question
Jan Willem Wijsman
forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block but
just deflected it)
Thanks,
carpe noctem. JW.
John M. Baker
Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37C96D...@planet.nl>...
>Does a reacting vampire have to pay 1 (additional) blood if he played
>forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block but
>just deflected it)
Yes, the vampire will pay 1 blood for Deflection then burn 1 blood for
failing
to block with Forced Awakening. Any lack of an attempt to block is
considered
a failure.
John Baker
Nate Williams
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > block". Either you successfully block the action, or you burn a blood.)
> >
> > --
> > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp
>
> Sorry to bring this up again, but I don't understand why any lack of
> succesfully blocking has to be considered 'failing to block', other than
> the fact that it is put as the way the card works. It is my view that
> there can be no failure without attempt. So if the reacting vampire
> doesn't try to block (but play a deflection for example) how can he
> fail? Of course you could read forced awakening in the manner that the
> reacting vampire HAS to block the acting minion in order not to pay the
> penalty of NOT blocking. And if for example stealth is added but no
> intercept, the reacting vampire has failed to block and must pay 1
> blood.
> The point is : all of this doesn't follow out of the card text of forced
> awakening. It simply says 'fails to block'. It doesn't say :'if he or
> she DOESN'T (try to) block the acting minion,...'.
> So why is the card text of forced awakening explained in such a manner
> LSJ? I don't see any reason, except you saying it.
>
> Greetings, JW
Okay. Say your vampire went to do a big exhausting action. She's
sleepy now, and wants to rest (be tapped). Had she performed the
Tremere ritual Wake With Evening's Freshness when she went to bed, she
could get up at a moment's notice, no problem. But she didn't. So now
you want to wake her up and make her deal with this other vampire that's
bleeding you. She doesn't like that at all (you can see how pissed off
she is in the picture). Well if you let her go and fight, she can deal
with that. Vampires are really into the fighting. But you just want to
make her use her dominate ability to make the other vampire go bleed
someone else. She is not happy, and she burns a blood and goes back to
sleepyland.
Nate
davey! sprocket
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, John M. Baker wrote:
> Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37C96D...@planet.nl>...
> >Does a reacting vampire have to pay 1 (additional) blood if he played
> >forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block but
> >just deflected it)
>
> Yes, the vampire will pay 1 blood for Deflection then burn 1 blood for
> failing to block with Forced Awakening. Any lack of an attempt to
> block is considered a failure.
I believe, though this may be wrong, that the vampire doesn't fail to
block (and burn blood) until the action actually succeeds. So there may
be a long time between playing the deflection and burning the blood, long
enough for say another deflefction to be played to send the bleed back to
you, which you could then block.
In any case, remember that you only burn the blood for failing to block if
you have it, so you can do this trick even if the vampire has only 1
blood.
-davey!
carl.pi...@philips.com
If you read this, get in contact with me ASP, your e-mail adress is no
longer valid.
Thanks
Carl
(VEKN membership director)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
t_e...@my-deja.com
"John M. Baker" <fau...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37C96D...@planet.nl>...
> >Does a reacting vampire have to pay 1 (additional) blood if he played
> >forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block
but
> >just deflected it)
>
> Yes, the vampire will pay 1 blood for Deflection then burn 1 blood for
> failing
> to block with Forced Awakening. Any lack of an attempt to block is
> considered
> a failure.
>
and play reaction cards as though untapped.
So if I would play a FW and then choose not to block but instead play a
deflection I will not even attempt to block and will not burn blood.
The blocking opportunity is an option, as is the "may play reaction
cards...-part"
The blood burning effect is only when attempting to block and failing,
not when playing reaction cards in respons to an action against me.
I could even play a FW in respons to an action the Vampire is not able
to block (D-actions against other Meth's) but decline to block, and not
burn blood.
This is exactly the same for the WWWF.
Tim Eijpe
time...@freemail.nl
LSJ
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, John M. Baker wrote:
> > Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37C96D...@planet.nl>...
> > >Does a reacting vampire have to pay 1 (additional) blood if he played
> > >forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block but
> > >just deflected it)
> >
> > Yes, the vampire will pay 1 blood for Deflection then burn 1 blood for
> > failing to block with Forced Awakening. Any lack of an attempt to
> > block is considered a failure.
>
> block (and burn blood) until the action actually succeeds. So there may
The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I don't
block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller can't
block at that point).
> be a long time between playing the deflection and burning the blood, long
> enough for say another deflefction to be played to send the bleed back to
> you, which you could then block.
You would get a new opportunity to block, but the Forced Awakening vampire
would have already burned a blood for failing to block during your first
"window of opportunity."
> In any case, remember that you only burn the blood for failing to block if
> you have it, so you can do this trick even if the vampire has only 1
> blood.
True.
LSJ
> So if I would play a FW and then choose not to block but instead play a
> deflection I will not even attempt to block and will not burn blood.
By not attempting to block, you have 'failed to attempt to block' and
have 'failed to block'. So Forced Awakening will make you burn a blood.
> The blocking opportunity is an option, as is the "may play reaction
> cards...-part"
True, but burning a blood for not blocking is not an option - it is
mandatory.
> The blood burning effect is only when attempting to block and failing,
> not when playing reaction cards in respons to an action against me.
It has no text restricting itself to only "when attempting to block
and failing". If you don't block, then you have failed to block.
> I could even play a FW in respons to an action the Vampire is not able
> to block (D-actions against other Meth's) but decline to block, and not
> burn blood.
Incorrect. By not blocking, you'd have to burn a blood.
LSJ
>
> Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37C96D...@planet.nl>...
> >Does a reacting vampire have to pay 1 (additional) blood if he played
> >forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block but
> >just deflected it)
>
> Yes, the vampire will pay 1 blood for Deflection then burn 1 blood for failing
> to block with Forced Awakening. Any lack of an attempt to block is considered
> a failure.
Correct. (Any lack of successfully blocking is considered "failing to
block". Either you successfully block the action, or you burn a blood.)
--
Jan Willem Wijsman
Sorry to bring this up again, but I don't understand why any lack of
Jan Willem Wijsman
> sleepy now, and wants to rest (be tapped). Had she performed the
> Tremere ritual Wake With Evening's Freshness when she went to bed, she
> could get up at a moment's notice, no problem. But she didn't. So now
> you want to wake her up and make her deal with this other vampire that's
> bleeding you. She doesn't like that at all (you can see how pissed off
> she is in the picture). Well if you let her go and fight, she can deal
> with that. Vampires are really into the fighting. But you just want to
> make her use her dominate ability to make the other vampire go bleed
> someone else. She is not happy, and she burns a blood and goes back to
> sleepyland.
>
> Nate
Very funny indeed. But you still haven't given any argument why she has
to burn one blood, after all, like you said, she didn't try to block.
When a card's text says 'fail' you can't say that no attempt is needed
in order for the vampire to burn one blood, because in that case it
shouldn't have said 'fail' but more something like 'if the vampire
doesn't try to block'. I haven't seen any arguments on why we should
read forced awakening in such a broad manner.
Perhaps LSJ can think of one.
Greetings, JW.
Joe C.
jw.wi...@planet.nl wrote:
> Very funny indeed. But you still haven't given any argument why she
> has
> to burn one blood, after all, like you said, she didn't try to block.
> When a card's text says 'fail' you can't say that no attempt is needed
> in order for the vampire to burn one blood, because in that case it
> shouldn't have said 'fail' but more something like 'if the vampire
> doesn't try to block'. I haven't seen any arguments on why we should
> read forced awakening in such a broad manner.
> Perhaps LSJ can think of one.
Try this context.
If you never attempt to do anything, you will fail to do anything.
Joe Churchill
VEKN Prince of Columbia, SC
tzim...@mindspring.com
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Correct. (Any lack of successfully blocking is considered "failing to
> > block". Either you successfully block the action, or you burn a blood.)
>
> succesfully blocking has to be considered 'failing to block', other than
> the fact that it is put as the way the card works. It is my view that
> there can be no failure without attempt. So if the reacting vampire
It doesn't say "if he or she attempts to block and fails". If it did, you
would be right.
Rather, it says: "If he or she fails to block the acting minion..."
So, one says: well how can I determine if he or she failed to block?
The answer is easy: if he or she blocked, then he or she hasn't failed.
If he or she hasn't blocked, then he or she has failed to block.
> doesn't try to block (but play a deflection for example) how can he
> fail? Of course you could read forced awakening in the manner that the
Analogy:
If I don't try to pass my class (study, do homerwork, show up for the tests,
etc.) how can I fail to pass? easy.
By not attempting to pass, I have failed to pass.
I can't go up to the teacher and say: I didn't try, therefore I can't fail to
pass.
I have failed to do many things: I have failed to climb Mt. Everest. I
have failed to sing on Broadway. I have failed to plead a case before
the Supreme Court.
The fact that I haven't attempted any of these things doesn't change the
fact that I have failed to do them all.
> reacting vampire HAS to block the acting minion in order not to pay the
> penalty of NOT blocking. And if for example stealth is added but no
> intercept, the reacting vampire has failed to block and must pay 1
> blood.
> The point is : all of this doesn't follow out of the card text of forced
> awakening. It simply says 'fails to block'. It doesn't say :'if he or
> she DOESN'T (try to) block the acting minion,...'.
If he doesn't try to block, he will certainly not block, which means that
he will have failed to block.
> So why is the card text of forced awakening explained in such a manner
> LSJ? I don't see any reason, except you saying it.
Standard English meaning of failing to have done something. If you haven't
done it, then you have failed to do it. That's a basic truth.
Richard Zopf
Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37CAC3...@planet.nl>...
>Very funny indeed. But you still haven't given any argument why she has
>to burn one blood, after all, like you said, she didn't try to block.
>When a card's text says 'fail' you can't say that no attempt is needed
>in order for the vampire to burn one blood, because in that case it
>shouldn't have said 'fail' but more something like 'if the vampire
>doesn't try to block'.
Oh, yes. <sarcasm fnord> And WotC is _very_ well known for having this keen
an eye to grammar. Particularly as pertaining to V:TES <fnord end sarcasm>
>I haven't seen any arguments on why we should
>read forced awakening in such a broad manner.
The same reason that WWEF was errataed, to have it actually cost
_something_ to play... FA as you interpret it to be worded could be freely
cycled, just like pre-erratum WWEF. That aside, there isn't enough room on
a card to allow for all the provisions you would like to have present, along
with the function-relevant card text. Interpretation of succinct text is
completely within the realm of the Rules Team's function. If you don't like
the way that its been ruled, explain in terms of function _within the game_
why it should be interpreted the way you see it, and ask for a Rules Team
review.
As a note, grammatical arguments like the above aren't the way to go
about doing this, as the grammar of card games is often open to
interpretation, due to the limited number of words per card available. You
should focus more on comparison of power level to other cards, original
intent (if its a Jyhad card that has changed text) or other factors that
affect game play.
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)
Nate Williams
>
> Analogy:
> If I don't try to pass my class (study, do homerwork, show up for the tests,
> etc.) how can I fail to pass? easy.
>
> By not attempting to pass, I have failed to pass.
> I can't go up to the teacher and say: I didn't try, therefore I can't fail to
> pass.
>
> I have failed to do many things: I have failed to climb Mt. Everest. I
> have failed to sing on Broadway. I have failed to plead a case before
> the Supreme Court.
>
> The fact that I haven't attempted any of these things doesn't change the
> fact that I have failed to do them all.
>
Don't be so hard on yourself. You still have a lot of time to do all
these things. :)
Nate
Nate Williams
Well put. I was wondering what the errata on WWEF was for.
Nate
Mikko Saari
> The point is : all of this doesn't follow out of the card text of forced
> awakening. It simply says 'fails to block'. It doesn't say :'if he or
> she DOESN'T (try to) block the acting minion,...'.
> LSJ? I don't see any reason, except you saying it.
I could figure out another reason: to keep Wake With Evening's Freshness
usable. If Forced Awakening worked the way you insist, there would be
little sense in using WWEF. Now, if you are mostly deflecting or using
Telepathic Counter, WWEF is a better choice even though it has that
annoying "Do not replace until your next untap".
--
msaari
@jyu.fi
davey! sprocket
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, LSJ wrote:
> The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I
> don't block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his
> controller can't block at that point).
would it be different if Anneke played forced awakening?
> You would get a new opportunity to block, but the Forced Awakening
> vampire would have already burned a blood for failing to block during
> your first "window of opportunity."
Ah, but that campire could again attempt to block without playing further
wake-type cards, right? And if this attempt also failed, no extra blood
would be burned, correct?
-davey!
James Coupe
writes
>The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I don't
>block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller can't
>block at that point).
Pointless scenario....
You control Chandler Hungerford and I have two vampires - a tapped copy
of Isabel de Leon, and Alexandra. You, Chandler, rush Isabel with a
Bum's Rush. I look at my hand and think "Oh, darn it." Having a bad
case of hand jam, I decide to throw away my Forced Awakening with Isabel
but, when replacing it, I pull a Flash which I think will do nicely with
Alexandra to get away from Chandler, so I block with Alexandra. Combat
occurs, I maneuver to long but you throw down a Form of Mist to continue
the blocked action - attacking Isabel. Following on from playing the
Flash, I pick up a Spirit's Touch. Isabel is, of course, desperate to
stay alive so, fearing the maneuver you would have if you succeeded in
your Bum's Rush, she decides to throw down the Spirit's Touch because
the Forced Awakening's ability to react as if untapped is still in
effect, right? (If it isn't, imagine I throw down a WWEF too - like I
say, pointless scenario.)
So, at the end of all this, I *have* blocked. Yet, I would already have
burned a blood when Alexandra blocked instead. Is that correct?
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk
James Coupe
<jw.wi...@planet.nl> writes
>Sorry to bring this up again, but I don't understand why any lack of
>succesfully blocking has to be considered 'failing to block', other than
>the fact that it is put as the way the card works.
Your father says to you "If you fail this exam, I'll throw you out of
the house."
So you don't take the exam, trying to use the same logic as you apply
here. "But Dad, I didn't fail the exam because I didn't take it."
Yes, but you still failed to pass the exam - so you get thrown out of
the house.
Here, you didn't block the action - so you burn the blood.
James Coupe
<jw.wi...@planet.nl> writes
>When a card's text says 'fail' you can't say that no attempt is needed
>in order for the vampire to burn one blood, because in that case it
>shouldn't have said 'fail' but more something like 'if the vampire
>doesn't try to block'
No, because that wouldn't cover the situation of a vampire attempting to
block and not getting enough intercept.
"Fail" = "Not do successfully"
Fail to block means you don't successfully block. It doesn't matter
whether you actively tried to or not.
carl.pi...@philips.com
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes
> >The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I don't
> >block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller can't
> >block at that point).
Note: the above quote is not correct. It should be: "The vampire fails to
block as soon as the action begins to resolve (successfully or not) - unless
the vampire has blocked tha action, of course."
(http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469218087&fmt=text)
> Pointless scenario....
>
> You control Chandler Hungerford and I have two vampires - a tapped copy
> of Isabel de Leon, and Alexandra. You, Chandler, rush Isabel with a
> Bum's Rush. I look at my hand and think "Oh, darn it." Having a bad
> case of hand jam, I decide to throw away my Forced Awakening with Isabel
> but, when replacing it, I pull a Flash which I think will do nicely with
> Alexandra to get away from Chandler, so I block with Alexandra. Combat
At this point, the action is resolving (unsuccessfully) [6.2.3], so
Chandler would burn a blood when Alexandra's block succeeds.
> occurs, I maneuver to long but you throw down a Form of Mist to continue
> the blocked action - attacking Isabel. Following on from playing the
> Flash, I pick up a Spirit's Touch. Isabel is, of course, desperate to
> stay alive so, fearing the maneuver you would have if you succeeded in
> your Bum's Rush, she decides to throw down the Spirit's Touch because
> the Forced Awakening's ability to react as if untapped is still in
> effect, right? (If it isn't, imagine I throw down a WWEF too - like I
> say, pointless scenario.)
It is still in effect - reaction cards' effects last for the duration of
the action, by default.
> So, at the end of all this, I *have* blocked. Yet, I would already have
> burned a blood when Alexandra blocked instead. Is that correct?
Yes.
LSJ
Forced Awakening doesn't require the vampire to burn a blood until it
is clear that the vampire won't block the action. Which has been ruled
to be when the action begins to resolve
(http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469218087&fmt=text).
Sorry for the confusion.