a cost of the action or is merely a side effect of the attempt. The
ruling is yes, it's the cost of the action.

> "If x then to be able to do y" does not imply that y has to be
> successful for x to occur.

See also Hrothulf and Enticement. Neither require you to burn the edge
if the action is blocked, because burning the edge is part of the cost
of the action.

> The card should have been written as a action modifier if that was the

> intent, such as "burn to get +1 bleed".

No. Such a card would stack with other bleed actions like Computer
Hacking, and thus *not* meet the intent of this card.

Witness1
-ItE