Q. Special Report
robtreasure
to block a cross table action now as it is an OOT master card not a
reaction card ? (See obvious comparison with Wakes etc.) ? With specific
reference to being able to then act out of turn with a Madness Network
or block a later action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Special Report
Card Text:
Master: out-of-turn
Choose a ready vampire you control. That vampire untaps and attempts to
block. Once this action you may burn 1 pool to give that vampire +1
intercept
Rob
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
LSJ
> Does Special Report transcend the requirement to have to legally be able
> to block a cross table action now as it is an OOT master card not a
> reaction card ?
No. The ability to block is not related to reactionness or OOTness.
[6.2.2.1]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
The Lasombra
<robtreasure....@web2news.net> wrote:
>Does Special Report transcend the requirement to have to legally be able
>to block a cross table action now as it is an OOT master card not a
>reaction card ? (See obvious comparison with Wakes etc.) ?
No.
See the FAQ section 3.31.
http://www.thelasombra.com/vtes_faq.htm
3.31 Can I use a card that requires me to block, to untap against an
action that is directed at someone else?
No.
Cards which require a block attempt as part of their untap effect (2nd
Tradition, Eternal Vigilance, Speak with Spirits, Special Report)
cannot be played if your vampires cannot block the action. If you want
to block an action that is directed at someone else, you must first
play an Eagle's Sight or Falcon's Eye before playing a card that
untaps you and requires you to block. In other words, you would first
have to play a Wake with Evening's Freshness or Forced Awakening, then
play the Eagle's Sight or Falcon's Eye to gain the ability to block,
then you could use the untap and block cards.
See also :
LSJ 2002-11-19
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DDA5E7B.E969168B%40white-wolf.com
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
albert1642
>>to block a cross table action now as it is an OOT master card not a
>>reaction card ? (See obvious comparison with Wakes etc.) ?
>
>No.
>
>See the FAQ section 3.31.
>
>http://www.thelasombra.com/vtes_faq.htm
>
>
>3.31 Can I use a card that requires me to block, to untap against an
>action that is directed at someone else?
>No.
>
>Cards which require a block attempt as part of their untap effect (2nd
>Tradition, Eternal Vigilance, Speak with Spirits, Special Report)
>cannot be played if your vampires cannot block the action. If you want
>to block an action that is directed at someone else, you must first
>play an Eagle's Sight or Falcon's Eye before playing a card that
>untaps you and requires you to block. In other words, you would first
>have to play a Wake with Evening's Freshness or Forced Awakening, then
>play the Eagle's Sight or Falcon's Eye to gain the ability to block,
>then you could use the untap and block cards.
This came up... If you eagle sight block an action... Tap and the action
continues with Form of Mist... Can you play Special report to untap and
attempt to block again? Or does the eagle sight effect go away since he's
successfully blocked? I know if you wake after a successful block, you retain
the intercept you had before... (IE you earth control, he enhance sense...
FoM and continue, he can wake and just needs 1 more intercept...)
LSJ
> This came up... If you eagle sight block an action... Tap and the action
> continues with Form of Mist... Can you play Special report to untap and
> attempt to block again?
Yes.
> Or does the eagle sight effect go away since he's
> successfully blocked?
No. Reaction cards' effects last for the duration of the action by default.
> I know if you wake after a successful block, you retain
> the intercept you had before... (IE you earth control, he enhance sense...
> FoM and continue, he can wake and just needs 1 more intercept...)
Yes. Added intercept also lasts for the duration of the action by default.
Jozxyqk
> albert1642 wrote:
>> This came up... If you eagle sight block an action... Tap and the action
>> continues with Form of Mist... Can you play Special report to untap and
>> attempt to block again?
> Yes.
>> Or does the eagle sight effect go away since he's
>> successfully blocked?
> No. Reaction cards' effects last for the duration of the action by default.
But with the current wording:
"This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the
normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions."
It sounds like "...attempts to block..." is an atomic, one time thing, as
opposed to the old-wording "...may attempt to block..." which is more of a
lasting effect.
If the action continues, doesn't the vampire have to "attempt to block" again?
LSJ
Right. Sorry. Eagle's Sight is clearly a singular occurrence, not a duration of
the action effect. My mistake. After the Form of Mist, you'd have to again
establish your eligibility prior to playing Special Report.
R. David Zopf
"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:iZt7a.290650$Ec4.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> But with the current wording:
> "This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the
> normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions."
>
> It sounds like "...attempts to block..." is an atomic, one time thing, as
> opposed to the old-wording "...may attempt to block..." which is more of a
> lasting effect.
>
the current action". If its still 'the current action', then you are still
'attempting to block' because no action resolution has been reached.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Jozxyqk
But once you hit combat, you're no longer attempting to block. You have
successfully blocked. And you have to attempt to block again.
That's why if someone has tapped to block, and then FOM comes through, they
still have to play a wake in order to attempt to block again.
tetragrammaton
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> albert1642 wrote:
>>>> This came up... If you eagle sight block an action... Tap and
>>>> the action continues with Form of Mist... Can you play Special
>>>> report to untap and attempt to block again?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>> Or does the eagle sight effect go away since he's
>>>> successfully blocked?
>>>
>>
>>> No. Reaction cards' effects last for the duration of the action by
>>> default.
