[LSJ] Change in tapped-ness of target
Xian
forum? the VTES-L listserv?) about an action fizzling if it requires
that the target be in a certain state, and that state is not the
current state when the action is about to resolve.
Did I misunderstand that, or is that correct as stated?
Example:
Anneke is tapped.
Wynn rushes Anneke with an Ambush (requires a tapped minion as the
target).
Anneke untaps and tries to block with 2nd Tradition. (Normally,
Wynn's player would give up at this point and take the combat, but he
really wants the maneuver.)
Wynn adds +3 stealth, Anneke fails to increase intercept.
At this point, the action is about to resolve.
Am I to understand that the action would then fizzle, because Wynn is
no longer Ambushing a tapped minion? Or did I completely misread that
message (that I am unable to reference)?
Thanks,
Xian
LSJ
> I thought I saw a message from LSJ somewhere (the newsgroup? the WW
> forum? the VTES-L listserv?) about an action fizzling if it requires
> that the target be in a certain state, and that state is not the
> current state when the action is about to resolve.
>
> Did I misunderstand that, or is that correct as stated?
Yes.
> Example:
>
> Anneke is tapped.
> Wynn rushes Anneke with an Ambush (requires a tapped minion as the
> target).
> Anneke untaps and tries to block with 2nd Tradition. (Normally,
> Wynn's player would give up at this point and take the combat, but he
> really wants the maneuver.)
> Wynn adds +3 stealth, Anneke fails to increase intercept.
> At this point, the action is about to resolve.
>
> Am I to understand that the action would then fizzle, because Wynn is
> no longer Ambushing a tapped minion? Or did I completely misread that
> message (that I am unable to reference)?
You are correct.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Sorrow
> > Wynn rushes Anneke with an Ambush (requires a tapped minion as the
> > target).
> > Anneke untaps and tries to block with 2nd Tradition. (Normally,
> > Wynn's player would give up at this point and take the combat, but he
> > really wants the maneuver.)
> > Wynn adds +3 stealth, Anneke fails to increase intercept.
> > At this point, the action is about to resolve.
> > Am I to understand that the action would then fizzle, because Wynn is
> > no longer Ambushing a tapped minion? Or did I completely misread that
> > message (that I am unable to reference)?
> You are correct.
Ok, same situation but Wynn doesn't add stealth. Anneke taps because she
successfully blocks, but is that enough for the Ambush text.
I realize that this is a really funky situation in where a block results in combat.
However, if she wasn't tapped (due to the 2ndTrad) at the time of the block,
does the action fizzle thus negating the combat that would have otherwise
resulted in a successful block?
Sorrow
-thinking in circles and it hurts
---
"I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection."
- Narrator
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C446E6D...@white-wolf.com...
(snip)
> > Am I to understand that the action would then fizzle, because Wynn is
> > no longer Ambushing a tapped minion? Or did I completely misread that
> > message (that I am unable to reference)?
>
> You are correct.
should i believe that a vampire with an Eternal Vigilance and -1 intercept
(say, a Daughter to make it simple) is immune to ambushes ?? =°
reyda
LSJ
> Ok, same situation but Wynn doesn't add stealth. Anneke taps because she
> successfully blocks, but is that enough for the Ambush text.
Doesn't matter - the action is blocked.
You have to try to successfully resolve the action before it fizzles.
LSJ
If you call burning a blood being "immune", yes (assuming there aren't players
out there who have minions with -1 stealth or players who would vindictively
give your EV an intercept when you "attempt" to block with KRCG or whatnot).
Chris Berger
> Sorrow wrote:
> > Ok, same situation but Wynn doesn't add stealth. Anneke taps because
she
> > successfully blocks, but is that enough for the Ambush text.
>
> Doesn't matter - the action is blocked.
> You have to try to successfully resolve the action before it fizzles.
>
When attempting an action, you check to make sure it is legal (i.e. legal
target, legal actor, enough blood to pay for it) both when it is attempted
and when it is about to successfully resolve. If it is illegal when it is
attempted, you get to take it back into your hand with a sheepish grin on
your face and get your knuckles rapped with the yardstick (or "meter"-stick,
for you internationales ;) ). If it is illegal when resolved, then it goes
to the ash heap, the action is unsuccessful, and you do not pay for it.
That correct (actually, I'm far from sure about one thing... *do* you check
that the acting vampire can use this action when it resolves, or just that
the target is legal and the actor has enough blood? not that I can think of
any situation off the top of my head where the acting minion could become
illegal in the middle of an action, but I'm sure it's possible).
vermillian
> Ok, same situation but Wynn doesn't add stealth. Anneke taps because she
> successfully blocks, but is that enough for the Ambush text.
> I realize that this is a really funky situation in where a block results in combat.
> However, if she wasn't tapped (due to the 2ndTrad) at the time of the block,
> does the action fizzle thus negating the combat that would have otherwise
> resulted in a successful block?
Ignore the entire fact that is was the action Ambush. It was blocked.
Its not succesful. Combat for succesfully blocking occurs. Note,
however that if he now form of mists, the ambush would then be
succesful (cause Anneke blocked, and is tapped). Note, anneke could
wake and block, again, with second tradition (thanks to the "even if
intercept is not yet needed" part of the card), but if she untapped
with a second 2nd, she'd have to block...
Curious though... what if Anneke played Majesty at superior and
untapped and Wynn played Form of Mist... I suppose Anneke could just
flat out block the thing once again... but it'd be smarter for her to
just not block, and have the effect fizzle (cause she's untapped)...
this happens all the time, I'm sure.
~SV
PS have I got all of the above right?
Sorrow
> > successfully blocks, but is that enough for the Ambush text.
> Doesn't matter - the action is blocked.
Well, it would have mattered if it turned out that there was actually no action
to block.
> You have to try to successfully resolve the action before it fizzles.
Ok.
Sorrow
---
"This is my costume.
I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else."
-- Wednesday Addams
berni...@attbi.comnospam
wrote:
Guess I need to put up a webpage devoted to "Stupid VTES Tricks and
Trivia".
Why would Ambush need to check twice during an action to decide if
it's legal? The target minion is tapped, Ambush is played on a legal
target. How the minion responds shouldn't alter the course of the
action as it was legal when played.
Can you please elaborate as to why this is?
LSJ
> Just to be sure I've got this right...
>
> When attempting an action, you check to make sure it is legal (i.e. legal
> target, legal actor, enough blood to pay for it) both when it is attempted
> and when it is about to successfully resolve. If it is illegal when it is
> attempted, you get to take it back into your hand with a sheepish grin on
> your face and get your knuckles rapped with the yardstick (or "meter"-stick,
> for you internationales ;) ).
If it is illegal when it is attempted, then it is not attempted, since it
is illegal.
> If it is illegal when resolved, then it goes
> to the ash heap, the action is unsuccessful, and you do not pay for it.
No. The action has no effect (it is still a "successful" action, since
it is unblocked - you still pay for it) - just like any other pre-existing
effect that "loses sight" of its target (Aching Beauty on a Toreador who
then CIs to a Nosferatu, for example) - the effect no longer applies.
> That correct (actually, I'm far from sure about one thing... *do* you check
> that the acting vampire can use this action when it resolves, or just that
> the target is legal and the actor has enough blood? not that I can think of
> any situation off the top of my head where the acting minion could become
> illegal in the middle of an action, but I'm sure it's possible).
Losing an action-enabler in the middle of the action (e.g. a Bomb) will cause
the action to fizzle, as well.
James Coupe
berni...@attbi.comNOSPAM writes:
>Why would Ambush need to check twice during an action to decide if
>it's legal? The target minion is tapped, Ambush is played on a legal
>target. How the minion responds shouldn't alter the course of the
>action as it was legal when played.
>
>Can you please elaborate as to why this is?
Because when an action is successful, you do what the card tells you.
In the case of Ambush, it tells you to enter combat with a tapped
minion. In the circumstances given above, there is no tapped minion to
enter combat with.
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
Chris Berger
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > When attempting an action, you check to make sure it is legal (i.e.
legal
> > target, legal actor, enough blood to pay for it) both when it is
attempted
> > and when it is about to successfully resolve. If it is illegal when it
is
> > attempted, you get to take it back into your hand with a sheepish grin
on
> > your face and get your knuckles rapped with the yardstick (or
"meter"-stick,
> > for you internationales ;) ).
>
> If it is illegal when it is attempted, then it is not attempted, since it
> is illegal.
>
berni...@attbi.comnospam
wrote:
>In message <3c45d06c...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>berni...@attbi.comNOSPAM writes:
>>Why would Ambush need to check twice during an action to decide if
>>it's legal? The target minion is tapped, Ambush is played on a legal
>>target. How the minion responds shouldn't alter the course of the
>>action as it was legal when played.
>>
>>Can you please elaborate as to why this is?
>
>Because when an action is successful, you do what the card tells you.
>
>In the case of Ambush, it tells you to enter combat with a tapped
>minion. In the circumstances given above, there is no tapped minion to
>enter combat with.
>
>--
>James Coupe
Which isn't true when the action initially takes place. Ambush HAS
targeted a tapped vampire. Any change in status after the fact should
be irrelevant.
What I'm asking for is why this lame loophole which occurs when
somebody plays a 2nd tradition?
Regards,
Bernie Bresnahan
GreySeer
> >berni...@attbi.comNOSPAM writes:
> >>Why would Ambush need to check twice during an action to decide if
> >>it's legal? The target minion is tapped, Ambush is played on a legal
> >>target. How the minion responds shouldn't alter the course of the
> >>action as it was legal when played.
> >>
> >>Can you please elaborate as to why this is?
> >
> >Because when an action is successful, you do what the card tells you.
> >
> >In the case of Ambush, it tells you to enter combat with a tapped
> >minion. In the circumstances given above, there is no tapped minion to
> >enter combat with.
> >
> >--
> >James Coupe
>
> Which isn't true when the action initially takes place. Ambush HAS
> targeted a tapped vampire. Any change in status after the fact should
> be irrelevant.
>
> What I'm asking for is why this lame loophole which occurs when
> somebody plays a 2nd tradition?
It is a loophole but it's not likely to get exploited that often since 2nd
Trad requires you to attempt to block. I dbout many people will be rushing a
2nd Trad-er with 3 stealth ( and especially not now ).
Xian
<berni...@attbi.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:3c45e707...@netnews.attbi.com...
> What I'm asking for is why this lame loophole which occurs when
> somebody plays a 2nd tradition?
Not entirely sure. Though you should note that it's only when they play a
2nd Tradition and then that +2 intercept gets stealthed past. Generally the
block will do just fine for the combat-entering-guy. :)
Xian
James Coupe
berni...@attbi.comNOSPAM writes:
>What I'm asking for is why this lame loophole which occurs when
>somebody plays a 2nd tradition?
Consistency with other situations where various parts of the enabling
situation disappear.
--
James Coupe "Never give in to them," she whispered. "No matter what
PGP 0x5D623D5D EB they do or how important you feel it is to get their accep-
D690ECD7A1FB457CA21 tance. Never kill part of yourself for them. Because other
3D7E668C3695D623D5D people will notice that part is missing before you do."
Halcyan 2
>>somebody plays a 2nd tradition?
>
>Consistency with other situations where various parts of the enabling
>situation disappear.
Yeah.
When you announce an action, it checks to see if the target is valid (tapped
minion for Ambush). And when the action resolves, it checks to see if the
target is still valid.
Similarly, when you perform an action that has a blood cost, it checks to make
sure you can pay for it when you announce it (an empty vampire can't Govern the
Unaligned). And then when the action resolves, it checks the blood amount again
(and fizzles if the cost can't be paid).
And just like when the action fizzles because the cost can't be paid, it also
fizzles if the Bomb is used in combat, or the target is no longer valid (you
try to steal a retainer who is killed in combat, and then the combat
continues). In fact, I really don't think the Ambush-->2nd Tradition-->Form of
Mist--->Fizzle situation is really that different from Far Mastery-->Weather
Control kills Mr. Winthrop-->Form of Mist-->Fizzle (cause Mr. Winthrop is no
more).
Halcyan 2
berni...@attbi.comnospam
Thanks for a good response with clear examples,
Bernie B.