[LSJ] Fizzling and Failing
Kushiel
minion's inability to pay the cost of the action or target eligibility
changing before resolution, is the action considered to have failed
for the purposes of cards and effects which trigger off of failed
actions? Or is a fizzled action analogous to a bleed which has been
reduced to zero, in that the action is successful but its effects are
not? Thanks.
John Eno
floppyzedolfin
> If an unblocked action fizzles at resolution, due to the acting
> minion's inability to pay the cost of the action or target eligibility
> changing before resolution, is the action considered to have failed
> for the purposes of cards and effects which trigger off of failed
> actions?
It fizzles.
1 -If not blocked, then the action is successful.
2 - Then, check if the target (if any) is still valid.
3 - Then try to pay.
4 - Then finish resolving the action.
If 2, 3, or 4 can't happen, or can't be fullfilled, the action
fizzles.
Failed actions are usually unsuccessful.
> Or is a fizzled action analogous to a bleed which has been
> reduced to zero, in that the action is successful but its effects are
> not? Thanks.
>
> John Eno
Even though a bleed for 0 isn't a successful bleed, the action is
still successful and the bleed's effects were applied (i.e. the target
lost 0 pool to the bleed).
Kushiel
> On 16 nov, 20:13, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If an unblocked action fizzles at resolution, due to the acting
> > minion's inability to pay the cost of the action or target eligibility
> > changing before resolution, is the action considered to have failed
> > for the purposes of cards and effects which trigger off of failed
> > actions?
>
> It fizzles.
> 1 -If not blocked, then the action is successful.
> 2 - Then, check if the target (if any) is still valid.
> 3 - Then try to pay.
> 4 - Then finish resolving the action.
> If 2, 3, or 4 can't happen, or can't be fullfilled, the action
> fizzles.
>
> Failed actions are usually unsuccessful.
Will Perfectionist trigger on a fizzled action if no reaction cards
were played?
Can a Neighborhood Watch Commander inflict a damage on an unblocked,
fizzled action?
> Even though a bleed for 0 isn't a successful bleed, the action is
> still successful and the bleed's effects were applied (i.e. the target
> lost 0 pool to the bleed).
Yeah, bad analogy on my part. Couldn't think of anything else remotely
parallel, though.
John Eno
floppyzedolfin
> On Nov 16, 2:34 pm, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 nov, 20:13, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If an unblocked action fizzles at resolution, due to the acting
> > > minion's inability to pay the cost of the action or target eligibility
> > > changing before resolution, is the action considered to have failed
> > > for the purposes of cards and effects which trigger off of failed
> > > actions?
>
> > It fizzles.
> > 1 -If not blocked, then the action is successful.
> > 2 - Then, check if the target (if any) is still valid.
> > 3 - Then try to pay.
> > 4 - Then finish resolving the action.
> > If 2, 3, or 4 can't happen, or can't be fullfilled, the action
> > fizzles.
>
> > Failed actions are usually unsuccessful.
>
> Will Perfectionist trigger on a fizzled action if no reaction cards
> were played?
Sure. https://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2413eb58f02b8ebd
The action is successful and no reaction cards were played.
> Can a Neighborhood Watch Commander inflict a damage on an unblocked,
> fizzled action?
Only successful actions can fizzle. The fizzling part is determined
after all blocks are declined, when the action is successful. So, no.
John McGlynn
My thoughts, they are provoked. Is fizzling a useful distinction?
Any good reason such actions shouldn't simply fail? There are many
implications but off the top of my head I can't think of any problem
cases.
--
John McGlynn
Kushiel
> My thoughts, they are provoked. Is fizzling a useful distinction?
> Any good reason such actions shouldn't simply fail? There are many
> implications but off the top of my head I can't think of any problem
> cases.
I don't see any need to change the rule, given how rarely it comes up
in play and that it's not really disruptive when it does. It is a bit
annoying that, like "impulse," it only appears in the VTES Shadow
Codex rather than the actual rulebook.
John Eno
LSJ
Impulse is completely described in the rules under sequencing.
Albeit without using that shorthand.
The rules also don't use the "albeit" shorthand (or bounce or any
number of other shorthands you might find on this group).