Timing Unleash Hells Fury and Coterie Tactics, Reaction
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt
Choose another ready untapped vampire you control of the same sect as
this reacting vampire. These two vampires attempt to block, using the
sum of their intercept to see whether the block succeeds. If
successful, tap both and then you choose one to be blocking vampire
(and the other ceases to be blocking).
Unleash Hell's Fury, Action, 2 pool, Daimoinon/infernal, R , [HttB:R]
+1 stealth action. Requires an infernal vampire. Unique.
[dai] Put this card in play. This card may attempt to block a (D)
action against you and is considered a 9-capacity infernal vampire
with +2 intercept during that attempt. If successful, the action
minion takes 1 unpreventable aggravated damage and this card is
burned.
[DAI] As above and untap this vampire. Burn option.
Can Unleash attempt to block something, play coterie tactics and
choose another vampire applying the +2 intercept, then cease to be the
blocking vampire if its blocked before the bun clause sets in?
Jarkko Suvela
Eh, Unleash Hell's Fury doesn't mention any sects. If that is (and it
seems) so, then you cannot even play Coterie Tactics with it.
-could be wrong too, I don't know if there's some default rule for
vampires that don't state specific sect (are they considered
independent? I guess no)
a-e
coterie tactics needs vampire with same sect and unleash the hell's
fury seems to be sectless (and clanless) infernal 9 cap vampire by
card text, so he cant really play coterie tactics in the first place.
floppyzedolfin
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can Unleash attempt to block something, play coterie tactics and
> choose another vampire applying the +2 intercept, then cease to be the
> blocking vampire if its blocked before the bun clause sets in?
"Independent" is the default sect for vampires, so you'd need another
independent vampre.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0dac2d09a4d12027
Anyway, Coterie Tactics being a declaration of a block attempt, I
suppose things are working this way :
[no block attempt yet]
Unleash Hell's Fury plays Coterie Tactics on [Independent Vampire].
Wait till action is declared blocked.
Chose Independent Vampire as the blocking minion.
Continue as usual.
Now, the fun part : When Coterie Tactics is resolving, Unleash Hell's
Fury becomes tapped.
I think the card can still play Coterie Tactics while tapped. (see
last question here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a1f55342dd504ce9
)
Raziel
> On Feb 24, 4:14 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
>
> <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can Unleash attempt to block something, play coterie tactics and
> > choose another vampire applying the +2 intercept, then cease to be the
> > blocking vampire if its blocked before the bun clause sets in?
>
> "Independent" is the default sect for vampires, so you'd need another
>
> Anyway, Coterie Tactics being a declaration of a block attempt, I
> suppose things are working this way :
>
> [no block attempt yet]
> Unleash Hell's Fury plays Coterie Tactics on [Independent Vampire].
> Wait till action is declared blocked.
> Chose Independent Vampire as the blocking minion.
> Continue as usual.
>
> Now, the fun part : When Coterie Tactics is resolving, Unleash Hell's
> Fury becomes tapped.
> I think the card can still play Coterie Tactics while tapped. (see
> )
No, it can't. Tapped vampires can't play reaction cards unless
specified. He can just attempt to block.
John Flournoy
> Anyway, Coterie Tactics being a declaration of a block attempt, I
> suppose things are working this way :
>
> [no block attempt yet]
> Unleash Hell's Fury plays Coterie Tactics on [Independent Vampire].
I disagree.
Coterie Tactics is a reaction card that begins a block attempt.
Important note: It therefore is not a card that can be played while
there is already a block attempt going on.
Unleash Hell's Fury is just a card in play until it begins a block
attempt.
The card does not say "This card can block as if it were a vampire";
it says the card itself can attempt to block and counts as a vampire
during that attempt. Playing a card that starts a block attempt must
logically occur before the block attempt begins, which means UHF isn't
a vampire at the point the card is picking vampire(s) to block with,
so it can't pick UHF as a target.
Until you say "UHF attempts to block", it does not count as a vampire
and thus cannot play reaction cards (or be the target of a reaction
card looking for a vampire of the same sect.)
Nor can you say "UHF attempts to block" and then have it play Coterie
Tactics - either the block attempt is already succeeding from its own
declaration, in which case you can't start a new attempt, or its block
attempt is failing, in which case you have to end the block attempt
(and thus revert UHF to 'not a vampire' status) before playing CT to
try a combined attempt.
-John Flournoy
Frederick Scott
news:b6c44d4c-8e93-40d8...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I'm completely confused why there's any issue of anything being tapped.
Is the question is about trying to play Coterie Tactics when intercept
is not required and after the block (by UHF by itself) had been declared
successful - in which case there's no block attempt any more.
And I still don't think Coterie Tactics could be used to evade the burn
effect (would also stop agg damage from being applied), if that's the
intent. Coterie Tactics just says one of the vampires "ceases to be
blocking". It doesn't say to treat the block like it never happened for
that vampire.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:c10242d5-5d19-41b5...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I don't believe Coterie Tactics requires you to declare failure on an
existing attempt and start a new one. It appears to me that it simply
modifies an in-progress/currently-failing block attempt to add another
minion's intercept. So you could:
1) Declare block by UHF.
2) If acting minion cannot get stealth higher than 2, end of block attempt,
block succeeds. (Burn UHF, do agg damage.)
3) If acting minion can get stealth higher than 2, then it works to play
Coterie Tactics on UHF to bring in a second vampires intercept. If the
block then succeeds, tap the other vampire, burn UHF, do the agg damage -
so it won't save UHF but the block does happen.
Fred
John Flournoy
> I don't believe Coterie Tactics requires you to declare failure on an
> existing attempt and start a new one. It appears to me that it simply
> modifies an in-progress/currently-failing block attempt to add another
> minion's intercept.
That's not what it says.
Coterie Tactics text: "Choose another ready untapped vampire you
control of the same sect as this reacting vampire. These two vampires
attempt to block, using the
sum of their intercept to see whether the block succeeds."
It does not say "Choose a vampire already attempting to block" or
"play when you are attempting to block." Nor does it say "add a
vampire into the current block attempt."
It says that the two vampires you select attempt to block.
Attempting to block requires that there is no existing, still-ongoing
attempt to block. (Rulebook: "If one attempt to block is unsuccessful,
another attempt can be made.", i.e. another attempt cannot be made if
the first one isn't unsuccessful.)
Thus, you cannot start the block attempt Coterie Tactics begins unless
all previous attempts are at the 'unsuccessful' stage.
Consider this: I am in the midst of a block attempt with Neighbor John
and my predator out-stealths me with a Lost in Crowds. I opt to play
Coterie Tactics with Jephta Hester and target Rico Loco as the second
vampire. What happens to Neighbor John's block attempt? Nothing about
CT says that either vampire must be part of an ongoing block attempt;
nothing restricts me from playing it with Jephta or targeting Rico.
So if the card is meant to be played during an existing block attempt
to add a second interceptor into the mix, why can I use it on two
vampires that aren't part of that block attempt? In this case, NJohn's
block attempt must be ended before Jeptha/Rico's can begin.
And even if I do have Neighbor John play it and select Rico, I am
playing a card that says "(Neighbor John and Rico Loco) attempt to
block", not "continues to attempt to block adding in the second
vampire".
-John Flournoy
Frederick Scott
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8d87061e-580c-4558...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 24, 2:46 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I don't believe Coterie Tactics requires you to declare failure on an
> > existing attempt and start a new one. It appears to me that it simply
> > modifies an in-progress/currently-failing block attempt to add another
> > minion's intercept.
>
> That's not what it says.
>
> Coterie Tactics text: "Choose another ready untapped vampire you
> control of the same sect as this reacting vampire. These two vampires
> attempt to block, using the
> sum of their intercept to see whether the block succeeds."
>
> It does not say "Choose a vampire already attempting to block" or
> "play when you are attempting to block." Nor does it say "add a
> vampire into the current block attempt."
It doesn't say "Choose a vampire already attempting to block" on
Enhanced Sense either. You don't have to cease your current block,
declare failure, and start a new block attempt with increased
intercept in order to use it. You just increase the intercept.
> Consider this: I am in the midst of a block attempt with Neighbor John
> and my predator out-stealths me with a Lost in Crowds. I opt to play
> Coterie Tactics with Jephta Hester and target Rico Loco as the second
> vampire. What happens to Neighbor John's block attempt?
It failed. But so what? You always have the option to abandon failing
block attempts. This is utterly unrelated to the matter of whether
one must abandon a block attempt being made by Neighbor John alone in
order to allow Neighbor John to play Coterie Tactics and include, say
Rico Loco in the block attempt.
> Nothing about
> CT says that either vampire must be part of an ongoing block attempt;
> nothing restricts me from playing it with Jephta or targeting Rico.
I didn't say there was.
> So if the card is meant to be played during an existing block attempt
> to add a second interceptor into the mix, why can I use it on two
> vampires that aren't part of that block attempt? In this case, NJohn's
> block attempt must be ended before Jeptha/Rico's can begin.
Sure.
> And even if I do have Neighbor John play it and select Rico, I am
> playing a card that says "(Neighbor John and Rico Loco) attempt to
> block", not "continues to attempt to block adding in the second
> vampire".
I don't think the lack of such wording demonstrates what you're
claiming. (I will admit, I'm not 100% sure you're wrong, either.)
Fred
John Flournoy
>> It does not say "Choose a vampire already attempting to block" or
>> "play when you are attempting to block." Nor does it say "add a
>> vampire into the current block attempt."
> It doesn't say "Choose a vampire already attempting to block" on
> Enhanced Sense either. You don't have to cease your current block,
> declare failure, and start a new block attempt with increased
> intercept in order to use it. You just increase the intercept.
The difference is that Coterie Tactics says "these vampires attempt to
block", and Enhanced Senses doesn't say that it creates a block
attempt.
If Enhanced Senses said "This vampire attempts to block with +2
intercept", that'd work differently than just "(this vampire gets) +2
intercept." It'd then work like Guard Duty, which would mean that you
couldn't even play ES unless you already needed the +2 intercept.
(Which raises a side question: if one of the vampires you want to
Coterie Tactics already has permanent intercept, can you play CT if
you don't yet need the intercept? Or does it follow Guard Duty and
prevent you from doing so?)
> I don't think the lack of such wording demonstrates what you're
> claiming. (I will admit, I'm not 100% sure you're wrong, either.)
Yeah, IANLSJ either on this one.
> Fred
-John
LSJ
> On Feb 24, 10:51 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, Coterie Tactics being a declaration of a block attempt, I
> > suppose things are working this way :
>
> > [no block attempt yet]
> > Unleash Hell's Fury plays Coterie Tactics on [Independent Vampire].
>
> I disagree.
>
> Coterie Tactics is a reaction card that begins a block attempt.
> Important note: It therefore is not a card that can be played while
> there is already a block attempt going on.
Correct.
> Unleash Hell's Fury is just a card in play until it begins a block
> attempt.
>
> The card does not say "This card can block as if it were a vampire";
> it says the card itself can attempt to block and counts as a vampire
> during that attempt. Playing a card that starts a block attempt must
> logically occur before the block attempt begins, which means UHF isn't
> a vampire at the point the card is picking vampire(s) to block with,
> so it can't pick UHF as a target.
>
> Until you say "UHF attempts to block", it does not count as a vampire
> and thus cannot play reaction cards (or be the target of a reaction
> card looking for a vampire of the same sect.)
>
> Nor can you say "UHF attempts to block" and then have it play Coterie
> Tactics - either the block attempt is already succeeding from its own
> declaration, in which case you can't start a new attempt, or its block
> attempt is failing, in which case you have to end the block attempt
> (and thus revert UHF to 'not a vampire' status) before playing CT to
> try a combined attempt.
Correct.
floppyzedolfin
> On Feb 24, 10:51 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, Coterie Tactics being a declaration of a block attempt, I
> > suppose things are working this way :
>
> > [no block attempt yet]
> > Unleash Hell's Fury plays Coterie Tactics on [Independent Vampire].
>
> I disagree.
>
> Coterie Tactics is a reaction card that begins a block attempt.
> Important note: It therefore is not a card that can be played while
> there is already a block attempt going on.
Agreed.
> Unleash Hell's Fury is just a card in play until it begins a block
> attempt.
Agreed.
> The card does not say "This card can block as if it were a vampire";
> it says the card itself can attempt to block and counts as a vampire
> during that attempt. Playing a card that starts a block attempt must
> logically occur before the block attempt begins, which means UHF isn't
> a vampire at the point the card is picking vampire(s) to block with,
> so it can't pick UHF as a target.
I expected that argument. It does not say "declare a block attempt",
it reads "may declare a block attempt".
Maybe this is clearer if you have in mind that Anneke can play Second
Tradition to untap and block a cross-table action :
http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cb8c4ad00bcfd0d8
Anneke and Unleash Hell' Fury have the same cardtext ("... may attempt
to block ..."), so their attempt to block may come from any card -
could be Coterie Tactics for UHF or 2nd Tradition for Anneke.
> Until you say "UHF attempts to block", it does not count as a vampire
> and thus cannot play reaction cards (or be the target of a reaction
> card looking for a vampire of the same sect.)
You do say "UHF attempts to block [using the block attempt provided by
Coterie Tactics]".
> Nor can you say "UHF attempts to block" and then have it play Coterie
> Tactics - either the block attempt is already succeeding from its own
> declaration, in which case you can't start a new attempt, or its block
> attempt is failing, in which case you have to end the block attempt
> (and thus revert UHF to 'not a vampire' status) before playing CT to
> try a combined attempt.
Block attemps are not "failing" in most of the time (they would only
be when you lack intercept and give the impulse to your prey, until
the impulse reaches the acting minion's controler). They are either
successful or unsuccessful.
Again, Anneke + Eagle's Sight is the key, in my opinion.
John Flournoy
> On 24 fév, 21:39, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 10:51 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, Coterie Tactics being a declaration of a block attempt, I
> > > suppose things are working this way :
>
> > > [no block attempt yet]
> > > Unleash Hell's Fury plays Coterie Tactics on [Independent Vampire].
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > Coterie Tactics is a reaction card that begins a block attempt.
> > Important note: It therefore is not a card that can be played while
> > there is already a block attempt going on.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Unleash Hell's Fury is just a card in play until it begins a block
> > attempt.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The card does not say "This card can block as if it were a vampire";
> > it says the card itself can attempt to block and counts as a vampire
> > during that attempt. Playing a card that starts a block attempt must
> > logically occur before the block attempt begins, which means UHF isn't
> > a vampire at the point the card is picking vampire(s) to block with,
> > so it can't pick UHF as a target.
>
> I expected that argument. It does not say "declare a block attempt",
> it reads "may declare a block attempt".
> Maybe this is clearer if you have in mind that Anneke can play Second
> Anneke and Unleash Hell' Fury have the same cardtext ("... may attempt
> to block ..."), so their attempt to block may come from any card -
> could be Coterie Tactics for UHF or 2nd Tradition for Anneke.
From any card they can legally play, yes.
UHF may make a block attempt. However, until it is making a block
attempt, it's not a vampire and thus cannot play reaction cards (or
count as a vampire for a card looking for it.)
Anneke's ability to play Second Tradition is not a good parallel,
because Anneke can already play reaction cards when she is not in the
midst of blocking, including those that require a block attempt as the
effect of the card played.
The point is that UHF "may attempt to block" just like Anneke, but
only counts as a vampire _during_ the block attempt (not "when it is
trying to declare a new block attempt.") And thus it cannot play
Coterie Tactics, because CT gets played while no block attempt is
happening (even though it then starts one).
-John Flournoy