[LSJ]combat ends+amaranth
gabusanvtes
vampire was playing under the effects undead persistence.
a) Can the vampire playing combat ends play amaranth against the
vampire fighting under undead persistence?
(Sorry to ask such a silly question, but a tournament level player did
it in our last game, so I would like some kind of official
confirmation to post in our newsgroup)
b) Can any of the vampires play "Taste of vitae" at any point after
the S: CE, just to discard it?
(Another dumb question, but the guy said "Taste of vitae" had some
kind of errata allowing it, since it was end of the round, or
something like that...)
Thanks a lot for your time and patience.
Miller Delmardigan
> A vampire plays combat ends as one of his strikes. The opposing
> vampire was playing under the effects undead persistence.
>
> a) Can the vampire playing combat ends play amaranth against the
> vampire fighting under undead persistence?
yes.
card text:
Amaranth [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U, Anarchs:PAG, BH:PTo2]
Cardtype: Combat
Only usable by a vampire who can commit diablerie. Only usable when the
opposing vampire should go to torpor. Diablerize the opposing vampire
instead. Not usable by a vampire going to torpor.
Nothing prevents your vampire to play it, since he's still ready, I guess.
>
> (Sorry to ask such a silly question, but a tournament level player did
> it in our last game, so I would like some kind of official
> confirmation to post in our newsgroup)
>
> b) Can any of the vampires play "Taste of vitae" at any point after
> the S: CE, just to discard it?
yes.
card text:
Taste of Vitae [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, SW:PB, CE:U/PB2/PN, BH:PN2]
Cardtype: Combat
Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire
going into torpor.
This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to the amount lost by the
opposing vampire to damage during this round of combat. A vampire can
play only 1 Taste of Vitae each round.
In your case, that amount equals zero. And again, nothing prevents your
vampire to play taste at the end of a round (or combat), since he's
still ready at that time.
LSJ
> A vampire plays combat ends as one of his strikes. The opposing
> vampire was playing under the effects undead persistence.
>
> a) Can the vampire playing combat ends play amaranth against the
> vampire fighting under undead persistence?
No. The Undead Persistence guy won't go to torpor until after combat,
so isn't a valid target for Amaranth.
> b) Can any of the vampires play "Taste of vitae" at any point after
> the S: CE, just to discard it?
Taste can be played if the round ends during strike resolution, yes.
(After S:CE, after knocking someone into torpor or the ash heap,
etc.)
--
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 Doctor
> "gabusanvtes" <gpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2687136c.04071...@posting.google.com...
>
>>A vampire plays combat ends as one of his strikes. The opposing
>>vampire was playing under the effects undead persistence.
>>
>>a) Can the vampire playing combat ends play amaranth against the
>>vampire fighting under undead persistence?
>
>
> No. The Undead Persistence guy won't go to torpor until after combat,
> so isn't a valid target for Amaranth.
Amaranth says 'should go to torpor'. Undead persistance does nothing to
take away the 'should go to torpor', it just takes away the 'go to
torpor'. So it should be possible to play Amaranth at the same time one
would play Undead Persistance? (resulting in fact in the diablerie)
And yes, this would not make sense :)
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje
begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt
LSJ
>>> vampire was playing under the effects undead persistence.
>>>
>>> a) Can the vampire playing combat ends play amaranth against the
>>> vampire fighting under undead persistence?
>>
>> No. The Undead Persistence guy won't go to torpor until after combat,
>> so isn't a valid target for Amaranth.
>
> Amaranth says 'should go to torpor'. Undead persistance does nothing to
> take away the 'should go to torpor', it just takes away the 'go to
> torpor'. So it should be possible to play Amaranth at the same time one
> would play Undead Persistance? (resulting in fact in the diablerie)
That is not the question above - the question above is:
B plays Undead Persistence (inferior).
In a subsequent round of the combat (while the Undead Persistence is
still in effect), combat ends (via a strike to end combat resolving).
Can A play Amaranth on B?
The answer, as above, is:
No.
The Doctor
>
>> Amaranth says 'should go to torpor'. Undead persistance does nothing
>> to take away the 'should go to torpor', it just takes away the 'go to
>> torpor'. So it should be possible to play Amaranth at the same time
>> one would play Undead Persistance? (resulting in fact in the diablerie)
>
> That is not the question above
Correct. It is an entirely new question :)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> >> Amaranth says 'should go to torpor'. Undead persistance does nothing
> >> to take away the 'should go to torpor', it just takes away the 'go to
> >> torpor'. So it should be possible to play Amaranth at the same time
> >> one would play Undead Persistance? (resulting in fact in the diablerie)
> >
> > That is not the question above
>
> Correct. It is an entirely new question :)
Ah, well, now that the unnecessary quotey parts have been properly dispensed
with...
Yes.
Google: "persistence amaranth author:LSJ"
The Doctor
> "The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40F3FB5C...@freemail.nl...
>
>>LSJ wrote:
>>
>>>>Amaranth says 'should go to torpor'. Undead persistance does nothing
>>>>to take away the 'should go to torpor', it just takes away the 'go to
>>>>torpor'. So it should be possible to play Amaranth at the same time
>>>>one would play Undead Persistance? (resulting in fact in the diablerie)
>>>
>>>That is not the question above
>>
>>Correct. It is an entirely new question :)
>
>
>
> Ah, well, now that the unnecessary quotey parts have been properly dispensed
> with...
>
> Yes.
> Google: "persistence amaranth author:LSJ"
I don't like the answer though....
Too technical for me.
To me it would seem you can either Amaranth when someone is under the
Undead Persistance influence or you cannot. Allowing it 'at the time
played' but not 'later in the combat' is perhaps correct in the
technical sense of interporeting wording on cards, but it makes no sense
when you think about the effects.
Also, a case could be made for a vamp under undead persistance still
being under a 'should go to torpor', since that is the condition for it
to work in the first place, thus making Amaranth a plausible option all
the time.
But anyway, nice to have an official answer.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Google: "persistence amaranth author:LSJ"
>
> I don't like the answer though....
> Too technical for me.
In layman's terms: whichever one gets played first wins (and prevents
the other frmo being played, by virtue of removing the conditions
necessoary for the other to be played).
> To me it would seem you can either Amaranth when someone is under the
> Undead Persistance influence or you cannot.
?
Yes. The "either" case that is is: "You cannot".
> Allowing it 'at the time
> played' but not 'later in the combat' is perhaps correct in the
> technical sense of interporeting wording on cards, but it makes no sense
> when you think about the effects.
?
You cannot play Amaranth at the time (i.e., when) Undead Persistence is
played. You can play Amaranth if Undead Persistence hasn't been played.
> Also, a case could be made for a vamp under undead persistance still
> being under a 'should go to torpor', since that is the condition for it
> to work in the first place, thus making Amaranth a plausible option all
> the time.
Undead Persistence explicitly overrides that.
Izaak
Amaranth.
I assume the acting minion gets to play either of these first?
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:2lihp0F...@uni-berlin.de...
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> Amaranth.
>
> I assume the acting minion gets to play either of these first?
>
Yes, the acting player always gets first opportunity.
> > > Also, a case could be made for a vamp under undead persistance still
> > > being under a 'should go to torpor', since that is the condition for
> > > it to work in the first place, thus making Amaranth a plausible
> > > option all the time.
> > >
> >
>
A vampire under the effects of Undead Persistence is not going to Torpor.
The "should go to torpor" is cancelled and Undead Persistence happens
instead. Only when the Undead Persistence effect ends are they a vampire
that "should go to torpor."
The Doctor
>
> A vampire under the effects of Undead Persistence is not going to Torpor.
> The "should go to torpor" is cancelled and Undead Persistence happens
> instead. Only when the Undead Persistence effect ends are they a vampire
> that "should go to torpor."
Agreed there, but that would also mean you can play amaranth at that
point... There's plenty of precedence(sp?) of combat cards being played
'after combat ends'. So what makes Amaranth or Undead Persistance so
special that you cannot play Amaranth after UP ends?
In essence, you always play Amaranth when combat ends, since the other
combatant is going to torpor the combat is over...
LSJ
> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> > A vampire under the effects of Undead Persistence is not going to Torpor.
> > The "should go to torpor" is cancelled and Undead Persistence happens
> > instead. Only when the Undead Persistence effect ends are they a vampire
> > that "should go to torpor."
> Agreed there, but that would also mean you can play amaranth at that
> point... There's plenty of precedence(sp?) of combat cards being played
> 'after combat ends'. So what makes Amaranth or Undead Persistance so
> special that you cannot play Amaranth after UP ends?
