A few questions

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Marcellus

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

I have scanned over the rules and internet and have not found little
about the following. Can someone give me clarification and rule
references to the following questions.

1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he
currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor. If the answere
is no, then I take it that a vampire with 0 blood cannot use skin of
steel to prevent that vampire from being burned from 1 point of
aggravated damage.

2. With regards to damage prevention, can you choose which damage is
being prevented? If a vampire takes 1 aggravated and 1 normal, I know
that the aggravated is applied to the vampire last, but can a skin of
rock prevent the point of aggravated damage?

3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,
reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
the same strike?

4. Can the 5th Tradition be used on the acting Vampire? My first
instinct would be no since the acting vampire would spend one blood
and then get it all back as well as the definition of Hospitality.
However, the card itself does not make this restriction.

5. I do not have the text in front of me, so this question may be not
valid. Ancient Influence is limited in the number of times it can be
played. Can one be played after another one was sucessfully blocked?
Does Using Ancient Influence Cards for extra votes follow the same
restriction?

6. I am sure this would be considered a house rule. Can a vampire with
0 blood use Restoration instead of the normal hunting restriction?

Thank you in advance.

^
^ | ^
\|/ ha...@shadow.net
<---x---> Scott Marcellus
/|\ http://anshar.shadow.net/~havok
V | V
V

Stephen Beaulieu

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <318a6d6b....@news.shadow.net>, ha...@shadow.net (Scott
Marcellus) wrote:

: I have scanned over the rules and internet and have not found little


: about the following. Can someone give me clarification and rule
: references to the following questions.

I can give you the answers, but probably not the rules references.

: 1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he


: currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor. If the answere
: is no, then I take it that a vampire with 0 blood cannot use skin of
: steel to prevent that vampire from being burned from 1 point of
: aggravated damage.

A vampire can only pay for a card with blood on it at the time the card is
played. If there is not enough blood, the card cannot be played. In your
example the vampire would be burned if it did not have another damage
prevention card to use.

: 2. With regards to damage prevention, can you choose which damage is


: being prevented? If a vampire takes 1 aggravated and 1 normal, I know
: that the aggravated is applied to the vampire last, but can a skin of
: rock prevent the point of aggravated damage?

Unless the card specifies, either aggravated or non-aggravated damage may
be prevented. And the vampire playing the card chooses which damage to
prevent. Any non-prevented damage is then applied non-agg first, then
agg.

: 3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,


: reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
: strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
: the same strike?

Actually, Undead Strength is a strike, you might be thinking of a
different card. Regardless, you are able to play any number of identical
cards in a given combat with the following restrictions:

Only one strike card may be played per strike dealt (and each strike needs
it's own card)
You cannot use a press or manuever to counter your own manuever or press.
You may only play one card that gives an additional strike in a given round.
You may not play more damage prevention cards than you have damage to prevent.
If you use a manuever from a strike (gun, thrown gate) then you must use
that card for your initial strike. This also means that you may only gain
one manuever from strike cards in a given round.

: 4. Can the 5th Tradition be used on the acting Vampire? My first


: instinct would be no since the acting vampire would spend one blood
: and then get it all back as well as the definition of Hospitality.
: However, the card itself does not make this restriction.

Officially you can use 5th Tradition: Hospitality on the acting vamp.

: 5. I do not have the text in front of me, so this question may be not


: valid. Ancient Influence is limited in the number of times it can be
: played. Can one be played after another one was sucessfully blocked?
: Does Using Ancient Influence Cards for extra votes follow the same
: restriction?

I believe the current ruling is that as soon as someone attempts to call
an Ancient Influence vote, no one may attempt to call another one during
the game. You can still use it for an additional vote during another
political action.

: 6. I am sure this would be considered a house rule. Can a vampire with


: 0 blood use Restoration instead of the normal hunting restriction?

Officially no. I think it should be allowed, and I imagine that some
groups have a house rule allowing it. (Mine does not.)

: Thank you in advance.


: ^
: ^ | ^
: \|/ ha...@shadow.net
: <---x---> Scott Marcellus
: /|\ http://anshar.shadow.net/~havok
: V | V
: V

You're welcome

I hope this helps

stephen beaulieu
hi...@mail.utexas.edu

James Puzzo

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Scott Marcellus (ha...@shadow.net) wrote:
: I have scanned over the rules and internet and have not found little
: about the following. Can someone give me clarification and rule
: references to the following questions.

I can't get to L. Scott Johnson's webpage (the definitive rules reference
page) right now, so I'm going from memory, card texts and the original Jyhad
rules here.

: 1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he
: currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor. If the answere
: is no, then I take it that a vampire with 0 blood cannot use skin of
: steel to prevent that vampire from being burned from 1 point of
: aggravated damage.

No, a vampire can NOT use a card which costs more blood than they have.
Period. Which means that you CAN'T play skin of steel with the hopes of
going to torpor 'cuz you can't pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you
can't DO it.

: 2. With regards to damage prevention, can you choose which damage is
: being prevented? If a vampire takes 1 aggravated and 1 normal, I know
: that the aggravated is applied to the vampire last, but can a skin of
: rock prevent the point of aggravated damage?

You choose which damage to prevent, yes.

: 3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,
: reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
: strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
: the same strike?

Um, unless things changed (oi) in V:TES:

Undead Strength Combat Potence
Normal: Strike: Use your hand or melee weapon at +1 damage.
Superior: Strike: use your hand or melee weapon at +2 damage.
Artist: Anson Maddocks

It _used_ to be a strike, at least...

: 4. Can the 5th Tradition be used on the acting Vampire? My first
: instinct would be no since the acting vampire would spend one blood
: and then get it all back as well as the definition of Hospitality.
: However, the card itself does not make this restriction.

The current ruling, as I understand it, is that you may use it on the acting
Vampire, though many have house rules against this.

: 5. I do not have the text in front of me, so this question may be not
: valid. Ancient Influence is limited in the number of times it can be
: played. Can one be played after another one was sucessfully blocked?
: Does Using Ancient Influence Cards for extra votes follow the same
: restriction?

I believe that it was ruled that using such cards for extra votes did not
count as PLAYING them, though having them blocked did. I could very well
be wrong... if I were you, I'd wait for a real rulesmonger...

: 6. I am sure this would be considered a house rule. Can a vampire with
: 0 blood use Restoration instead of the normal hunting restriction?

It would DEFINITELY have to be a house rule, since all minions which need to
hunt MUST hunt at the BEGINNING of the minion phase, before any other actions
are taken.

From the original Jyhad rules, section 12.3.1, Minion Actions, Hunt:

A ready vampire that begins the minion phase with no blood must
hunt as its action, and this action must be taken before any
other minion actions are taken.

From the V:TES rules, 6.4, Minion Actions, Hunt:

Note: An untapped vampire in the active region with no blood
must hunt as his next action. This action must occur before any
of your other minions take minion phase actions. If more than
one of your vampires needs to hunt, you may choose the order in
which they hunt, as long as they all hunt.

-spongy

REF

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

ha...@shadow.net (Scott Marcellus) wrote:

>1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he
>currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor. If the answere
>is no, then I take it that a vampire with 0 blood cannot use skin of
>steel to prevent that vampire from being burned from 1 point of
>aggravated damage.

The vampire must have the blood to pay for the card to use it.

>2. With regards to damage prevention, can you choose which damage is
>being prevented? If a vampire takes 1 aggravated and 1 normal, I know
>that the aggravated is applied to the vampire last, but can a skin of
>rock prevent the point of aggravated damage?

You can choose which damage is prevented.
The last bit is for burning purposes in case he could not prevent it.


>4. Can the 5th Tradition be used on the acting Vampire? My first
>instinct would be no since the acting vampire would spend one blood
>and then get it all back as well as the definition of Hospitality.
>However, the card itself does not make this restriction.

Yes it can be used on the acting vampire.

>5. I do not have the text in front of me, so this question may be not
>valid. Ancient Influence is limited in the number of times it can be
>played. Can one be played after another one was sucessfully blocked?
>Does Using Ancient Influence Cards for extra votes follow the same
>restriction?

If it was blocked then it was never played and so it can be played
later.


>6. I am sure this would be considered a house rule. Can a vampire with
>0 blood use Restoration instead of the normal hunting restriction?

No since the first action after untap would be to have your minions
hunt if they needed to.
Rory


David Pontes

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to Scott Marcellus

On Fri, 3 May 1996, Scott Marcellus wrote:

>
> 1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he
> currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor. If the answere
> is no, then I take it that a vampire with 0 blood cannot use skin of
> steel to prevent that vampire from being burned from 1 point of
> aggravated damage.

Based in common sense: The blood written on the card is a _cost_. So,
if I'm unable to pay the cost, I don't get to play the card (the same way
that I'm unable to buy a Ferrari (: ). If the blood loss is forced (i.e.
damage) the vamp goes to torpor - but only then.

>
> 2. With regards to damage prevention, can you choose which damage is
> being prevented? If a vampire takes 1 aggravated and 1 normal, I know
> that the aggravated is applied to the vampire last, but can a skin of
> rock prevent the point of aggravated damage?

Where is it written that the aggro damage is applied last? You
know, I' ve been looking everyhere and haven't found anything about it!
If this is so, I believe a 'prevent one damage' card would not save you
from torpor...

>
> 3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,
> reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
> strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
> the same strike?

Oh yes it is! Take a good look : "Strike: Use your...". So, I'm
afraid you cannot stack it...

>
> 4. Can the 5th Tradition be used on the acting Vampire? My first
> instinct would be no since the acting vampire would spend one blood
> and then get it all back as well as the definition of Hospitality.
> However, the card itself does not make this restriction.

Well, it's funny that I read somewhere that actions that say
'Requires ready Prince ...' had to be taken by said vampires. Wich, in
the case of 5th Trad makes no sense (at least the 1 blood cost). But even
disregarding that rule I believe the card can be used on the acting
minion. Don't take this for granted, though...

>
> 5. I do not have the text in front of me, so this question may be not
> valid. Ancient Influence is limited in the number of times it can be
> played. Can one be played after another one was sucessfully blocked?
> Does Using Ancient Influence Cards for extra votes follow the same
> restriction?

Regarding the first question: I've met the same problem before,
and everyone at the table said 'no' (the card *had* been played...), but
I'm curious as what everyone's opinios is. Now, since the little green
book says that 'when you use a political card to gain a vote you ignore
the text that is printed on it', I would say yes, you can burn Ancient
Influence to get a vote anytime!

>
> 6. I am sure this would be considered a house rule. Can a vampire with
> 0 blood use Restoration instead of the normal hunting restriction?

Well, tracing back to Vampire: the Masquerade, the reason why a vamp
must hunt when it has no blood is that nothing else matters to them besides
blood. So, I believe they wouldn't have the free will to preform a
restoration. Then again, Restoration makes no sense in V:tM, so...
:))) *flame*

One other thing: if someone intends to reply this, please include
my address on the reply, for my newserver tends to 'eat' some of your
posts...
Thanks! :)

David Pontes

8[


Scott Marcellus

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

I wrote:

>
>3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,
>reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
>strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
>the same strike?
>

oops! Wrong Card! Undead Strength is a strike! I guess I meant
something else like lucky blow or Fists of Death which is not a strike
card.

^
^ | ^
\|/ ha...@shadow.net
<---x---> Scott Marcellus

/|\ http://www.shadow.net/~havok
V | V
V

James Puzzo

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Scott Marcellus (ha...@shadow.net) wrote:
: >3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,
: >reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
: >strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
: >the same strike?
: >
: oops! Wrong Card! Undead Strength is a strike! I guess I meant
: something else like lucky blow or Fists of Death which is not a strike
: card.

Lucky Blow:

Card Text Lucky Blow Combat
Do not replace until after combat.


Strike: Use your hand or melee weapon at +1 damage.

^^^^^^
It's a strike!

Fists of Death:

Normal: +1 hand damage for the remainder of combat. Only usable at the
beginning of a round.
Superior: As above, but with +2 hand damage.

Now here is one where there could be some stacking questions... I know that
we play this card as non-stacking, but I don't know what the actual ruling
is...

-James

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

David Pontes <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> writes:
> Based in common sense: The blood written on the card is a _cost_. So,
>if I'm unable to pay the cost, I don't get to play the card (the same way
>that I'm unable to buy a Ferrari (: ). If the blood loss is forced (i.e.
>damage) the vamp goes to torpor - but only then.

It only goes to torpor if it takes damage in excess of blood.
Being forced to lose blood he don't have results in no effect (Cryptic
Mission, etc.)

>> 2. With regards to damage prevention, can you choose which damage is
>> being prevented? If a vampire takes 1 aggravated and 1 normal, I know
>> that the aggravated is applied to the vampire last, but can a skin of
>> rock prevent the point of aggravated damage?
>
> Where is it written that the aggro damage is applied last? You
>know, I' ve been looking everyhere and haven't found anything about it!
>If this is so, I believe a 'prevent one damage' card would not save you
>from torpor...

