Telepathic Counter
Silas7
Minion A bleeds for 1
Minion B telepathic counters it a superior
Minion A plays conditionig at superior.
Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2?
Chris O'Brien
Kristyl Meth
<19990716100643...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the
Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the Conditioning was
played. The rulings say:
"Telepathic Counter - Reaction (aus)
稗leeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative bleed is
treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM 960419] [TOM
19960419]
肘s played before the bleed is considered successful, so would be played
before cards like Spying Mission, which are only played on a successful
bleed. [FAQ]"
BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a successful
negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-)
OK, LSJ, time to tell us all why I'm wrong, as usual...
KM
mbohlman
wrote:
> > Minion A bleeds for 1
> > Minion B telepathic counters it a superior
> > Minion A plays conditionig at superior.
> >
> > Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2?
>
> I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the
> Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the
> Conditioning was played. The rulings say:
The problem is that there are a few steps that aren't mentioned
that are probably happening here.
After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller
doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion
A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's
controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect,
reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined
to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1
by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again
(but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously).
> "Telepathic Counter - Reaction (aus)
> 稗leeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative
> bleed is treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM
> 960419] [TOM 19960419]
It is only when the action is completed that a negative bleed is
unsuccessful. The action isn't completed until blocks have
been decided and all players involved have said they are playing no
more modifiers. The bleed does not instantly become unsuccessful
when it is reduced to 0 or a negative number.
> 肘s played before the bleed is considered successful, so would be
> played before cards like Spying Mission, which are only played on a
> successful bleed. [FAQ]"
This bit is irrelevant in this case, but good to list for
completeness.
> BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a
> successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-)
Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie
not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less.
So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not
be gained.
> OK, LSJ, time to tell us all why I'm wrong, as usual...
IANALSJ, but I play one on TV.
Mike
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Kristyl Meth
<w0Jj3.70$I5....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:02:52 GMT "Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Minion A bleeds for 1
> > > Minion B telepathic counters it a superior
> > > Minion A plays conditionig at superior.
> > >
> > > Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2?
> >
> > I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the
> > Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the
> > Conditioning was played. The rulings say:
>
> The problem is that there are a few steps that aren't mentioned
> that are probably happening here.
>
> After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller
> doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion
> A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's
> controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect,
> reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined
> to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1
> by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again
> (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously).
>
Hmmm....I guess that makes sense. So, would there be any way to time the
Telepathic Counter so that the bleeder wouldn't be able to tack on the
bleed modifier? For example, if Minion B's controller first announces that
he will not block, and Minion A's controller says OK without doing anything
further, could Minion B's controller then play the Telepathic Counter
without any risk of a bleed modifier (because he already announced he
wouldn't block)?
> > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a
> > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-)
>
> Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie
> not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less.
> So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not
> be gained.
Perhaps we could say that the successful negative bleed action "fizzles" to
avoid confusion instead of calling it "unsuccessful"?
KM
LSJ
> "Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com> wrote:
> > [Slias7 wrote:]
> > > Minion A bleeds for 1
> > > Minion B telepathic counters it a superior
> > >
> > > Is the final bleed for 3 or for 2?
> >
> > I think the final bleed is zero, making it unsuccessful, because the
> > Telepathic Counter made the bleed unsuccessful before the
> > Conditioning was played. The rulings say:
>
> The problem is that there are a few steps that aren't mentioned
> that are probably happening here.
>
> After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller
> doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion
> A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's
> controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect,
> reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined
> to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1
> by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again
> (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously).
Correct.
> > "Telepathic Counter - Reaction (aus)
>
> > *Bleeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative
> > bleed is treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM
> > 960419] [TOM 19960419]
>
> It is only when the action is completed that a negative bleed is
> unsuccessful. The action isn't completed until blocks have
> been decided and all players involved have said they are playing no
> more modifiers. The bleed does not instantly become unsuccessful
> when it is reduced to 0 or a negative number.
Correct.
> > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a
> > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-)
>
> Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie
> not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less.
> So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not
> be gained.
Correct. Like a vote that is called (unblocked = successful action)
but doesn't pass (unsuccessful vote), a bleed action can be a successful
(unblocked) action even though the bleed itself is unsucessful (doesn't
remove pool from the target).
--
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
LSJ
> mbohlman <mboh...@shout.net> wrote:
> > After the bleed is reduced to -1, most likely Minion B's controller
> > doesn't want to block. It should be asked to make sure, but Minion
> > A's controller can then believe B is not going to block. Minion A's
> > controller can then play more modifiers that B can only deflect,
> > reduce, and other such reaction modifiers because he has declined
> > to block. In this specific instance, the bleed is increased from -1
> > by 3 for a total of 2 which can either be deflected or reduced again
> > (but no Telepathic Counter from the same vampire, obviously).
>
> Telepathic Counter so that the bleeder wouldn't be able to tack on the
> bleed modifier?
No. After every effect (like Telepathic Counter), the acting Meth. again
gets the opportunity to play the next effect.
> For example, if Minion B's controller first announces that
> he will not block, and Minion A's controller says OK without doing anything
> further, could Minion B's controller then play the Telepathic Counter
> without any risk of a bleed modifier (because he already announced he
> wouldn't block)?
No. That breaks down like this:
Opportunity Action
----------- --------------------
Action is announced.
A No effects (at this time).
B No effects.
B announces "No block attempts"
A No effects.
B Telepathic Counter.
A Conditioning.
A No further effects.
B No further effects.
Action resolves.
Note: after each event (announcement, declaration of "no block", and
each modifier/reaction), A gets the first opportunity to play the next
effect.
> > > BTW, I just love the all-too-typical mind-blowing maxim that "a
> > > successful negative bleed . . . is unsuccessful." ;-)
> >
> > Well, it can be important. The action itself was successful, ie
> > not blocked. The bleed was unsuccessful because it was 0 or less.
> > So an inferior Freak Drive could be played, but the Edge would not
> > be gained.
>
> Perhaps we could say that the successful negative bleed action "fizzles" to
> avoid confusion instead of calling it "unsuccessful"?
An action (or effect) "fizzles" when its cost cannot be paid (or
for similar reasons). That is the current use of the term "fizzle".
An action is successful if it remains unblocked.
A bleed is successful if it removes (one or more) pool from the target.