Slave rule vs. Mask 1K Faces [LSJ?]
Xian
worked in conjunction with already played modifiers, etc.
The "only usable if capable of performing the action" restriction does
not appear to apply (nor should it, most likely), but I am curious if,
for example, the initial action is canceled, and this is an entirely
new quasi-action, or if anything "carries over" as it were.
Specifically (this is the example that I see coming up most quickly),
what if say that on my turn, Cardano (natch) is performing action
[foo] and is blocked. Cardano plays Dawn Operation at superior, so
that the opposing minion may not back out, and all damage is
aggravated. Now, I tap gargoyle X (who has superior fortitude?),
untap Cardano, and X enters combat with the blocking minion.
Will the damage in the ensuing combat be aggravated, or was the Dawn
Operation "wasted" because this is not necessarily "the resulting
combat" as specified in Dawn Operation's text?
If this combination is playable, must the gargoyle have the
appropriate levels of whatever disciplines (FOR, in this case), or
because of the slave trickery, are the modifiers still in effect? And
if yes, does it apply if some sort of S:CE and continue effect occurs?
I ask because of the following text, "If a member of the owning clan
controlled by the Gargoyle's controller is blocked, the controller can
tap the slave Gargoyle to cancel the combat and untap the acting
vampire and have the slave Gargoyle enter combat with the blocking
minion instead." I note that it cancels the combat, but not
necessarily the action. I am hoping that the action is actually
cancelled, so that you could not have (frex) Cardano bleed with Govern
the Unaligned, Conditioning, Perfect Clarity, get blocked, have a
slave jump in, and then (since the slave has PRO), strike Form of Mist
at superior to continue a bleed for 6 at +1 stealth without even
possessing DOM or THA.
I am assuming no (the modifiers are lost, and making the second and
third questions moot) on these, but thought I'd ask.
Also, should the rules text be changed to say "the action is
cancelled"? I imagine that its worded as is for a reason, but if so,
could you provide clarification as to why it is not explicitly stated
that the action itself is cancelled.
Xian
LSJ
>
> LSJ, I was thinking about the Slave rule, and was wondering how it
> worked in conjunction with already played modifiers, etc.
>
> The "only usable if capable of performing the action" restriction does
> not appear to apply (nor should it, most likely), but I am curious if,
> for example, the initial action is canceled, and this is an entirely
> new quasi-action, or if anything "carries over" as it were.
>
> Specifically (this is the example that I see coming up most quickly),
> what if say that on my turn, Cardano (natch) is performing action
> [foo] and is blocked. Cardano plays Dawn Operation at superior, so
> that the opposing minion may not back out, and all damage is
> aggravated. Now, I tap gargoyle X (who has superior fortitude?),
> untap Cardano, and X enters combat with the blocking minion.
>
> Will the damage in the ensuing combat be aggravated, or was the Dawn
> Operation "wasted" because this is not necessarily "the resulting
> combat" as specified in Dawn Operation's text?
The latter, by the direct application of the text you cite.
> If this combination is playable, must the gargoyle have the
> appropriate levels of whatever disciplines (FOR, in this case), or
> because of the slave trickery, are the modifiers still in effect? And
> if yes, does it apply if some sort of S:CE and continue effect occurs?
> I ask because of the following text, "If a member of the owning clan
> controlled by the Gargoyle's controller is blocked, the controller can
> tap the slave Gargoyle to cancel the combat and untap the acting
> vampire and have the slave Gargoyle enter combat with the blocking
> minion instead." I note that it cancels the combat, but not
> necessarily the action. I am hoping that the action is actually
> cancelled, so that you could not have (frex) Cardano bleed with Govern
> the Unaligned, Conditioning, Perfect Clarity, get blocked, have a
> slave jump in, and then (since the slave has PRO), strike Form of Mist
> at superior to continue a bleed for 6 at +1 stealth without even
> possessing DOM or THA.
FoM will only continue the action if played by an acting minion.
> I am assuming no (the modifiers are lost, and making the second and
> third questions moot) on these, but thought I'd ask.
The action is still there, but was blocked (slave rule requirement)
and the block was not canceled.
> Also, should the rules text be changed to say "the action is
> cancelled"? I imagine that its worded as is for a reason, but if so,
> could you provide clarification as to why it is not explicitly stated
> that the action itself is cancelled.
The action is not canceled - there is no way to have combat without
having a current action.
--
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/
Joshua Duffin
> Xian wrote:
[snip]
> > Also, should the rules text be changed to say "the action is
> > cancelled"? I imagine that its worded as is for a reason, but if so,
> > could you provide clarification as to why it is not explicitly stated
> > that the action itself is cancelled.
>
> The action is not canceled - there is no way to have combat without
> having a current action.
So the Tremere (or !Tremere) who took the original action is (in
NRA-using games) under the no-repeat-actions restriction, right?
Because the action does get resolved as blocked?
Also, on the "combats and acting minions" topic, the VTES FAQ
maintained by Jeff Thompson says:
3.20 How do Malleable Visage and Obedience interact?
As the controller of the acting minion, you have the first option to play
effects when an action is blocked. If you play Malleable Visage once the block
is determined to be successful, your vampire with vicissitude will enter combat
with the blocking minion. Obedience cannot be played in response to Malleable
Visage because the vampire using the Malleable Visage is not an acting minion
and Obedience can only be used against an acting minion.
You cannot play Malleable Visage after the reacting vampire has played
Obedience as there will not be any combat for the Malleable Visage card to
cancel.
-------
Is the first part (can't play Obedience after Malleable Visage)
correct? It seems to contradict what you wrote on 2001/07/06:
Q: (Marc Gabriele) "Also, is there "time" to play further
action modifiers or reaction cards after Malleable Visage is
played?"
A: (LSJ) "Obedience, etc. sure. Just like between Pshyce! combats.
[LSJ 19991025]"
As the FAQ says, Obedience does use the phrase "an acting younger
vampire", and the Malleable Visage vampire is perhaps not acting,
just modifying.
It's not clear to me just from card texts and rulings that the
second FAQ paragraph is right, either. Malleable Visage doesn't
say that there has to be a combat scheduled to be usable, just
that it's played "when an ally you control is blocked, before
combat begins". Does that in fact mean that there has to be a
combat beginning? Or just that you'd play it before combat begins
if there *is* going to be a combat?
I guess I'd explain it as "the action is over after Obedience
is played, so can't be further modified". But I'm not sure that
that's right either - can you (superior) Freak Drive after being
blocked and Obedienced?
Actions! Blocking! Combat! Confusing! Maybe I should reread
the rulebook a few more times. :-)
Josh
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C055301...@white-wolf.com>...
> > Xian wrote:
> > > Also, should the rules text be changed to say "the action is
> > > cancelled"? I imagine that its worded as is for a reason, but if so,
> > > could you provide clarification as to why it is not explicitly stated
> > > that the action itself is cancelled.
> >
> > The action is not canceled - there is no way to have combat without
> > having a current action.
>
> So the Tremere (or !Tremere) who took the original action is (in
> NRA-using games) under the no-repeat-actions restriction, right?
Right.
> Because the action does get resolved as blocked?
Yes.
> Also, on the "combats and acting minions" topic, the VTES FAQ
> maintained by Jeff Thompson says:
>
> 3.20 How do Malleable Visage and Obedience interact?
>
> As the controller of the acting minion, you have the first option to play
> effects when an action is blocked. If you play Malleable Visage once the block
> is determined to be successful, your vampire with vicissitude will enter combat
> with the blocking minion. Obedience cannot be played in response to Malleable
> Visage because the vampire using the Malleable Visage is not an acting minion
> and Obedience can only be used against an acting minion.
>
> You cannot play Malleable Visage after the reacting vampire has played
> Obedience as there will not be any combat for the Malleable Visage card to
> cancel.
> -------
>
> Is the first part (can't play Obedience after Malleable Visage)
> correct? It seems to contradict what you wrote on 2001/07/06:
Yes.
> Q: (Marc Gabriele) "Also, is there "time" to play further
> action modifiers or reaction cards after Malleable Visage is
> played?"
>
> A: (LSJ) "Obedience, etc. sure. Just like between Pshyce! combats.
> [LSJ 19991025]"
Yes. There is "time". But you still have to meet any requirements
given on the card. So the "Obedience" in my answer was incorrect
as the FAQ says.
> As the FAQ says, Obedience does use the phrase "an acting younger
> vampire", and the Malleable Visage vampire is perhaps not acting,
> just modifying.
Indeed, he is not acting.
> It's not clear to me just from card texts and rulings that the
> second FAQ paragraph is right, either. Malleable Visage doesn't
> say that there has to be a combat scheduled to be usable, just
> that it's played "when an ally you control is blocked, before
> combat begins". Does that in fact mean that there has to be a
> combat beginning? Or just that you'd play it before combat begins
> if there *is* going to be a combat?
The FAQ is correct.
> I guess I'd explain it as "the action is over after Obedience
> is played, so can't be further modified". But I'm not sure that
> that's right either - can you (superior) Freak Drive after being
> blocked and Obedienced?
Yes.
> Actions! Blocking! Combat! Confusing! Maybe I should reread
> the rulebook a few more times. :-)
Or maybe the cards should be written more uniformly. :-)