Mirror Walk VS Obedience
Powerlord
Minion A bleeds
Minion B blocks
Minion A plays Mirror Walk
Minion B plays intercept
Minion A gets blocked
Question:
Can Minion B play Obedience and stay untapped?
I would say no, because MW says the action ends (with no combat) and
Obedience says "Only usable when this reacting vampire is about to
enter combat".
Well in my point of view, if minion A's action ends with no combat,
you never get to "about to enter combat", needed for Obedience to
trigger.
Clarification please?
Name: Mirror Walk
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Do not replace until your discard phase.
[tha] +1 stealth.
[THA] As [tha] above, and if this action is blocked, the action ends
(with no combat).
Name: Obedience
Cardtype: Reaction
Discipline: Dominate
Only usable when this reacting vampire is about to enter combat with
an acting younger vampire.
[dom] Untap the acting vampire, do not tap this reacting vampire, and
end the current action (and combat). The acting vampire cannot attempt
the same action this turn.
[DOM] As above, but do not untap the acting vampire.
carn...@gmail.com
> A question came up last saturday:
>
> Minion A bleeds
> Minion B blocks
> Minion A plays Mirror Walk
> Minion B plays intercept
> Minion A gets blocked
>
> Question:
> Can Minion B play Obedience and stay untapped?
>
> I would say no, because MW says the action ends (with no combat) and
> Obedience says "Only usable when this reacting vampire is about to
> enter combat".
> Well in my point of view, if minion A's action ends with no combat,
> you never get to "about to enter combat", needed for Obedience to
> trigger.
>
> Clarification please?
Your logic is correct - There is no combat after a superior Mirror
Walk, so there is no 'about to enter combat' for Obedience to be
played in.
-John Flournoy
brandons...@yahoo.com
A couple things on the order of events. First, minion a bleeds, then
minion b attempts to block. Next, minion A plays mirror walk. If
minion B has the intercept, the action is blocked. At this point, I
believe that there are a variety of cards that can be played (change
of target, venenation, revelation of despair, shattered mirror, etc).
The controller of the acting minion has first chance to play their
effects/cards.
I don't know this for certain, but it would seem like there 1) is the
issue of acting minion's priority and 2) is no chance that combat will
occur, so you can not be "about to enter combat"
Brandon
Powerlord
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
I don't agree, if the action is ending buy the effect of MW i think
you cannot play CoT or Venenation, because one effect already ended
the action, but i might be wrong.
Regarding Revelaition of Despair, Shattered Mirror and Obedience, i
presume the blocking minion cannot play Obedience, but the other
reactions don't require that you got to the "about to enter combat"
part.
LSJ? Official clarification please?
Ricardo Marta
Prince of Lisbon
LSJ
> On 11 Mar, 18:33, brandonsantac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 10:59 am, Powerlord <powerlord...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A couple things on the order of events. First, minion a bleeds, then
>> minion b attempts to block. Next, minion A plays mirror walk. If
>> minion B has the intercept, the action is blocked. At this point, I
>> believe that there are a variety of cards that can be played (change
>> of target, venenation, revelation of despair, shattered mirror, etc).
>> The controller of the acting minion has first chance to play their
>> effects/cards.
>> I don't know this for certain, but it would seem like there 1) is the
>> issue of acting minion's priority and 2) is no chance that combat will
>> occur, so you can not be "about to enter combat"
>
> you cannot play CoT or Venenation, because one effect already ended
> the action, but i might be wrong.
>
> Regarding Revelaition of Despair, Shattered Mirror and Obedience, i
> presume the blocking minion cannot play Obedience, but the other
> reactions don't require that you got to the "about to enter combat"
> part.
>
> LSJ? Official clarification please?
Correct. Mirror Walk ends the action when it is blocked. You cannot play Change
of Target after the action ends. Likewise Venenation, Revelation of Despair, etc.
Powerlord
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
But after i play MW, i can still play Freak Drive and the blocking
minion's controler can always play Forced Vigilance or Cats' Guidance,
right?
LSJ
> But after i play MW, i can still play Freak Drive and the blocking
> minion's controler can always play Forced Vigilance or Cats' Guidance,
> right?
No. None of those can be played after the action ends.
No action modifiers or reactions can be played after the action ends.
Xexyz
> No. None of those can be played after the action ends.
> No action modifiers or reactions can be played after the action ends.
So that means there are basically three possible outcomes for an
action:
1. The action resolves, successfully or unsuccessfully. Cards such
Freak Drive, Cat's Guideance, Enkil Cog are played during (or right
after?) action resolution.
2. The action is cancelled. The acting minion is not tainted by any
NRA rules and can in most cases take the same action again, barring
any card text which would indicate otherwise. No action modifiers or
reactions can be played.
3. The action ends before resolution. Freak Drive and other "at
resolution" reactions or action modifiers can't be played because the
action has ended.
Is this basically correct? Also, in the case of #3, is the acting
minion tainted by the NRA rule?
LSJ
> On Mar 12, 7:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> No. None of those can be played after the action ends.
>> No action modifiers or reactions can be played after the action ends.
>
> So that means there are basically three possible outcomes for an
> action:
>
> 1. The action resolves, successfully or unsuccessfully. Cards such
> Freak Drive, Cat's Guideance, Enkil Cog are played during (or right
> after?) action resolution.
During the action resolution step, after resolving the action.
> 2. The action is cancelled. The acting minion is not tainted by any
> NRA rules and can in most cases take the same action again, barring
> any card text which would indicate otherwise. No action modifiers or
> reactions can be played.
> 3. The action ends before resolution. Freak Drive and other "at
> resolution" reactions or action modifiers can't be played because the
> action has ended.
>
> Is this basically correct?
Well, it could also be ended at resolution (like with Mirror Walk, Obedience, or
Change of Target).
> Also, in the case of #3, is the acting
> minion tainted by the NRA rule?
If it reached resolution, he's tainted. If it didn't, he isn't. Whether it was
ended or canceled or not doesn't affect that (so that also applies to #2).
Powerlord
That means you can have a sequence like this:
- Minion with a Rutor's Hand bleeds with GtU
- get's blocked
- plays MW
- get's blocked again (added intercept)
- action cancelled (throught MW)
- blocker tapped
- minion untaps due to RH
- minion bleeds again with GtU since the previous was "cancelled" or
ended before reaching resolution
Is this valid?
Kushiel
> That means you can have a sequence like this:
> - Minion with a Rutor's Hand bleeds with GtU
> - get's blocked
If the acting vampire is blocked, he can't play Mirror Walk. I assume
you meant "there is a block attempt" here instead.
> - plays MW
> - get's blocked again (added intercept)
Not "blocked again." See my note above.
> - action cancelled (throught MW)
> - blocker tapped
> - minion untaps due to RH
> - minion bleeds again with GtU since the previous was "cancelled" or
> ended before reaching resolution
>
> Is this valid?
No. Being blocked is an action resolution, so the acting minion can't
attempt the same action again this turn.
John Eno
Xexyz
> During the action resolution step, after resolving the action.
This is confusing. There's an action resolution step that occurs
after the action resolves? So I take this to mean that you determine
whether or not the action resolves, and then the action resolution
stop occurs, which is when the effects of the action (if any) take
place?
> Well, it could also be ended at resolution (like with Mirror Walk, Obedience, or
> Change of Target).
> If it reached resolution, he's tainted. If it didn't, he isn't. Whether it was
> ended or canceled or not doesn't affect that (so that also applies to #2).
So then how do you determine whether an action resolves or not?
LSJ
> On 12 Mar, 14:07, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Xexyz wrote:
>>> 2. The action is cancelled. The acting minion is not tainted by any
>>> NRA rules and can in most cases take the same action again, barring
>>> any card text which would indicate otherwise. No action modifiers or
>>> reactions can be played.