>> But with the current wording:
>> "This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action,
>> ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for
>> blocking actions."
>>
>> It sounds like "...attempts to block..." is an atomic, one time
>> thing, as opposed to the old-wording "...may attempt to block..."
>> which is more of a lasting effect.
>>
>> If the action continues, doesn't the vampire have to "attempt to
>> block" again?
>
> Right. Sorry. Eagle's Sight is clearly a singular occurrence, not a
> duration of the action effect.
However eagle sight wording is still
"This reacting vampire attempts to block the *current* action" ,
and under FoM the "*current* action" is still there, aint' it
(and ES isn't still there after FoM?)
From which wording we can tell the "one time atomic thing" effects
from "lasting until the current action" effects?
thanks
Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>>Right. Sorry. Eagle's Sight is clearly a singular occurrence, not a
>>duration of the action effect.
>
> However eagle sight wording is still
> "This reacting vampire attempts to block the *current* action" ,
> and under FoM the "*current* action" is still there, aint' it
> (and ES isn't still there after FoM?)
Yes, but moot.
"This reacting vampire *attempts* to block..."
The attempt has been made. Mission complete. End of effect.
> From which wording we can tell the "one time atomic thing" effects
> from "lasting until the current action" effects?
The wording that specifies a thing done (like Second Trad's untap)
vs. an ability granted (like Second Trad's intercept).
If you Form of Mist past a Prince who used 2nd Trad to untap, the
prince doesn't get to untap again with that expired effect, although
he still has the intercept.
James Coupe
<nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes:
>However eagle sight wording is still
>"This reacting vampire attempts to block the *current* action" ,
>and under FoM the "*current* action" is still there, aint' it
>(and ES isn't still there after FoM?)
That's a simple instruction. The vampire does it right now.
Compare with Wake with Evening's Freshness, which gives the vampire an
ability for the whole action.
Eagle's Sight *could* have been written as something like:
"This vampire ignores the usual restrictions on who may attempt
to block an action for the duration of the current action."
It wasn't. It says "This vampire attempts to block". The reference to
the current action is mostly redundant, since there is nothing else to
block, but makes for better sense.
Instead it is written as a one off occurrence. Consider:
"This reacting vampire untaps"
This would not give a vampire the option to untap again later in the
action, were they tapped during it. It is also a one off occurrence.
Clinging to the phrase "current action" is a mistake, because you could
just as easily have written Eagle's Sight as something like:
"This vampire attempts to block the acting minion, regardless of
the usual restrictions on who may attempt to block."
and it would still function in the same fashion.
Consider also a hypothetical card text:
"This reacting vampire blocks the current action (enter combat
as normal)."
That would also be a simple, one-off instruction, just the same as
"attempts". It wouldn't give the vampire the magical ability to block
it *again* if Form of Mist (or similar) were played. It just says "do
it now".
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
reyda
> R. David Zopf <atomw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If you're going to go atomic, use the whole phrase, as in
>> "attempts to block the current action". If its still 'the current
>> action', then you are still 'attempting to block' because no
>> action resolution has been reached.
>
> But once you hit combat, you're no longer attempting to block. You
> have successfully blocked.
what about the "the action continues as if unblocked" stuff ?
> And you have to attempt to block again.
> That's why if someone has tapped to block, and then FOM comes
> through, they still have to play a wake in order to attempt to
> block again.
this is so wrong...
LSJ
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>And you have to attempt to block again.
>>That's why if someone has tapped to block, and then FOM comes
>>through, they still have to play a wake in order to attempt to
>>block again.
>
> this is so wrong...
Jozxyqk is correct. Form of Mist doesn't untap the minion whose block
instigated the combat. Tapped minions can't block.
reyda
> reyda wrote:
>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>> And you have to attempt to block again.
>>> That's why if someone has tapped to block, and then FOM comes
>>> through, they still have to play a wake in order to attempt to
>>> block again.
>>
>> this is so wrong...
>
> Jozxyqk is correct. Form of Mist doesn't untap the minion whose
> block instigated the combat. Tapped minions can't block.
yup =)
Jozxyqj is correct, the rule is wrong ;)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>>reyda wrote:
>>>this is so wrong...
>>Jozxyqk is correct. Form of Mist doesn't untap the minion whose
>>block instigated the combat. Tapped minions can't block.
>
> yup =)
> Jozxyqj is correct, the rule is wrong ;)
Any evidence to support your position?
The rules and card text are quite clear on this point.
reyda
|| reyda wrote:
||| LSJ wrote:
|||| reyda wrote:
||||| this is so wrong...
|||| Jozxyqk is correct. Form of Mist doesn't untap the minion whose
|||| block instigated the combat. Tapped minions can't block.
|||
||| yup =)
||| Jozxyqj is correct, the rule is wrong ;)
||
|| Any evidence to support your position?
Not a single one =)
|| The rules and card text are quite clear on this point.
Yes, the rules and card text are always evident and crystal clear. That's
why we need a netrep and huge amounts of tulings =)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> || Any evidence to support your position?
>
> Not a single one =)
>
> || The rules and card text are quite clear on this point.
>
> Yes, the rules and card text are always evident and crystal clear. That's
> why we need a netrep and huge amounts of tulings =)
You seem to misunderstand what is meant by "on this point."
Are you trying to accomplish anything or is this just another troll?