Psyche! superior is the only combat card playable after combat ends.
Amaranth is not.
The Undeadly Persistent vampire will not go to torpor in time to
play Amaranth.
The Doctor
> "The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40F435F9...@freemail.nl...
>
>>Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
>>
>>>A vampire under the effects of Undead Persistence is not going to Torpor.
>>>The "should go to torpor" is cancelled and Undead Persistence happens
>>>instead. Only when the Undead Persistence effect ends are they a vampire
>>>that "should go to torpor."
>>
>>Agreed there, but that would also mean you can play amaranth at that
>>point... There's plenty of precedence(sp?) of combat cards being played
>>'after combat ends'. So what makes Amaranth or Undead Persistance so
>>special that you cannot play Amaranth after UP ends?
>
>
> Psyche! superior is the only combat card playable after combat ends.
Ritual of the Bitter Rose perhaps?
Or does burning of the opponent not count as ending combat ;)
Taste of Vitae can happen after S:CE, you said.
Don't remember any more atm.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
> Ritual of the Bitter Rose perhaps?
> Or does burning of the opponent not count as ending combat ;)
Ritual of the Bitter Rose cannot be played after combat ends.
There is a difference between "when the round is ending"
and "after combat has ended and is over".
> Taste of Vitae can happen after S:CE, you said.
Again, in combat, at the end.
Taste cannot be played after combat has ended.
> Don't remember any more atm.
There are several other cards that can be played in
combat when the round is ending. There are none that
can be played after combat is over.
Rogar
> There are several other cards that can be played in
> combat when the round is ending. There are none that
> can be played after combat is over.
So, this requires explicit card text, then? In other words, it would be
illegal to, for instance, play pre-range cards like Aura Reading after an
aggravated (Dawn-Op) Weather Control is played?
Rogar
LSJ
> I think it was LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>, who once wrote:
> > There are several other cards that can be played in
> > combat when the round is ending. There are none that
> > can be played after combat is over.
>
> So, this requires explicit card text, then? In other words, it would be
Yes.
> illegal to, for instance, play pre-range cards like Aura Reading after an
> aggravated (Dawn-Op) Weather Control is played?
The example is flawed.
Weather Control, when played, sets up an effect that happens during the
pre-range step. Once that effect has resolved, assuming one or both of
the combatants is no longer ready, then combat ends. Once combat ends,
combat card cannot be played in that no-longer-extant combat.
Rogar
> The example is flawed.
> Weather Control, when played, sets up an effect that happens during the
> pre-range step. Once that effect has resolved, assuming one or both of
> the combatants is no longer ready, then combat ends. Once combat ends,
> combat card cannot be played in that no-longer-extant combat.
But didn't I read recently in a different thread that card effects resolve
immediately (barring strikes and such)? So the vampires would immediately
receive the unpreventable (aggravated) damage and go to torpor, thus ending
combat.
Rogar
The Doctor
And in fact disabling Amaranth?
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > immediately (barring strikes and such)? So the vampires would immediately
> > receive the unpreventable (aggravated) damage and go to torpor, thus ending
> > combat.
>
There is still a window to play Skin of Night.
> And in fact disabling Amaranth?
>
Amaranth os played as combat is ending.
LSJ
Weather Control resolves immediately when played.
Its resolution is *not*: each minion takes 1 damage.
Its resolution is: before range each round, each minion takes 1 damage.
So, once resolved, you have a new effect on the list of things to do
in the pre-range step.
When you resolve that new effect, if combat ends due to one or both of
the combatants being no longer ready, then combat ends.
LSJ
> And in fact disabling Amaranth?
No. Amaranth is playable when the combat is ending.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:2lnss7F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > But didn't I read recently in a different thread that card effects
resolve
> > immediately (barring strikes and such)? So the vampires would
immediately
> > receive the unpreventable (aggravated) damage and go to torpor, thus
ending
> > combat.
>
> Weather Control resolves immediately when played.
> Its resolution is *not*: each minion takes 1 damage.
> Its resolution is: before range each round, each minion takes 1
damage.
>
> So, once resolved, you have a new effect on the list of things to do
> in the pre-range step.
>
> When you resolve that new effect, if combat ends due to one or both of
> the combatants being no longer ready, then combat ends.
I concur. :-)
But isn't it possible by the sequencing rule of [1.6.1.6] for the acting
Methuselah, who played Dawn Operation before combat, and Weather Control
in the prerange step, to declare that she is going to handle the Weather
Control damage immediately after playing the Weather Control card? As
acting Methuselah, she can play the next effect without waiting for
other Meths to play effects first, right? Is it possible, then, for the
acting Meth to keep the blocking Meth from being able to play Skin of
Night against the Dawn Op/Weather Control damage if she wants to?
Or does the inflicting of damage from Weather Control, even though it's
unpreventable by card text, create a "damage handling" step in which
cards like Skin of Night can be played, even though the damage cannot be
prevented?
Or is there a third option that I'm not seeing?
Josh
clearly not a good salubri
LSJ
> But isn't it possible by the sequencing rule of [1.6.1.6] for the acting
> Methuselah, who played Dawn Operation before combat, and Weather Control
> in the prerange step, to declare that she is going to handle the Weather
> Control damage immediately after playing the Weather Control card? As
Yes.
> acting Methuselah, she can play the next effect without waiting for
> other Meths to play effects first, right? Is it possible, then, for the
> acting Meth to keep the blocking Meth from being able to play Skin of
> Night against the Dawn Op/Weather Control damage if she wants to?
No. At some point, damage will be inflicted. At that time (damage handling),
Skin of Night can be played.
> Or does the inflicting of damage from Weather Control, even though it's
> unpreventable by card text, create a "damage handling" step in which
> cards like Skin of Night can be played, even though the damage cannot be
> prevented?
Yes.
Rogar
> > But isn't it possible by the sequencing rule of [1.6.1.6] for the acting
> > Methuselah, who played Dawn Operation before combat, and Weather Control
> > in the prerange step, to declare that she is going to handle the Weather
> > Control damage immediately after playing the Weather Control card?
>
>
> > As acting Methuselah, she can play the next effect without waiting for
> > other Meths to play effects first, right? Is it possible, then, for the
> > acting Meth to keep the blocking Meth from being able to play Skin of
> > Night against the Dawn Op/Weather Control damage if she wants to?
>
> No. At some point, damage will be inflicted. At that time (damage handling),
> Skin of Night can be played.
playing pre-range cards that are not related to the aggravated damage, in
the manner described above by Joshua Duffin?
(Bear with me a little longer, I'm starting to get this timing stuff. ;) )
Rogar
LSJ
> But what about Aura Reading? Can the defending player be prevented from
> playing pre-range cards that are not related to the aggravated damage, in
> the manner described above by Joshua Duffin?
Yes.
Timlagor
> Rogar wrote:
> > But what about Aura Reading? Can the defending player be prevented from
> > playing pre-range cards that are not related to the aggravated damage, in
> > the manner described above by Joshua Duffin?
>
> Yes.
So just to be totally clear -you can't play aura reading in the damage
handling step once it has been declared? (in the hope of drawing that
skin of night)
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2lnuueF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> But isn't it possible by the sequencing rule of [1.6.1.6] for the acting
>> Methuselah, who played Dawn Operation before combat, and Weather Control
>> in the prerange step, to declare that she is going to handle the Weather
>> Control damage immediately after playing the Weather Control card? As
>
>Yes.
>
>> acting Methuselah, she can play the next effect without waiting for
>> other Meths to play effects first, right? Is it possible, then, for the
>> acting Meth to keep the blocking Meth from being able to play Skin of
>> Night against the Dawn Op/Weather Control damage if she wants to?
>
>No. At some point, damage will be inflicted. At that time (damage handling),
>Skin of Night can be played.
>
>> Or does the inflicting of damage from Weather Control, even though it's
>> unpreventable by card text, create a "damage handling" step in which
>> cards like Skin of Night can be played, even though the damage cannot be
>> prevented?
>
>Yes.
Just wanting to confirm.
I can play Daring the Dawn, or Force of Will, and Skin of Night can be
played, even if not blocked? Any damage is still applied, but it is
just regular damage, and hence the Vampire doesn't go to torpor
(assuming it has sufficient blood to soak).
Morgan Vening
The Lasombra
<mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I can play Daring the Dawn, or Force of Will, and Skin of Night can be
>played, even if not blocked?
Absolutely not.
You cannot play combat cards outside of combat.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
LSJ
> So just to be totally clear -you can't play aura reading in the damage
Right.
Ira
> > So just to be totally clear -you can't play aura reading
> > in the damage handling step?
>
> Right.
I accept the ruling, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning
behind it, and therefore I may not be able to apply it correctly in
slightly different situations.
Specifically, I don't understand why the blocking minion can play
"damage handling" cards but not other prerange cards. Perhaps it's
because we're in the midst of handling a prerange effect, and other
prerange effects can't be played until that effect is resolved?
So, two follow-up questions, to see if I do understand it:
It would be OK to tap Dreams of the Sphynx (or the Barrens), get a
skin of night, and play it before resolving the damage. This is
because those are instantaneous effects, and Aura Reading is "play
before range" (and we're in the midst of handling a different play
before range effect that can't be interrupted by other prerange
effects due to 1.6.1.6.)
If there was a card that was just like Skin of Night, but it said,
"Play before range is determined" that card could not be used to save
the blocking minion in this case. Right?
Thank you!
Ira
LSJ
> Hey LSJ,
>
> > > So just to be totally clear -you can't play aura reading
> > > in the damage handling step?
> >
> > Right.
>
> I accept the ruling, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning
> behind it, and therefore I may not be able to apply it correctly in
> slightly different situations.
>
> Specifically, I don't understand why the blocking minion can play
> "damage handling" cards but not other prerange cards. Perhaps it's
Because he's handling damage.
> because we're in the midst of handling a prerange effect, and other
> prerange effects can't be played until that effect is resolved?
It's because only damage handling can be done during damage handling.
> So, two follow-up questions, to see if I do understand it:
>
> It would be OK to tap Dreams of the Sphynx (or the Barrens), get a
> skin of night, and play it before resolving the damage. This is
> because those are instantaneous effects, and Aura Reading is "play
> before range" (and we're in the midst of handling a different play
> before range effect that can't be interrupted by other prerange
> effects due to 1.6.1.6.)
Noted.
On the list for review.
> If there was a card that was just like Skin of Night, but it said,
> "Play before range is determined" that card could not be used to save
> the blocking minion in this case. Right?
If it were a damage modifying thing, then it could be played to
modify damage.
Joshua Duffin
> > So, two follow-up questions, to see if I do understand it:
> >
> > It would be OK to tap Dreams of the Sphynx (or the Barrens), get a
> > skin of night, and play it before resolving the damage. This is
> > because those are instantaneous effects, and Aura Reading is "play
> > before range" (and we're in the midst of handling a different play
> > before range effect that can't be interrupted by other prerange
> > effects due to 1.6.1.6.)
>
> Noted.
> On the list for review.
The "play while a card is being played" ruling that Dreams and Barrens
can't be used in those situations seems somewhat analogous to the
"handle damage during prerange" situation to me. But since it's not an
actual "as a card is played" effect here, it does seem that it would
currently be legal to use Barrens/Dreams/etc here. Which I think is
what you're saying by "noted"?
I think my intuition would be that if Dreams to look for damage
prevention during the damage prevention step of the strike resolution
phase is (remains) legal, it should probably also be (remain) legal to
do the same during pre-range Weather Control damage handling. But it is
a little sticky, the Weather Control situation, because we're saying
that Aura Reading isn't legal because the acting player has priority to
play any "normal" effects and hasn't let the blocking player use any
"normal" effects yet. Dreams-tapping does seem to be a "normal" effect
even if it's not one that affects the game state as clearly as Aura
Reading does (though its "increase hand size" effect on state is pretty
much the same as Aura Reading's "increase hand size").
Josh
special bulletin! increase your hand size by at least two cards!
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:2lq02tF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b613d401...@news.eclipse.co.uk...
> > So just to be totally clear -you can't play aura reading in the damage
> > handling step?
>
> Right.
mm there's still something blurry.
why can't i respond to a Weather control by playing myself a second weather
control ?
Otto Koskinen
wrote:
Because you play all of your pre-range effects when it's your turn. if
the opposing player then plays some pre-range stuff also, you can
respond to those.
Reyda
"Otto Koskinen" <O...@vedajabatumppuus.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:fjb1g05sdl6rg02n0...@4ax.com...
yes, of course, but at some point the weather controll damage was not
handledimmediatly. when did that change ?
LSJ
> yes, of course, but at some point the weather controll damage was not
> handledimmediatly. when did that change ?
It has always been "not immediate", IIRC.
Joshua Duffin
"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4100c7d2$0$20511$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net...
It is still "not immediate", ie it sets up an effect to be handled later
in the prerange step.
However, if you are the acting Methuselah, you can play Weather Control
and then immediately use that damage-applying effect, without letting
anyone else play effects in between. This is because by the sequencing
[1.6.1.6] rule in the rulebook, the acting Methuselah has priority to
play the next effect at all times; only after she declares that she has
played all the effects she wants to play do other Methuselahs get to
play their effects for that stage.
If you are acting Meth, then, you can indeed play Weather Control and
then play another Weather Control before handling any Weather Control
damage. And if you are blocking Meth, and the acting Meth *doesn't*
desire to handle the Weather Control damage right after playing the
card, she can say so and let you play a Weather Control of your own, or
two Weather Controls of your own, etc.
At least, I think that's right. Thinking about it again, it seems like
there's the possibility that the acting Meth would have to apply her
Weather Control damage before passing off priority in the prerange
step - since if she *doesn't*, and all other Meths also pass on playing
more effects, the acting Meth would normally not get to play any more
effects in the prerange step either? Scott, is this right? Does the
acting Meth get a "second time around" for effects set up by her "first
time around" effects, if she passes to allow other Meths to play "first
time around" effects? Or is she required to play the Weather Control's
damage effect at some point during the same series of effects in which
she plays Weather Control, since she's not guaranteed that a "second
go-around" will occur?
Josh
not much to do with combat ends or amaranth anymore
John P.
> If you are acting Meth, then, you can indeed play Weather Control and
> then play another Weather Control before handling any Weather Control
> damage.
What happened to "A vampire can play only 1 weather control each combat"?
Or am I missing something obvious here?
-JTP
Joshua Duffin
"John P." <jtpa...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1qdMc.98226$od7.69215@pd7tw3no...
Heh. You're missing me forgetting that the card text of Weather Control
changed in Camarilla Edition. :-)
Josh
absent-minded, or scatter-brained?
Darby Keeney
> If you are acting Meth, then, you can indeed play Weather Control and
> then play another Weather Control before handling any Weather Control
> damage.
Except for that part about "A vampire can play only 1 Weather Control
each combat." ;)
> At least, I think that's right. Thinking about it again, it seems like
> there's the possibility that the acting Meth would have to apply her
> Weather Control damage before passing off priority in the prerange
> step - since if she *doesn't*, and all other Meths also pass on playing
> more effects, the acting Meth would normally not get to play any more
> effects in the prerange step either? Scott, is this right?
Obviously, I'm not Scott, but the "baton pass" for priority shouldn't
disallow playing additional prerange cards later in the phase.
I would submit an analogous action modifier example that goes like
this: I bleed, do you deflect? (pass priority), "You play no
reactions - then I play this Conditioning (2nd instance of having
priority)...."
But like in the AM example, I would assume that if you grab priority
(again), that the non-acting Meth also gets another chance to respond
when your done.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
D.
LSJ
> Obviously, I'm not Scott, but the "baton pass" for priority shouldn't
> disallow playing additional prerange cards later in the phase.
>
> I would submit an analogous action modifier example that goes like
> this: I bleed, do you deflect? (pass priority), "You play no
> reactions - then I play this Conditioning (2nd instance of having
> priority)...."
No. That way lies infinity.
"I don't boost"
"I don't deflect"
"I don't boost"
"I don't deflect"
"I don't boost"
"I don't deflect"
"I don't boost"
"I don't deflect"
...
<the sun goes nova and then cools>
...
"I don't boost"
"I don't deflect"
"OK, then I play Conditioning"
The real version is:
<Event happens - say, the decision not to block is made>
<1.6.1.6 is followed>
Acting Meth: Pass (e.g., "I don't boost", "do you deflect" or "Just for 1")
Target: Pass (e.g., "Here's my 1" or "you get the edge")
Others: Pass (e.g., silence in the absence of playing Ignis Fatuus or
whatnot)
Action resolves. <new event, leading to a new round of effects like
Spying Mission, but not any of the effects whose time has come and gone
like Conditioning>.