Nocturn - how does it work ?

Ohlmann wrote:

Another last two questions : if with superior Obtenetration a vampire do a compel the spirit or a summon history on a nocturn, can he do an additional compel the spirit / summon history the same turn if he untap ?

No. You get the basic version of Nocturn.

[LSJ 20071016]

LSJ wrote:

Orpheus wrote:
> Ok, that I knew. Now, I'd like to know if the "starting life" on a Shambling
> now means overseeds "normal version" and that a compelled Shambling will
> have 4 lives if it first came into the game with NEC ?

No. Compelled doesn't look at requirements, so it always uses the basic version.

Ohlmann wrote:

Also, if a vampire make a "the summoning" for a nocturn (with obtenetration superior), the next *the summoning* cost 1 more blood, but the next *nocturn* is at the same price, am I right ? (assuming the same vampire, of course)

Yes.

[LSJ 20070407]

LSJ wrote:

>>>>> Since in this case, "this action" was The Summoning, can Iniko then
>>>>> play The Summoning again, to recruit a different ally?

> Ok, but could iniko play another nocturn via the second (or third..or
> fourth) summoning ?
> thanks

Yes, if he or she finds another way to untap between each.

And the cost of the second Summoning is 1 blood (plus the cost of the Nocturn).
The cost of the third Summoning is 2 blood. And the cost of the fourth Summoning
is 3 blood.

Just to get it right:
If I recruit a Nocturn on from my hand, do it a second time on and play Freak Drive afterwards, and then play the third Nocturn, this third recruit will cost the acting vampire 3 ?

Correct. [LSJ 20070710] for an example.

The ruling seem to imply that "increasing a cost" and "adding X to a cost" is two separate kind of effect. Is that true ?

To explain, if "increased by one" was an addition, in the link the 7th nocturn should cost ((1/2) - 3 + 6 ) = 3 and not ((7 / 2) - 3) = 0, since the base cost of the nocturn remain at 1.

It seem pretty counter-intuitive, or maybe I miss some specifics rules.

Ohlmann wrote:

The ruling seem to imply that "increasing a cost" and "adding X to a cost" is two separate kind of effect. Is that true ?

To explain, if "increased by one" was an addition, in the link the 7th nocturn should cost ((1/2) - 3 + 6 ) = 3 and not ((7 / 2) - 3) = 0, since the base cost of the nocturn remain at 1.

It seem pretty counter-intuitive, or maybe I miss some specifics rules.

Just bumping this because the above question is interesting and looks like it may have been missed by Pascal.
In the quoted example, why is the maths
7 (7th Nocturn) divided by 2 (Ankara) = 3 - 1 (Charisma) - 1 (Drink the Blood of Ahriman) - 1 (Path of Night) = 0
Instead of
1 (base cost) divided by 2 (Ankara) = 0 + 6 (7th Nocturn) - 1 (Charisma) - 1 (Drink the Blood of Ahriman) - 1 (Path of Night) = 3

This was marked as correct by LSJ, but seems to be contrary to the usual rule about multiplying/dividing before adding/subtracting.

You are correct. 7th Nocturn costs indeed 3 blood.