Going on with a NRA question (was Re: Need a Clarification here was Re: a Different Mask of 1K Faces question (LSJ) )
Tetragrammaton
news:9kedkj$427oh$6...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de...
> "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Tgta7.8824$te7.3...@news.infostrada.it...
> >
> > assuming the mask is played after the venenation, and so when the
acting
> > minion *is* blocked,
> > isn't the untapped-by-the-mask acting minion anyway
> > under the NRA rule?
> > I'm telling this by the direct intervention clarification that states:
> >
> > Since the NRA rule is applied to the acting minion when the action
> resolves
> > (is blocked or is successful), .......etc. [LSJ 19980212]
> >
> > Or i'm wrong? (LSJ ?).
>
> The NRA taints the minion when the action resolves.
> If you mask before the tap-n-combat part of the block, then
> the previous minion is not tainted.
I'm a bit concerned about your statement above:
the clarification about NRA should be re-written, then,
it clearly reads
No Repeat Actions (V:EKN)
The acting minion when the action resolves (BLOCKED or successful) becomes
unable to perform the same type of action again this turn (if the "No Repeat
Actions" V:EKN special floor rule is being used). [RTR 19970320]
I can't find nowhere that
" The NRA only taints the minion when the tap-n-combat part of the block
happens",
If there's such a written rule, where it is ?
Anyway, wouldn't be simpler to apply the NRA rule as
soon as a minion *takes* an action ?
I'm telling this after a recent discussion in my gaming group, where my
players were asking for a simpler sets of errata and clarifications.
Thanks
Emiliano, vekn Prince of Rome
> --
> 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/
jeroen rombouts
<snip: mask of 1k Faces and NRA>
> No Repeat Actions (V:EKN)
> The acting minion when the action resolves (BLOCKED or successful) becomes
> unable to perform the same type of action again this turn (if the "No
Repeat
> Actions" V:EKN special floor rule is being used). [RTR 19970320]
>
> I can't find nowhere that
> " The NRA only taints the minion when the tap-n-combat part of the block
> happens",
> If there's such a written rule, where it is ?
>
It's right there in the part you quoted: "...when the action resolves
(BLOCKED or successful)...". You just have to insert 'succesfully' before
the word blocked.
Now it reads: "...when the action resolves (succesfully BLOCKED or
successful)...". A blocking attempt is only considered succesfull after ALL
action mods and reactions have been played. And M1kF is an action mod.
As I see it <RPG argument alert!> the only minion trying the action is the
last one who played M1kF. He just changed his appearance to look like the
other minions. Of course, when incorporated in a game system it can become
rather abstract, like the possibillity to play multiple action mods.
> Anyway, wouldn't be simpler to apply the NRA rule as
> soon as a minion *takes* an action ?
No, because that would 'wallpaperise' M1kF.
Tetragrammaton
"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:PyRa7.9947$lB.22...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> <snip: mask of 1k Faces and NRA>
>
> > No Repeat Actions (V:EKN)
> > The acting minion when the action resolves (BLOCKED or successful)
becomes
> > unable to perform the same type of action again this turn (if the "No
> Repeat
> > Actions" V:EKN special floor rule is being used). [RTR 19970320]
> >
> > I can't find nowhere that
> > " The NRA only taints the minion when the tap-n-combat part of the block
> > happens",
> > If there's such a written rule, where it is ?
> >
> It's right there in the part you quoted: "...when the action resolves
> (BLOCKED or successful)...". You just have to insert 'succesfully' before
> the word blocked.
>
> Now it reads: "...when the action resolves (succesfully BLOCKED or
> successful)...". A blocking attempt is only considered succesfull after
ALL
> action mods and reactions have been played. And M1kF is an action mod.
Thanks for your explanation, but, again, where all of this is written?
The official clarification it's worded exactly as i copied it above, there's
nothing about "succesful". It just says "blocked".
With the actual rules materials, i can't find any (official) support for
what you're
saying (i'm not meaning not you're not telling the "official" things,
however).
And the example-given-before vamp A, can play a venenation because IS
blocked (succesfully).
And so, imho, he should be under the NRA rule.
Both on vekn tournament rules and on the FN rulings-errata there's nothing
about this, however.
I think the rules are a bit defective, about this point.
> As I see it <RPG argument alert!> the only minion trying the action is
the
> last one who played M1kF. He just changed his appearance to look like the
> other minions. Of course, when incorporated in a game system it can become
> rather abstract, like the possibillity to play multiple action mods.
> > Anyway, wouldn't be simpler to apply the NRA rule as
> > soon as a minion *takes* an action ?
>
> No, because that would 'wallpaperise' M1kF.
Why it should "wallpaperize" mk1f ?
I don't see any wallpapering in such case.
But, just to not de-poverize (and *not* wall-paperize) a sinlge card, we
must
deal with an inherently complex floor rule?
I don't think so.
Isn't our beloved game already inherently complex?
Anyway, thanks.
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes
>Thanks for your explanation, but, again, where all of this is written?
>The official clarification it's worded exactly as i copied it above, there's
>nothing about "succesful". It just says "blocked".
An action which is blocked is one which is successfully blocked.
An action which isn't successfully blocked wasn't blocked. A minion who
hasn't yet successfully blocked an action is attempting to block it.
Consider the parallel of real life:
"You paid for the item when you bought it."
This isn't whilst waiting in the queue (attempting to block), or even
when you've changed your mind and take it back (cancelled action), but
when you've bought it - that is, successfully bought it.
If an action isn't "successfully blocked" it isn't "blocked". The first
is a more thorough way of expressing the situation, useful when playing
it off against the chance of failure. e.g. a potential card
"Play when a block attempt is announced. If the action is successfully
blocked, burn a pool. If this action is successful, gain a pool."
The second sentence could just as easily be written "If this action is
blocked" just as you could say to your partner "I did the shopping
today" or "I successfully did the shopping today", with "successfully"
providing redundant emphasis.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6
YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D
Tetragrammaton
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cmlXkWKZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3tSa7.5816$fA3.2...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton
> <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Thanks for your explanation, but, again, where all of this is written?
> >The official clarification it's worded exactly as i copied it above,
there's
> >nothing about "succesful". It just says "blocked".
>
> An action which is blocked is one which is successfully blocked.
> An action which isn't successfully blocked wasn't blocked. A minion who
> hasn't yet successfully blocked an action is attempting to block it.
>
>
> Consider the parallel of real life:
>
> "You paid for the item when you bought it."
>
> This isn't whilst waiting in the queue (attempting to block), or even
> when you've changed your mind and take it back (cancelled action), but
> when you've bought it - that is, successfully bought it.
>
>
> If an action isn't "successfully blocked" it isn't "blocked". The first
> is a more thorough way of expressing the situation, useful when playing
> it off against the chance of failure. e.g. a potential card
>
> "Play when a block attempt is announced. If the action is successfully
> blocked, burn a pool. If this action is successful, gain a pool."
>
> The second sentence could just as easily be written "If this action is
> blocked" just as you could say to your partner "I did the shopping
> today" or "I successfully did the shopping today", with "successfully"
> providing redundant emphasis.
>
Ok, tell me, then, why the NRA shouldn't be active when the
the minion IS blocked, and only when is tapped to enter combat.
Venenation checks if the minion *is* blocked.
I can play it, so my mininon *is* blocked.
NRA states that it is applied when a minion *is* blocked;
so, by the time a venenation is played, the NRA should be active.
But LSJ stated that i must wait for the tap 'n' combat for it to be applied,
and i'm saying there's nothing in the rules specifying that.
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Emiliano vekn prince of Rome
James Coupe
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes
>Ok, tell me, then, why the NRA shouldn't be active when the
>the minion IS blocked, and only when is tapped to enter combat.
Because it asks for the resolution:
"The acting minion when the action resolves (blocked or...."
The block-combat is part of the resolution. The gap before block-combat
is not.
Consider the parallel of Spying Mission, for a successful action, which
is also played in that same gap. (You do, of course, move forward to
the resolution here, which is significantly altered.)
Tetragrammaton
> In message <4c8b7.9336$fA3.3...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton
> <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Ok, tell me, then, why the NRA shouldn't be active when the
> >the minion IS blocked, and only when is tapped to enter combat.
>
> Because it asks for the resolution:
>
> "The acting minion when the action resolves (blocked or...."
>
> The block-combat is part of the resolution. The gap before block-combat
> is not.
>
>
> Consider the parallel of Spying Mission, for a successful action, which
> is also played in that same gap. (You do, of course, move forward to
> the resolution here, which is significantly altered.)
>
Got it, thanks
Emiliano