>>> 3. The action ends before resolution. Freak Drive and other "at
>>> resolution" reactions or action modifiers can't be played because the
>>> action has ended.
>>> Is this basically correct?
>> Well, it could also be ended at resolution (like with Mirror Walk, Obedience, or
>> Change of Target).
>>
>>> Also, in the case of #3, is the acting
>>> minion tainted by the NRA rule?
>> If it reached resolution, he's tainted. If it didn't, he isn't. Whether it was
> That means you can have a sequence like this:
> - Minion with a Rutor's Hand bleeds with GtU
> - get's blocked
You mean: "a block attempt is begun". The action isn't blocked yet.
> - plays MW
> - get's blocked again (added intercept)
You mean: "the block succeeds (added intercept)".
So the acting minion becomes unable to bleed again, as per above. (Since the
action reached resolution).
> - action cancelled (throught MW)
You mean: "action ended (through MW).
> - blocker tapped
Well, this happens when the block succeeds, but sure.
> - minion untaps due to RH
> - minion bleeds again with GtU since the previous was "cancelled" or
> ended before reaching resolution
>
> Is this valid?
No. He can't bleed again. He became prohibited from bleeding again when the
first GtU bleed reached resolution.
LSJ
> On Mar 12, 9:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> During the action resolution step, after resolving the action.
>
> This is confusing. There's an action resolution step that occurs
> after the action resolves?
No. The effects of the successful action are applied (i.e., the action is
resolved) in the "resolve action" window. Also applied in that same window are
other effects that are not effects of the successful action, like Freak Drive.
> So then how do you determine whether an action resolves or not?
If it reaches resolution.
Me: "OK, I'm blocked" is one way (blocked, unsuccessful).
Them: "No block" is another (successful).
Xexyz
>During the action resolution step, after resolving the action. (As to when you play Freak Drive and the like)
> No. He can't bleed again. He became prohibited from bleeding again when the
> first GtU bleed reached resolution.- Hide quoted text -
>No. None of those can be played after the action ends.
>No action modifiers or reactions can be played after the action ends.
So, if an action is ended due to Mirror Walk having been played (and
the action then successfully blocked), the action counts as having
resolved, but doesn't count as having resolved for the purposes of
playing Freak Drive? What's the distinction? Why does an action
ending due to MW count differently than an action ending because it
was successful or if it was blocked and then combat occurred? Or to
put it another way, why does MW apparently cancel the "resolve action"
window yet concurrently count as the action having resolved?
LSJ
> This is where I'm confused. You said:
>
>> During the action resolution step, after resolving the action. (As to when you play Freak Drive and the like)
>
>> No. He can't bleed again. He became prohibited from bleeding again when the
>> first GtU bleed reached resolution.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> No. None of those can be played after the action ends.
>> No action modifiers or reactions can be played after the action ends.
>
> So, if an action is ended due to Mirror Walk having been played (and
> the action then successfully blocked), the action counts as having
> resolved,
The action isn't resolved, no. But it did reach resolution. That's just card text.
Mirror Walk waits for the (successful) block.
Successful block *means* the action has reached the resolution step.
> but doesn't count as having resolved for the purposes of
> playing Freak Drive?
The action ends before Freak Drive can be played, yes. Again, that's just card
text. Mirror Walk says to end the action.
> What's the distinction?
Card text.
> Why does an action
> ending due to MW count differently than an action ending because it
> was successful or if it was blocked and then combat occurred?
An action doesn't end just because the effects of the successful action or the
successful act are applied. There's still time in the action (before it ends) to
play Fast Reaction or Freak Drive, for example (neither of which would be
possible if the action ended as soon as you resolved the effect of the
successful action or the successful block).
> Or to
> put it another way, why does MW apparently cancel the "resolve action"
> window yet concurrently count as the action having resolved?
Card text specifies that it ends the action when resolution is reached and
(explicitly) before resolving:
"if blocked" = action reached resolution
"action ends" = end the action
"(with no combat)" = before resolving the block (i.e., the effects of the
successful block: combat)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kevin M.
And THIS is why you should be playing Mirror Walk at inferior whenever
you are able.
Scott, I have always thought that Mirror Walk should have followed what is
often a template of [inf]: Ability, with restriction. [sup]: Ability.
Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created differently? Is it
because the 'action ends without combat' part was judged to be stronger than
no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Chris Berger
> LSJ wrote:
> > Powerlord wrote:
> >> But after i play MW, i can still play Freak Drive and the blocking
> >> minion's controler can always play Forced Vigilance or Cats'
> >> Guidance, right?
>
> > No. None of those can be played after the action ends.
> > No action modifiers or reactions can be played after the action ends.
>
> And THIS is why you should be playing Mirror Walk at inferior whenever
> you are able.
>
> Scott, I have always thought that Mirror Walk should have followed what is
> often a template of [inf]: Ability, with restriction. [sup]: Ability.
>
> Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created differently? Is it
> because the 'action ends without combat' part was judged to be stronger than
> no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
>
umm... +1 stealth with an additional ability stronger than just +1
stealth? ya think? I mean, if you *want* to be in combat, why are
you playing stealth in the first place?
Kevin M.
OMFG!!1 BECAUSE YOU'RE THE TREMERE!!
=) :) ;) :D
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
Jozxyqk
> Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created differently? Is it
> because the 'action ends without combat' part was judged to be stronger than
> no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
Kevin:
See Stone Travel and Shroud of Absence.
Personally, I think the option to avoid combat is stronger than forcing you
to get into combat. If you are playing stealth, it usually means you want
to avoid block-combat, doesn't it???
bwr...@mail.com
It could just be that you'd prefer that the action goes through... but
if it must be blocked, you're still more than happy to make the
blocker walk off lame.
I look at it this way: the superior version gives you an extra option
to avoid combat monsters you can't deal with, but you don't have to
use it... that's added value. Besides, thaum is notorious for cards
that require the superior level to be worthwhile playing, but here's a
card that's useful for all those vampires that have had their inferior
thaum ignored for years. I'm not going to argue with that.
Brent
Obtenebration
> Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created differently? Is it
> because the 'action ends without combat' part was judged to be stronger than
> no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
>
Because it gives "stronger" vampires a choice that weaker ones do not
have.
In gameplay, who are the only THA vampires who benefit from playing it
at Inferior?
Combat decks trying to avoid combat or vampires who want to be able to
play cards after a block to untap/continue the action.
If it was reveresed, the same vampires above still get the same use
out of the card, just at THA this time.
But then you also open up free combat evasion to every vampire with
tha in the game.
James Coupe
Please don't post binary attachments to Usenet newsgroups. Thanks in
advance.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Jozxyqk
> OMFG!!1 BECAUSE YOU'RE THE TREMERE!!
If you _want_ to get blocked, why are you playing stealth?
Stealth is, by its very basic definition, an attempt to NOT GET BLOCKED!
Superior MW is purely an advantage.
"Even if I get blocked, I don't have to worry about the consequences
of getting blocked, i.e. combat."
If you are interested in getting blocked, then play Theft of Vitae
(or some other combat card) in every slot where Mirror Walk would otherwise
be.
But if you're interested in taking enter-combat _actions_, I hope you're not
mis-reading the card. A successful action to enter combat, even if Mirror
Walk was played at superior as stealth, will still result in combat.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> OMFG!!1 BECAUSE YOU'RE THE TREMERE!!
>>
>> =)
>
> Please don't post binary attachments to Usenet newsgroups. Thanks in
> advance.
Since that has never happened to me before in thousands of posts, I'll
ignore it and your unnecessary reply.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>> Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created
>>>> differently? Is it because the 'action ends without combat' part
>>>> was judged to be stronger than no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
>>>
>>> Kevin:
>>> See Stone Travel and Shroud of Absence.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think the option to avoid combat is stronger than
>>> forcing you to get into combat. If you are playing stealth, it
>>> usually means you want to avoid block-combat, doesn't it???
>
>> OMFG!!1 BECAUSE YOU'RE THE TREMERE!!
>
> If you _want_ to get blocked, why are you playing stealth?
ummm Perhaps because the Tremere also have Dominate, a discipline famous for
heavy bleeds?
(for James, just in case) ;) :) ;D
> Superior MW is purely an advantage.
Not if you are OK with getting blocked but would prefer if your action goes
through, it isn't.
Why are we even arguing this? Can you not see the scenarios in pretty much
EVERY DECK where this is the reality?
Jozxyqk
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> Jozxyqk wrote:
> >>> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >>>> Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created
> >>>> differently? Is it because the 'action ends without combat' part
> >>>> was judged to be stronger than no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
> >>>
> >>> Kevin:
> >>> See Stone Travel and Shroud of Absence.
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think the option to avoid combat is stronger than
> >>> forcing you to get into combat. If you are playing stealth, it
> >>> usually means you want to avoid block-combat, doesn't it???
> >
> >> OMFG!!1 BECAUSE YOU'RE THE TREMERE!!
> >
> > If you _want_ to get blocked, why are you playing stealth?
> ummm Perhaps because the Tremere also have Dominate, a discipline famous for
> heavy bleeds?
ummm... that's an argument for NOT WANTING TO GET BLOCKED.
> > Superior MW is purely an advantage.
> Not if you are OK with getting blocked but would prefer if your action goes
> through, it isn't.
That's why the "no combat" is at superior. Because it's an advantageous
option.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>>>> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Could you give us some insight as to why MW was created
>>>>>> differently? Is it because the 'action ends without combat' part
>>>>>> was judged to be stronger than no-strings-attached +1 stealth?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin:
>>>>> See Stone Travel and Shroud of Absence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I think the option to avoid combat is stronger than
>>>>> forcing you to get into combat. If you are playing stealth, it
>>>>> usually means you want to avoid block-combat, doesn't it???
>>>
>>>> OMFG!!1 BECAUSE YOU'RE THE TREMERE!!
>>>
>>> If you _want_ to get blocked, why are you playing stealth?
>
>> ummm Perhaps because the Tremere also have Dominate, a discipline
>> famous for heavy bleeds?
>
> ummm... that's an argument for NOT WANTING TO GET BLOCKED.
No, it's an argument for your preference that your action getting through,
but you as the player understanding how the game works, how the Tremere
work, how Theft works, and how in most decks a balance of offense and
defense works.
>>> Superior MW is purely an advantage.
>
>> Not if you are OK with getting blocked but would prefer if your
>> action goes through, it isn't.
>
> That's why the "no combat" is at superior. Because it's an
> advantageous option.
Not always (which is what you stated) it isn't, no. It makes all my Theft
of Vitae dead card slots, fr.ex.
Salem
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> That's why the "no combat" is at superior. Because it's an
>> advantageous option.
>
> Not always (which is what you stated) it isn't, no. It makes all my Theft
> of Vitae dead card slots, fr.ex.
if you have superior [tha], you can play MW at _either_ basic or
superior. That's an advantage. You're holding lots of theft? play it at
basic. You're holding no theft at all? play it at superior. Just because
you have superior tha doesn't mean you have to play the card at that level.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Kevin M.
I agree completely.
Jozxyqk
> >>> Superior MW is purely an advantage.
> >
> >> Not if you are OK with getting blocked but would prefer if your
> >> action goes through, it isn't.
> >
> > That's why the "no combat" is at superior. Because it's an
> > advantageous option.
> Not always (which is what you stated) it isn't, no. It makes all my Theft
> of Vitae dead card slots, fr.ex.
Well, Kevin, I think we've just established that you don't know the
definition of the word "option". :P
I guess we're done here.
LSJ
Having the option may be advantageous even if the option is not advantageous in
a given situation.
So:
Being able to choose to play MW at superior or inferior is better than being
able to play it only at inferior.
But playing it at superior is not always better than playing it at inferior.