It is written in several Rules Team Rulings.
When you 'prevent one damage', you choose the damage you wish to
prevent. All unprevented damage is then applied - normal first,
then aggravated. For a complete break down of the process, see my
rules outline, posted one the first of every month, and available
from my VtES page: http://www.HomeFree.net/view/page.exe?236

--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Always remember you're unique,
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | just like everyone else.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

ha...@shadow.net (Scott Marcellus) writes:

>I wrote:
>>3. Ok, there are limitations as to the number of action modifiers,
>>reactions, and strikes. But a card like Undead Strength is not a
>>strike. Can 2 Undead Strengths be used in the same combat round for
>>the same strike?
>>
>oops! Wrong Card! Undead Strength is a strike! I guess I meant
>something else like lucky blow or Fists of Death which is not a strike
>card.

Lucky Blow is also a strike, so no again.
Fists of Death *do* stack, however, making them worth their one
blood cost over Torn Signpost (which does not stack).

Shane Travis

unread,
May 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/11/96
to

James Puzzo (jam...@gw.digibd.com) wrote:
: Scott Marcellus (ha...@shadow.net) wrote:

: : 1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he
: : currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor. If the answere
: : is no, then I take it that a vampire with 0 blood cannot use skin of
: : steel to prevent that vampire from being burned from 1 point of
: : aggravated damage.

: No, a vampire can NOT use a card which costs more blood than they have.


: Period. Which means that you CAN'T play skin of steel with the hopes of
: going to torpor 'cuz you can't pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you
: can't DO it.

Just to fully clarify this answer...

When a card is played that has a greater cost than the vampire has ability
to pay, the vampire pays _allm the cost that it is able_ and then the card
is burned to no effect.

This means that a vampire with protean and only 2 blood _could_ play a
Horrific Countenance (cost 4 blood), but the effect would be that 2 blood
would be spent and the HC burned.

Why would someone ever do this intentionally? Think Fame...

Shane H.W. Travis | We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but others judge us by what we have already done.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Longfellow

James Puzzo

unread,
May 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/13/96
to

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote:

: When a card is played that has a greater cost than the vampire has ability


: to pay, the vampire pays _allm the cost that it is able_ and then the card
: is burned to no effect.
:
: This means that a vampire with protean and only 2 blood _could_ play a
: Horrific Countenance (cost 4 blood), but the effect would be that 2 blood
: would be spent and the HC burned.

Huh? I've never heard of this before... where does this interpretation come
from? The rules, a ruling, common sense, etc.?

Any info is appreciated...

-James


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
May 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/13/96
to

tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes:
>: Scott Marcellus (ha...@shadow.net) wrote:

>: : 1. Can a vampire use a card that has a cost in blood more than what he

>: : currently possesses or does the vampire go to torpor?

>Just to fully clarify this answer...

>When a card is played that has a greater cost than the vampire has ability


>to pay, the vampire pays _allm the cost that it is able_ and then the card
>is burned to no effect.

>This means that a vampire with protean and only 2 blood _could_ play a
>Horrific Countenance (cost 4 blood), but the effect would be that 2 blood
>would be spent and the HC burned.

I beleive that this only applies to actions whose cost can no longer
be paid (due to the acting vampire having spent blood on some action
modifier).

In general, you cannot play a card that you can't currently pay for.
If, when the time comes to pay the cost, you have been reduced and
can no longer pay for the card, then the card is simply burned with
no effect.

As far as burning any remaining blood, I don't think that that is
correct - but it certainly could be. The only instance of burning
blood (or pool) when you cannot afford the whole cost is when using
Vast Wealth (or Magic of the Smith) to equip "blind". In this case,
you pay the cost whether you want to or not when the action is
successful. If you cannot pay the pool cost, you are ousted. This
ruling only applies to equiping "blind", and not to paying costs in
general (or at least that's how I apply it). The ruling gets this
special treatment because the cost is unknown at the time the action
is attempted. No other actions have this quality.

Tom?

--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | DejaFu -
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | The feeling that things have
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | been this FU'ed before.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>When a card is played that has a greater cost than the vampire has ability
>to pay, the vampire pays _allm the cost that it is able_ and then the card
>is burned to no effect.
>
>This means that a vampire with protean and only 2 blood _could_ play a
>Horrific Countenance (cost 4 blood), but the effect would be that 2 blood
>would be spent and the HC burned.

Where are you getting this from? If a vampire is forced to burn more blood
than it has due to penalties (for example, blocking Donal the Exemplary
Archon), then it simply burns what it can. But it can't play cards that
it can't pay for; you cannot, in general, pay only part of a cost.


Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.


Shane Travis

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
: >When a card is played that has a greater cost than the vampire has ability

: >to pay, the vampire pays _all the cost that it is able_ and then the card


: >is burned to no effect.
: >
: >This means that a vampire with protean and only 2 blood _could_ play a
: >Horrific Countenance (cost 4 blood), but the effect would be that 2 blood
: >would be spent and the HC burned.

: Where are you getting this from? If a vampire is forced to burn more blood
: than it has due to penalties (for example, blocking Donal the Exemplary
: Archon), then it simply burns what it can. But it can't play cards that
: it can't pay for; you cannot, in general, pay only part of a cost.

I am taking this from the Revised Jyhad Rules (not VTES rules, as I
haven't any. If changed, plz. accept apologies.)

Section 14. Summary of a Player's Actions
[...]
4) If unblocked, the minion's action is successful. The methuselah must
them pay any cost associated with the action. If the Methuselah cannot
pay the cost, whatever can be paid is paid, and the effects of unpaid
cards do not take place. [...]

I have always taken this to apply not only to pool costs from the
Methuselah but also blood costs from the vampire itself.
Thus, the following situation could arise;

Gilbert attempts to call a Fourth Tradition, and is intercepted by Anneke
with a SMG, itching to destroy an annoying Malkavian. Due to a paucity of
stealth cards, Gilbert (who does not want to go to torpor) is forced to
tap the Forest of Shadows and pay all his remaining blood to get enough
stealth to get away. Anneke can't come upwith any more intercept, so the
action is considered 'succcessful'.

Now - Gilbert doesn't have enough blood to pay for the Fourth Tradition,
so it is burned to no effect. Correct?

A logical extension of that is that a vampire can take an action that it
doesn't have enough blood to pay for _in the first place_. Example:
Anneke, with only two blood, decided to try and slip through a Pulse of
the Canaille (cost; 3 blood from vampire). Nobody blocks; action is
considered successful, but fulll cost cannot be paid, so card is burned as
is 2 blood from Anneke.

Pretty damn way to cycle cards, IMHO (a vampire action and all the
remaining blood on that vampire), but _not_ illegal, in as far as I
understand the rules.

Was I not making myself clear, or have I misinterpreted something?

rsfarrer

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

In article <4n2d7v$9...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane

Travis) wrote:
> This means that a vampire with protean and only 2 blood _could_ play a
> Horrific Countenance (cost 4 blood), but the effect would be that 2 blood
> would be spent and the HC burned.
>
> Why would someone ever do this intentionally? Think Fame...

But you would _not_ go to torpor with no blood on you tho.... Although it
would be easier that someone send you there.
Although if you are doing this legally...eek.. that's _nasty_. tee-hee !! =)

Bob
rsfa...@mbnet.mb.ca

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
May 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/21/96
to

You cannot play a card or ability without paying the full cost of that card
or ability. For example, a vampire with only 1 blood cannot play a card with
a blood cost of 2 or more.

In the case of action cards, the cost is not actually paid until the action
resolves, but you still cannot play a cost that you can't afford. If something
happens during the action that prevents you from paying the action's cost
when it resolves (for example, a vampire burns too much blood on action
modifiers) then the action does nothing, and none of its cost is paid.

In the case of search-and-play effects, such as Vast Wealth or Magic of the
Smith, the cost of the equipment is not paid unless the action is successful,
and you do not have to take that cost into account when checking to see
whether you can play the effect.

Rader73

unread,
May 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/23/96
to

>In the case of action cards, the cost is not actually paid until the
action
>resolves, but you still cannot play a cost that you can't afford. If
something
>happens during the action that prevents you from paying the action's cost
>when it resolves (for example, a vampire burns too much blood on action
>modifiers) then the action does nothing, and none of its cost is paid.

So you're saying that if I decide after playing an action that I don't
want to really play, I can just spend too much on the action modifiers and
then not have to pay for the action?

dustin


James Puzzo

unread,
May 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/23/96
to

Rader73 (rad...@aol.com) wrote:

: >In the case of action cards, the cost is not actually paid until

Indeed, he is saying that you can essentially cancel your own action IF you
can burn enough blood from the acting minion to not be able to pay the
cost. Remember, if you successfully use too much blood on action modifiers,
the action is UNSUCCESSFUL, AND you have a weakened minion.

-spongy

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages