[LSJ] Clarification about playing Form of Mist/"Needing Stealth"
Frederick Scott
if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked
by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that
Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all
because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and
the vampire with intercept is tapped.
There is an old ruling, still to be found in the rulings page
under "Form of Mist" which states, "The superior form cannot be
used by the acting vampire unless he needs the stealth." Taken
by itself, this is non-sensical since at the moment of the
strike, there's no call for blockers who could be blocking the
renewed action so *NO* vampire could possibly "need stealth".
If I recall correctly (which is always dubious), the issue is
resolved by assuming his opponent in combat is still the one
attempting to block and that the issue of whether it could,
given that it's now tapped, is not considered. (That is, it's
as if acting vampire is still trying to evade the original
block). The need for stealth (or not) is then resolved that way.
The acting vampire almost always needs stealth except in a
few corner cases, again, if I recall correctly.
So anyway, do I have this right or does the prohibition against
using FoM when needing stealth mean something completely
different?
And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.
Fred
LSJ
> A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that
> if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked
> by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that
> Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all
> because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and
> the vampire with intercept is tapped.
He needs stealth.
There is a current blocking minion with intercept >= stealth.
> And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
> FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
> that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
> vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
> perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
> didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.
Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of
the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Frederick Scott
news:mOwde.3027$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
>> FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
>> that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
>> vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
>> perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
>> didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.
>
> Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of
> the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule.
If that's currently the correct way to play it, the rulings
file is misleading as currently worded.
Fred
Johannes Walch
Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block. Vampire
A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat he
plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of
Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he still
have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone"
with the Raven Spies?
Arden McBathan
Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
superior to continue the action.
Arden McBathan
Johannes Walch
But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spiritæ„€
Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesnæ„’ he?
Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex)
Arden McBathan
> Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?
Reaction cards work for the remainder of the actions, Retainers as long
as you employ them. A killed Marijava Ghoul wouldn't provide stealth
either.
Johannes Walch
I have thought a bit...
>> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
>> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
>> superior to continue the action.
Nonsense in my opinion. You can always play FoM superior to continue the
action regardless if you "need" the stealth or not. What means "needing
stealth" in combat anyway.
> But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spirit´s
> Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?
And I still have the opinion that the reacting minion keeps the original
intercept just like he played cards or got intercept from locations.
LSJ, can you confirm?
--
johannes walch
LSJ
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>
> I have thought a bit...
>
>>> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
>>> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
>>> superior to continue the action.
>
>
> Nonsense in my opinion. You can always play FoM superior to continue the
> action regardless if you "need" the stealth or not. What means "needing
> stealth" in combat anyway.
>
>> But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a
>> Spiritæ„€ Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesnæ„’ he?
>
>
> And I still have the opinion that the reacting minion keeps the original
> intercept just like he played cards or got intercept from locations.
>
> LSJ, can you confirm?
Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need
stealth.
Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in
play.
salem
<johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled:
gone.
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
salem
<johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled:
>Arden McBathan wrote:
from the Anarch's rulebook, 6.2: Taking an action, page 27:
"The effect of an action modifier or a reaction card lasts for the
duration of the current action by default"
John Flournoy
LSJ wrote:
> Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need
> stealth.
>
> Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in
> play.
Okay, let's add another scenario to this discussion and see what the
rulings mean...
Frederick the Weak (having been given PRO) bleeds, playing Earth
Control for +2 stealth against the first 0-intercept block attempt
(Natalia). He then gets successfully blocked by Khalil Ravana, who has
2 Raven Spies - but before they go to combat, Natalia plays Shilmulo
Deception to take over as the blocking minion.
Can Frederick play Form of Mist at superior? Does he 'need' the stealth
in this circumstance or not, since he has 2 more points of stealth than
the minion he is in combat with?
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he
cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past
Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration of
the combat'...
> LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap
to reply)
-John Flournoy
Jeroen Rombouts
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1115132515.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other minon has 0
intercept. but, IANLSJ...
John Flournoy
Right, I'm specifically wondering about the 'burn blood to continue'
part. Should have made that more clear.
-John Flournoy
LSJ
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>>"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>>>cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past
>>>Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration
>
> of
>
>>>the combat'...
>>>
>>
>>if i understand correctly, he can play Form of Mist, but not use the
>
> burn
>
>>blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other
>
> minon has 0
>
>>intercept. but, IANLSJ...
>
>
> Right, I'm specifically wondering about the 'burn blood to continue'
> part. Should have made that more clear.
And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
carl
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action
would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or
other non-intercept)
I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM
during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the
action at stealth" doesn't make sense.
So you do an action you smack around the guarding vamps a bit then float on
through after the C:E to bleed/equip/diab etc. Sure it takes a little
effort and time to mug the guard but its always worth a little payback.
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>
>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
>
> How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
wrote:
>
>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
>
>How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
>If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action
>would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or
>other non-intercept)
>
>I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM
>during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the
>action at stealth" doesn't make sense.
Why not?
Bum's Rush and Harass are zero-stealth actions.
If they're blocked, the acting minion can stealth past to get the
intended target. I want to dunk Arika, not Gideon Fontaine. So I play
Form of Mist to get to her.
Don't mess the objective of the action with the burn blood effect.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
carl
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> carl wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >
> >>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
> >
> > How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
>
> Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
> intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
>
> In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
> is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
> doesn't need stealth.
And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?
carl
"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:jdfi71l5jn42cbpor...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:11:20 +1200, "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
> >
> >How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
> >If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the
action
> >would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points
or
> >other non-intercept)
> >
> >I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM
> >during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the
> >action at stealth" doesn't make sense.
>
> Why not?
>
> Bum's Rush and Harass are zero-stealth actions.
> If they're blocked, the acting minion can stealth past to get the
> intended target. I want to dunk Arika, not Gideon Fontaine. So I play
> Form of Mist to get to her.
>
> Don't mess the objective of the action with the burn blood effect.
Sorry I thought it was painfulllyy obvious that I was talking about an
attack at the vampire wot blocks.
kushiel
Vampire A plays Bum's Rush, targeting Vampire B. Vampire B sucessfully
blocks. Vampire A plays Form of Mist at superior during the resulting
combat, burns a blood to continue the action, and is unblocked. Vampire
A enters combat with Vampire B again, this time with the maneuver
available from the Bum's Rush.
John Eno
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:rl1ee.3426$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>carl wrote:
>>
>>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
>>>
>>>How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
>>
>>Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
>>intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
>>
>>In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
>>is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
>>doesn't need stealth.
>
> And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?
The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending.
See the set up to which I was responding.
carl
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> carl wrote:
>
> > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:rl1ee.3426$pe3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>carl wrote:
> >>
> >>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
> >>>
> >>>How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
> >>
> >>Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
> >>intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
> >>
> >>In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
> >>is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
> >>doesn't need stealth.
> >
> > And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?
>
> The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending.
> See the set up to which I was responding.
Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. ->
post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat.
So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and
intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped since
the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but the
+1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no
blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept.
So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table.
Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try again.
But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play
intercept - then you need -more- stealth.
So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is initiated
then intercept to counter it.
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>>See the set up to which I was responding.
>
> Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. ->
> post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat.
Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth.
There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed.
Form of Mist has no text to override that rule.
So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your
assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
> So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and
> intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped since
None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to
stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2]
> the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but the
> +1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no
> blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept.
In general, the action continues at an additional one stealth beyond
whatever it had before. And the play of Form of Mist to add stealth
was legal since stealth was needed.
In the corner case which we are presently discussing, however, stealth
is not needed, and so Form of Mist cannot be played to add stealth,
and therefore cannot be played to continue the action.
> So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table.
There'd be an X+1 stealth action on the table if FoM were legal to
continue the action. But it's not (in this case).
> Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try again.
> But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play
> intercept - then you need -more- stealth.
>
> So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is initiated
> then intercept to counter it.
It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the
proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
wrote:
Even then, you can play Form of Mist. It just won't do any good -
since the rush action was already at a "resolve effects" stage, it
won't make you enter combat with the target again.
carl
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> carl wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >>The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending.
> >>See the set up to which I was responding.
> >
> > Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. ->
> > post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat.
>
> Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth.
> There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed.
> Form of Mist has no text to override that rule.
> So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your
> assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
What does stealth inside a combat resolution do? I haven't come across it
before
but there are lots of cards I have yet to get.
> > So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and
> > intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped
since
>
> None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to
> stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2]
So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is
continued? and not reset) but can't
wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather
Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would
only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and
any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play.
> > the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but
the
> > +1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no
> > blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept.
>
> In general, the action continues at an additional one stealth beyond
> whatever it had before. And the play of Form of Mist to add stealth
> was legal since stealth was needed.
>
> In the corner case which we are presently discussing, however, stealth
> is not needed, and so Form of Mist cannot be played to add stealth,
> and therefore cannot be played to continue the action.
Fredericks case: a minon's intercept >= acting minion stealth, so ok to pay
and continue (+1 stealth)
Johannes case: minion blocked (+3 intercept) action was at +3 stealth.
Action _continues_ now at +4 stealth and the intercept continues for the
length of the action, so upon a Wake that blocking minion is still at +3
intercept (but new blockers at +0 intercept.) But if the blocker does not
Wake then the action cannot continue? (since acting vampire is at +3 stealth
and new blockers are +0 intercept)
Johns case: acting minion +2 stealth blocked by untapped vamp at +2
intercept. combat goes with third "reacting" vamp leaving +2 intercept
still active on original still untapped "blocker". the FoM says nothing
about who the +1 stealth applies to (ie this action/acting minion?) so
acting minion needs +1 stealth to beat the still active +2 intercept on the
orginal still untapped blocker and thus can pay to continue?
> > So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table.
>
> There'd be an X+1 stealth action on the table if FoM were legal to
> continue the action. But it's not (in this case).
>
> > Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try
again.
> > But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play
> > intercept - then you need -more- stealth.
> >
> > So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is
initiated
> > then intercept to counter it.
>
> It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the
> proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread.
What about the +2 on Khalil Ravana who is still untapped.
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth.
>>There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed.
>>Form of Mist has no text to override that rule.
>>So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant, your
>>assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> What does stealth inside a combat resolution do? I haven't come across it
> before but there are lots of cards I have yet to get.
What does stealth at action resolution "do"?
Nothing. It just is. The only thing it ever "does" is get measured when
attempting to see if a block succeeds (or if a minion needs more, etc.).
>>None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to
>>stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2]
>
> So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is
> continued? and not reset) but can't
Raven Spies are effects that added intercept during the action.
Their intercept applies only while they are in play.
> wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather
> Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would
> only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and
> any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play.
He "uses" all three while they are in play -- whether he needs intercept or
not (he even has the intercept when he is acting).
>>In the corner case which we are presently discussing, however, stealth
>>is not needed, and so Form of Mist cannot be played to add stealth,
>>and therefore cannot be played to continue the action.
>
> Fredericks case: a minon's intercept >= acting minion stealth, so ok to pay
> and continue (+1 stealth)
>
> Johannes case: minion blocked (+3 intercept) action was at +3 stealth.
> Action _continues_ now at +4 stealth and the intercept continues for the
> length of the action, so upon a Wake that blocking minion is still at +3
> intercept (but new blockers at +0 intercept.) But if the blocker does not
> Wake then the action cannot continue? (since acting vampire is at +3 stealth
> and new blockers are +0 intercept)
Johannes's case: Action at 3 stealth. Minion blocks with 3 intercept.
Weather control kills Ravens, leaving blocking minion with 0 intercept.
Acting minion (still with 3 stealth) cannot use Form of Mist to continue,
since doing so would add stealth (and the acting minion doesn't need
stealth).
> Johns case: acting minion +2 stealth blocked by untapped vamp at +2
> intercept. combat goes with third "reacting" vamp leaving +2 intercept
> still active on original still untapped "blocker". the FoM says nothing
> about who the +1 stealth applies to (ie this action/acting minion?) so
> acting minion needs +1 stealth to beat the still active +2 intercept on the
> orginal still untapped blocker and thus can pay to continue?
FoM says that the action continues, and it doesn't say to change the
acting minion, so the acting minion is clearly the minion doing the
continuing. FoM says to add stealth, so the acting minion must need
stealth to use FoM to add stealth.
He cannot, since he does not need stealth. The untapped minion with 2
intercept is not currently a blocking minion. There's only ever one
blocking minion at a time, and right now, he's in combat with that
one blocking minion -- the one with 0 intercept.
>>It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the
>>proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread.
>
> What about the +2 on Khalil Ravana who is still untapped.
Or the +3 on Bob with three Ravens?
The same: neither Khalil nor Bob are the blocking minion, so
their intercept is not material to needing stealth.
salem
scrawled:
>So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action is
>continued? and not reset) but can't
>wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather
>Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he would
>only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept and
>any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play.
i think it might be important here to point out you don't actually
generally ever tap retainers to do anything. they are always active
while on the minion. if you have 3 raven spies you'll have +3
intercept for every single action that happens.
if people start a 0 stealth action, you're not allowed to _play_ cards
to give you intercept unless they gain stealth, but the intercept
already in play is fine. you may still attempt to block 0 stealth
actions with your 3 raven spy guy.
carl
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k5qo719fe654bd7us...@4ax.com...
Thanks didn't realise that. I was taught intercept only to counter stealth.
Made things like Eagle sight at superior questionable. (if they have +1
stealth how can +2 intetrcept be applied...then someone
cloaks-the-gathering....
and the discussions start.
carl
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> carl wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>Form of Mist at superior can be used to add stealth.
> >>There is a general rule against adding stealth unless stealth is needed.
> >>Form of Mist has no text to override that rule.
> >>So the issue of whether the vampire needs stealth is quite relevant,
your
> >>assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > What does stealth inside a combat resolution do? I haven't come across
it
> > before but there are lots of cards I have yet to get.
>
> What does stealth at action resolution "do"?
> Nothing. It just is. The only thing it ever "does" is get measured when
> attempting to see if a block succeeds (or if a minion needs more, etc.).
It reduces the ability for the action to be blocked by increasing the amount
of intercept required to detect the action the minion is taking. Hence my
confusion.
>
> >>None of the stealth nor intercepts get reset. Modifications to
> >>stealth and intercept last the whole action, as stated in [6.2.2.2]
> >
> > So in the case of the 3raven spies the blocker has 3 intercepts (action
is
> > continued? and not reset) but can't
>
> Raven Spies are effects that added intercept during the action.
> Their intercept applies only while they are in play.
Ok. I follow that. Must be a reasonably uncommon occurence, losing
the intercept in the middle of a reaction/block.
> > wake/untap and use them again because they're now gone (eg given Weather
> > Control). Or more likely he used 1 or 2 for +1, +2 intercept since he
would
> > only be able to tap all 3 if he actually needed the whole +3 intercept
and
> > any burnt (but previously untapped) ravens are still out of play.
>
> He "uses" all three while they are in play -- whether he needs intercept
or
> not (he even has the intercept when he is acting).
Oh hadn't realised that. (as I mentioned to salem.)
<snip>
> > Johns case: acting minion +2 stealth blocked by untapped vamp at +2
> > intercept. combat goes with third "reacting" vamp leaving +2 intercept
> > still active on original still untapped "blocker". the FoM says nothing
> > about who the +1 stealth applies to (ie this action/acting minion?) so
> > acting minion needs +1 stealth to beat the still active +2 intercept on
the
> > orginal still untapped blocker and thus can pay to continue?
>
> FoM says that the action continues, and it doesn't say to change the
> acting minion, so the acting minion is clearly the minion doing the
> continuing. FoM says to add stealth, so the acting minion must need
> stealth to use FoM to add stealth.
> He cannot, since he does not need stealth. The untapped minion with 2
> intercept is not currently a blocking minion. There's only ever one
> blocking minion at a time, and right now, he's in combat with that
> one blocking minion -- the one with 0 intercept.
Hadn't ever considered there to be only 1 blocking minion, just a range of
minions which may block given willingness and ability to meet the
requirements.
But the "one blocking minion" certainly does apply when in combat (for as
long as combat stays 1-on-1)
> >>It isn't needed since there is no currently-blocking minion with the
> >>proper amount of intercept, as stated already in this thread.
> >
> > What about the +2 on Khalil Ravana who is still untapped.
>
> Or the +3 on Bob with three Ravens?
> The same: neither Khalil nor Bob are the blocking minion, so
> their intercept is not material to needing stealth.
>
> --
> LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to
reply)
> Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Thanks very much for your patience, the only thing I find worse than giving
bad calls on a game is having to go back and correct them later.