[LSJ] Clarification about playing Form of Mist/"Needing St..

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that
if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked
by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that
Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all
because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and
the vampire with intercept is tapped.

There is an old ruling, still to be found in the rulings page
under "Form of Mist" which states, "The superior form cannot be
used by the acting vampire unless he needs the stealth." Taken
by itself, this is non-sensical since at the moment of the
strike, there's no call for blockers who could be blocking the
renewed action so *NO* vampire could possibly "need stealth".
If I recall correctly (which is always dubious), the issue is
resolved by assuming his opponent in combat is still the one
attempting to block and that the issue of whether it could,
given that it's now tapped, is not considered. (That is, it's
as if acting vampire is still trying to evade the original
block). The need for stealth (or not) is then resolved that way.
The acting vampire almost always needs stealth except in a
few corner cases, again, if I recall correctly.

So anyway, do I have this right or does the prohibition against
using FoM when needing stealth mean something completely
different?

And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.

Fred
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Frederick Scott wrote:

> A couple of players in our play group were of the opinion that
> if Vampire A, with superior Protean, has one stealth and is blocked
> by untapped Vampire B with one intercept (who then taps), that
> Vampire A could not strike with superior Form of Mist at all
> because it does not "need stealth". It already has stealth and
> the vampire with intercept is tapped.

He needs stealth.
There is a current blocking minion with intercept >= stealth.

> And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
> FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
> that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
> vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
> perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
> didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.

Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of
the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:mOwde.3027$7F4.2298@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> And if I do have it right, it seems like with the rewrite of
>> FoM when Anarchs was printed, there's no longer a need to rule
>> that Form of Mist can't be played at superior when the acting
>> vampire doesn't need the stealth. It seems to me it would be
>> perfectly fine to allow that as long as the acting vampire
>> didn't pay the blood to continue the action. Just my $0.02.
>
> Sure, if you don't add stealth, you don't run afoul of
> the "can't add stealth when you don't need stealth" rule.

If that's currently the correct way to play it, the rulings
file is misleading as currently worded.

Fred
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Another question:

Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block. Vampire
A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat he
plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of
Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he still
have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone"
with the Raven Spies?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:
> Another question:
>
> Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block.
Vampire
> A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat
he
> plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of
> Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he
still
> have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone"
> with the Raven Spies?

Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
superior to continue the action.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Arden McBathan wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>
>>Another question:
>>
>>Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block.
>
> Vampire
>
>>A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat
>
> he
>
>>plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of
>>Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he
>
> still
>
>>have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone"
>>with the Raven Spies?
>
>
> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
> superior to continue the action.
>

But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spirit´s
Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:
> Arden McBathan wrote:
> > Johannes Walch wrote:
> >
> >>Another question:
> >>
> >>Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block.
> >
> > Vampire
> >
> >>A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In
combat
> >
> > he
> >
> >>plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form
of
> >>Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he
> >
> > still
> >
> >>have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it
"gone"
> >>with the Raven Spies?
> >
> >
> > Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more
stealth
> > than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
> > superior to continue the action.
> >
>
> But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a
Spirit´s
> Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?


Reaction cards work for the remainder of the actions, Retainers as long
as you employ them. A killed Marijava Ghoul wouldn't provide stealth
either.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:

> Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need
> stealth.
>
> Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in
> play.

Okay, let's add another scenario to this discussion and see what the
rulings mean...

Frederick the Weak (having been given PRO) bleeds, playing Earth
Control for +2 stealth against the first 0-intercept block attempt
(Natalia). He then gets successfully blocked by Khalil Ravana, who has
2 Raven Spies - but before they go to combat, Natalia plays Shilmulo
Deception to take over as the blocking minion.

Can Frederick play Form of Mist at superior? Does he 'need' the stealth
in this circumstance or not, since he has 2 more points of stealth than
the minion he is in combat with?

If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he
cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past
Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration of
the combat'...

> LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap
to reply)

-John Flournoy
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1115132515.710840.187070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
>
> > Can Frederick play Form of Mist at superior? Does he 'need' the
stealth
> > in this circumstance or not, since he has 2 more points of stealth
than
> > the minion he is in combat with?
> >
> > If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he
> > cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past
> > Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration
of
> > the combat'...
> >
> if i understand correctly, he can play Form of Mist, but not use the
burn
> blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other
minon has 0
> intercept. but, IANLSJ...

Right, I'm specifically wondering about the 'burn blood to continue'
part. Should have made that more clear.

-John Flournoy
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:

I have thought a bit...

>> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
>> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
>> superior to continue the action.

Nonsense in my opinion. You can always play FoM superior to continue the
action regardless if you "need" the stealth or not. What means "needing
stealth" in combat anyway.

> But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spirit´s
> Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?

And I still have the opinion that the reacting minion keeps the original
intercept just like he played cards or got intercept from locations.

LSJ, can you confirm?

--
johannes walch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:

> Johannes Walch wrote:
>
> I have thought a bit...
>
>>> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
>>> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
>>> superior to continue the action.
>
>
> Nonsense in my opinion. You can always play FoM superior to continue the
> action regardless if you "need" the stealth or not. What means "needing
> stealth" in combat anyway.
>
>> But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a
>> Spirit´s Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?
>
>
> And I still have the opinion that the reacting minion keeps the original
> intercept just like he played cards or got intercept from locations.
>
> LSJ, can you confirm?

Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need
stealth.

Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in
play.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1115132515.710840.187070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
>> Confirmed yesterday -- you cannot add stealth if you do not need
>> stealth.
>>
>> Raven Spy's intercept is only provided while the Raven Spy is in
>> play.
>
> Okay, let's add another scenario to this discussion and see what the
> rulings mean...
>
> Frederick the Weak (having been given PRO) bleeds, playing Earth
> Control for +2 stealth against the first 0-intercept block attempt
> (Natalia). He then gets successfully blocked by Khalil Ravana, who has
> 2 Raven Spies - but before they go to combat, Natalia plays Shilmulo
> Deception to take over as the blocking minion.
>
> Can Frederick play Form of Mist at superior? Does he 'need' the stealth
> in this circumstance or not, since he has 2 more points of stealth than
> the minion he is in combat with?
>
> If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he
> cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past
> Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration of
> the combat'...
>
if i understand correctly, he can play Form of Mist, but not use the burn
blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other minon has 0
intercept. but, IANLSJ...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

John Flournoy wrote:
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>>"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>>>If I'm understanding this thread correctly, the ruling would be 'he
>>>cannot play it, because he doesn't need that stealth to get past
>>>Natalia and she's effectively the blocking minion for the duration
>
> of
>
>>>the combat'...
>>>
>>
>>if i understand correctly, he can play Form of Mist, but not use the
>
> burn
>
>>blood effect. Because he is already on +2 stealth and the other
>
> minon has 0
>
>>intercept. but, IANLSJ...
>
>
> Right, I'm specifically wondering about the 'burn blood to continue'
> part. Should have made that more clear.

And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:52:20 +0200, Johannes Walch
<johannes.walch@vekn.de> scrawled:

>Another question:
>
>Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block. Vampire
>A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat he
>plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of
>Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he still
>have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone"
>with the Raven Spies?

gone.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 00:26:57 +0200, Johannes Walch
<johannes.walch@vekn.de> scrawled:

>Arden McBathan wrote:
>> Johannes Walch wrote:
>>
>>>Another question:
>>>
>>>Vampire A bleeds Vampire B (with 3 Raven Spies) tries to block.
>>
>> Vampire
>>
>>>A adds 3 stealth but then fails to add more and is blocked. In combat
>>
>> he
>>
>>>plays a Weather Control (killing all Raven Spies) and then a Form of
>>>Mist superior. Vampire B wakes and tries to block again. Does he
>>
>> still
>>
>>>have the +3 intercept of the former blocking attempt or is it "gone"
>>>with the Raven Spies?
>>
>>
>> Since all the Raven Spies are gone, the acting minion has more stealth
>> than the blocking minion Intercept and therefore cannot use FoM at
>> superior to continue the action.
>>
>
>But if the reacting minion had played an Enhanced Senses and a Spirit´s
>Touch before he also keeps the intercept, doesn´t he?

from the Anarch's rulebook, 6.2: Taking an action, page 27:
"The effect of an action modifier or a reaction card lasts for the
duration of the current action by default"

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
 
C

Carl

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
340
0
18,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.

How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action
would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or
other non-intercept)

I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM
during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the
action at stealth" doesn't make sense.

So you do an action you smack around the guarding vamps a bit then float on
through after the C:E to bleed/equip/diab etc. Sure it takes a little
effort and time to mug the guard but its always worth a little payback.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

carl wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>
>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
>
> How does a blocked minion not need stealth?

Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".

In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
doesn't need stealth.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

That attack will still work.

Vampire A plays Bum's Rush, targeting Vampire B. Vampire B sucessfully
blocks. Vampire A plays Form of Mist at superior during the resulting
combat, burns a blood to continue the action, and is unblocked. Vampire
A enters combat with Vampire B again, this time with the maneuver
available from the Bum's Rush.

John Eno
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:11:20 +1200, "carl" <mist42nz@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
>
>How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
>If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the action
>would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points or
>other non-intercept)
>
>I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM
>during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the
>action at stealth" doesn't make sense.

Why not?

Bum's Rush and Harass are zero-stealth actions.
If they're blocked, the acting minion can stealth past to get the
intended target. I want to dunk Arika, not Gideon Fontaine. So I play
Form of Mist to get to her.

Don't mess the objective of the action with the burn blood effect.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
 
C

Carl

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
340
0
18,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:rl1ee.3426$pe3.1359@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> carl wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >
> >>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
> >
> > How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
>
> Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
> intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
>
> In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
> is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
> doesn't need stealth.

And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

carl wrote:

> "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:rl1ee.3426$pe3.1359@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>carl wrote:
>>
>>>"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
>>>
>>>How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
>>
>>Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
>>intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
>>
>>In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
>>is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
>>doesn't need stealth.
>
> And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?

The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending.
See the set up to which I was responding.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
C

Carl

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
340
0
18,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:jdfi71l5jn42cbpor3vtt1d7n6ivp4gu8c@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:11:20 +1200, "carl" <mist42nz@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >> And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
> >
> >How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
> >If he wasn't blocked then there would be no blocking combat and the
action
> >would have "suceeded" (not counting reaction to reduce bleeds by X points
or
> >other non-intercept)
> >
> >I take the "not needs stealth" to mean you can't play the combat card FoM
> >during things like Bums Rush or Ambush/Harass etc where the "continue the
> >action at stealth" doesn't make sense.
>
> Why not?
>
> Bum's Rush and Harass are zero-stealth actions.
> If they're blocked, the acting minion can stealth past to get the
> intended target. I want to dunk Arika, not Gideon Fontaine. So I play
> Form of Mist to get to her.
>
> Don't mess the objective of the action with the burn blood effect.


Sorry I thought it was painfulllyy obvious that I was talking about an
attack at the vampire wot blocks.
 
C

Carl

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2004
340
0
18,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> carl wrote:
>
> > "LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:rl1ee.3426$pe3.1359@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>carl wrote:
> >>
> >>>"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And yes, he cannot play it, since he doesn't need stealth.
> >>>
> >>>How does a blocked minion not need stealth?
> >>
> >>Definition of need stealth: "there exists a blocking minion with
> >>intercept greater than or equal to the acting minion's stealth".
> >>
> >>In this case, there exists a blocking minion, but his intercept
> >>is less than the acting minion's stealth, so the acting minion
> >>doesn't need stealth.
> >
> > And thus the block wouldn't succeed, and so hows does a combat occur?
>
> The block succeeded. Past tense. Block-induced combat is pending.
> See the set up to which I was responding.

Now there's combat. before range, range, first strike,strike(s), C:E. ->
post combat. Stealth is not relevant inside a combat.
So the continued action is only now at +1 stealth (as all stealth and
intercepts have been accounted for and reset.) The blocker is tapped since
the combat occurred. The continued action would be at +1 stealth but the
+1 stealth is not needed because the continuation of the action has no
blockers yet and since no blockers no intercept.
So there's a +1 or +0 stealth action still on the table.
Someone else could block or the previous blocker could awake and try again.
But since there is no intercept, no stealth was needed. They play
intercept - then you need -more- stealth.

So how can that first "+1 stealth" not be "needed." Stealth is initiated
then intercept to counter it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom