quick question
Who
dublin: any vampire blocking donal burns 1 blood before combat begins."
what happens if the vampire doesn't have any blood to burn?
or if the vampire has no blood after it burns the one?
just wondering if its been errata'd (maybe it should be and have the new
text say if they can't burn the blood they can't block? or something
along those lines) ah well, such is life.
-who
(best friend to what, the giant purple space hampster)
"sa souvraya niende masain ye" - "i am lost in my own mind"
LSJ
>
> this question is about donal o'connor, on his card it says: "prince of
> dublin: any vampire blocking donal burns 1 blood before combat begins."
>
> what happens if the vampire doesn't have any blood to burn?
Empty vampires ignore all "burn blood" effects.
(And vampires who are subject to "burn X blood" effects in excess of their
current blood supply are simply emptied - they ignore the excess.)
> or if the vampire has no blood after it burns the one?
Then it has no blood. It is still ready and enters combat as normal.
> just wondering if its been errata'd (maybe it should be and have the new
> text say if they can't burn the blood they can't block? or something
> along those lines) ah well, such is life.
No errata.
--
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
Patrick Harris
> this question is about donal o'connor, on his card it says: "prince of
> dublin: any vampire blocking donal burns 1 blood before combat begins."
> >
> what happens if the vampire doesn't have any blood to burn?
LSJ wrote:
> Empty vampires ignore all "burn blood" effects.
> (And vampires who are subject to "burn X blood" effects in excess of their
> current blood supply are simply emptied - they ignore the excess.)
The same doesn't apply to something like combat cards, does it? Angus wants
to play Body of Sun, but has no blood. He ignores the cost? Hmm.. I'm
guessing there is a distinct difference between "burn blood effects" and
"cost". I suppose, though, that the blood burned to enter combat with Donal
could be looked at as the cost. How is it determined specifically which
effects are which? Am I off base here?
[snip]
Thanks again. Sheesh, busy day of questions for me today.
p.
James Coupe
<alp...@alpinetaxi.com> writes
>The same doesn't apply to something like combat cards, does it? Angus wants
>to play Body of Sun, but has no blood. He ignores the cost?
No, because that's a cost, not an effect.
An effect is something which happens as a result of something else. A
cost is something you have to do in order to do something else.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk
sim...@tne.net.au
>Who wrote:
>
>> this question is about donal o'connor, on his card it says: "prince of
>> dublin: any vampire blocking donal burns 1 blood before combat begins."
>> >
>> what happens if the vampire doesn't have any blood to burn?
>
>LSJ wrote:
>
>> Empty vampires ignore all "burn blood" effects.
>> (And vampires who are subject to "burn X blood" effects in excess of their
>> current blood supply are simply emptied - they ignore the excess.)
>
>guessing there is a distinct difference between "burn blood effects" and
>"cost". I suppose, though, that the blood burned to enter combat with Donal
>could be looked at as the cost. How is it determined specifically which
>effects are which? Am I off base here?
>
As far as I know from the rules, anything that is a requirement is just that,
a requirement. If you don't have the blood to pay the required cost you don't
get to pay the card. Affects however are a different matter. If something that
affects a vampire leaves an excess then the excess is ignored.
So 1 blood on a vmpire needing to pay 2 blood as a requirement can't play the
card, but the effect of a card played causes 2 blood loss on a vampire with 1
blood means the 1 is taken away and the excess ignored.
Break it into requirements and effects and it isn't too diffuclt to tell
the one situation from the other.
The wording of this may not be quite accurate but I hope (and I am sure LSJ
will as most players suggest quickly correct any mistakes I have made) the
general idea of what I have answered is correct :)
Hmm, my answers tend to be far too garrulous I suspect.
regards,
Simidh
>[snip]
>
>Thanks again. Sheesh, busy day of questions for me today.
>
>p.
>
Simidh: Ventrue Prince Of Adelaide
__ __ ,-~_~, __
,-._______.-.___.----------' '--~~ ~~ (___\`, (__ . _ _ . __/ )_
',_.-------._.---.__________ __ ) __)( / ) )( (_/ / )
`--' ~~--~~,(~_~/,' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Email: sim...@vampire.tne.net.au ~---' URL: vampire.tne.net.au
LSJ
> Who wrote:
> > this question is about donal o'connor, on his card it says: "prince of
> > dublin: any vampire blocking donal burns 1 blood before combat begins."
> > >
> > what happens if the vampire doesn't have any blood to burn?
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Empty vampires ignore all "burn blood" effects.
> > (And vampires who are subject to "burn X blood" effects in excess of their
> > current blood supply are simply emptied - they ignore the excess.)
>
> The same doesn't apply to something like combat cards, does it? Angus wants
It applies to all cards (and other effects).
> to play Body of Sun, but has no blood. He ignores the cost? Hmm.. I'm
No (for the reason following that question).
> guessing there is a distinct difference between "burn blood effects" and
> "cost". I suppose, though, that the blood burned to enter combat with Donal
Cost != Effect. If you have to do X "to" (that is "in order to") do Y, and
you fail to do X, then you don't do Y. A vampire must burn 4 blood "to"
play Body of Sun. [1.6.1.3.]
> could be looked at as the cost. How is it determined specifically which
It is not looked at as a cost, since it is not worded as a cost:
"Any vampire blocking Donal burns 1 blood before combat begins."
Are you blocking Donal? Yes. Then burn a blood.
Not: Do you want to block Donal? Yes. Then burn a blood "to" attempt to block.
> effects are which? Am I off base here?
It is determined by wording. If doing something causes the burning of blood,
then it is not a cost. If you must burn blood in order to do something, then
it is a cost (indeed, that is the definition "cost" - as far as blood is
concerned).