What is an Attack?

[Personal en prueba del LDC]

I was playing with a friend when a doubt arose about the meaning of
the word "attack", when it's an action taken by a minion.

The situation is this: I have Basilia (10 blood Gangrel Primogen, hand
damage is aggravated) ready in my side, and my opponent plays Haven
Uncovered on her. Later, Dr. Jest comes to play at my opponent's side,
and he plays Blood Bond against Basilia. This means that Basilia
cannot block any action taken by Dr. Jest.

Then, Dr. Jest attacks Basilia (by the Haven Uncovered, at +1
stealth). None of my vampires (including Basilia herself) blocks this
action. The attack by Dr. Jest succeeds. My friend says if there's no
block, combat can't ensue, and Basilia must receive damage from
Dr. Jest without being able to use her strike. I argue that "attack"
is an action that, if succesful, results in combat between the
attacking and attacked minions. We searched for a ruling on attack in
the PPG, but couldn't find any.

Who's right about this? Please state an official source for your
ruling on this situation, or else neither my friend nor I will be able
to convince the other of the ruling's validity.

[Mike Kelly]

Good grief. Blocking is only one way of initiating combat. Just because Basila
did not block does not mean that there is no combat. Basila can fight in this
case. As for a rules citing I do not have a rule book with me. Can anyone
provide him with one?

[L. Scott Johnson]

nue...@shaddam.usb.ve (Personal en prueba del LDC) writes:
>I was playing with a friend when a doubt arose about the meaning of
>the word "attack", when it's an action taken by a minion.

>The situation is this: I have Basilia (10 blood Gangrel Primogen, hand
>damage is aggravated) ready in my side, and my opponent plays Haven
>Uncovered on her. Later, Dr. Jest comes to play at my opponent's side,
>and he plays Blood Bond against Basilia. This means that Basilia
>cannot block any action taken by Dr. Jest.

>Then, Dr. Jest attacks Basilia (by the Haven Uncovered, at +1
>stealth). None of my vampires (including Basilia herself) blocks this
>action. The attack by Dr. Jest succeeds. My friend says if there's no
>block, combat can't ensue, and Basilia must receive damage from
>Dr. Jest without being able to use her strike. I argue that "attack"
>is an action that, if succesful, results in combat between the
>attacking and attacked minions. We searched for a ruling on attack in
>the PPG, but couldn't find any.

>Who's right about this? Please state an official source for your
>ruling on this situation, or else neither my friend nor I will be able
>to convince the other of the ruling's validity.

You are. Official source? how about the rulebook: "Not being able to
block" is certainly very distinct from "Not being able to strike in
combat". Haven uncovered offerers every vampire (minion?) controlled
by a Methuselah other than the victim's controller to option of another
action - namely initiate combat with the victim. This action is at +1
stealth. Just because Basilia cannot block the action does *not*
mean that Basilia will not go to combat with the acting vampire if
the action isn't blocked. Quite the opposite - if the action isn't
blcoked, Basilia *will* go to combat with the acting vampire (card
text). Once in combat, no blocking restrictions can be applied, since
the blocking phase has passed.

If you can't convince your friend of this obvious logic, perhaps
Monopoly would be more to his liking :-).

--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | We have enough youth,
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | how about a fountain of SMART?
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |