Ally playing action as a vampire w/ blood cost

Ankha wrote:

chaitan wrote:

There is however the original question left then. As the paying and resolution happens at the same time will the ally burn? can acting methuselah choose order of events? I don't see any rule touching this topic.

The action resolves as a whole, meaning the ally doesn't burn since it pays the cost and apply the effect (burn the vampire; gain blood) at the same time.

You may be correct but I still would like a reference to a rule that touch this topic because you can view it in three ways and until there is a ruling we only have opinions.

The three ways are:

Action resolves: Ally pay 3 blood and gain X blood and does not burn as Ankha said.

Action resolves: Ally pay 3 blood and gain X blood and burn. Rule state that "When an ally loses his last life counter, he is burned" At one point ally does have 0 life, even if it gains blood at the same time.

Action resolves: Ally pay 3 blood and burn.

I am working on that.

Here's a long discussion I had with LSJ on allies paying for cards before they resolve.

LSJ wrote:

Pascal wrote:

- Resolving an action from an action card

This one is a bit big. The motto, I must say, is that I think Bima
playing Govern when on 1 life should burn without having the bleed
resolve. I know you've ruled the opposite (
groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5bb6dbd9f3413222
), which means I got a part wrong in this explanation.

Only one type of effect has the cost paid independently from the resolution of
the effect: strike. Everything else is pay for effect. You pay = the effect is
applied.

Now, actions are different from most effects (including strikes) in that the
payment is not made when the card is played. But that doesn't change the "pay =
effect" bit above.

Pascal wrote:

* Here are the points I hope are correct: Can you please confirm?
When an action not blocked, it first of all has to be paid.
If it is successfully paid, then the action is successful, and the
resolution takes place.

It is successful (unblocked) first. At which point it is paid for, triggering
the resolution of the action's effect.

Pascal wrote:

Somewhere around this ", and" lies the window for Yawp Court (this
window might only exist for Political Actions, though).

Yawp is played between pay and resolve, yes, by card text.

Pascal wrote:

For bleed actions, we have the Spying Mission / Major Boon window.

SM and MB are also played between pay and resolve, yes.

Pascal wrote:

Now
here might be where I get it wrong. Are those two played in the
"regular resolution" window, or are they played just before it? The
burning part of sup' SM makes me think it cannot activate during
resolution, and since sup' SM can be played before an already-in-play
SM burns, I think sup' SM is played [strictly] before resolution.

Right.

Pascal wrote:

Which leads me to this question :
* Suppose Lorrie has sup' OBF. Her controller is on 1 pool, her prey
is too. Lorrie announces a bleed for 1. This post explains what
happens if the bleed isn't blocked :
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8c5ece1d65b8a50e
and resolves. Now suppose the prey declares no attempt to [block], and

does not modify the bleed (no telepathic counter nor deflection)
howsoever. We arrive at the point where the action must be paid
(that's before the Spying Window ( see
groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e7e40a49bdcae1a8
).
Suppose Lorrie's controller wonders whether playing sup' Spying
Mission is a good idea (perhaps self-ousting is a good move at this
moment of the game, or is part of a deal, .. ). Lorrie must've paid
her action, right?
So the question is: In this example, can Lorrie play Spying Mission ?
If she can, how many pool is her controller on when she plays it?

Yes. Zero.

Pascal wrote:

Suppose Stanislava calls Vele's Hunt when her controller is on 3 pool.
The "pay -> effect" thing means the referendum is conducted, even
though Stanislava's controller has no pool left (for more than an
extremely short window). That seems weird to me.

It would be, but it fizzles out.

Pascal wrote:

Other weird thing : Lorrie's controller is on 1 pool, and has Frontal
Assault in play. Lorrie enters combat with a vampire controlled by
prey. "Pay -> effect" means that, when Lorrie and the vampire are
fighting, Lorrie's controller is on 0 pool. If Lorrie sends the
opposing vampire to torpor, her controller might even survive the
action.

No, it fizzles out.

This one is on the review for not being completely intuitive.

"Pay -> resolves" is OK as long as cards such as Yawp Court and Spying Mission don't exist. They do, so we create a step between "pay" and "resolve". In that step, the ally would burn.
But then, if allow such a pause, we deny a player to play stuff such as Eternals of Sirius on 4 pool. So it's probably better to keep it as it is - i.e. Bima bleeding with Govern still burns after the bleed for 3.

Regarding the initial question: The Thugee gains the blood and won't burn.

@Pascal: This seems to just be another chapter in the debate that we had over Villein.
VEKN Forum - Paying the Cost of Villein

I would suggest that amending/rewriting the Complete Rules Reference (CRR) around this particular problem would be a great result for the player base.

I think in the future it would be good to have:

• The Rules
• The Complete Rules Reference would be a place where the nitty gritty and overriding principles of how VTES issues will be ruled should be recorded. By reading the right section of the CRR, experienced players should be able to make an accurrate informed prediction of a card ruling from the team.
• Specific Card Rulings should be there to clarify the really fringe points or to explicitly state the outcome of applying the overriding principles set out in the CRR

This could also become a resource for the Design Team, since they would be able to predict reliably how a card would be ruled in interaction with the remainder of the card set. That would then make it easier for them to ensure that a card has its intended effect.

@Ankha:
If the pay step is successful (i.e. the full cost is paid) then the card will resolve in the "resolve effects" step. It won't matter if the ally 'dies' after paying, because the full payment was made.

Same as I suggested elsewhere, payment and effect are not simultaneous by the rules, it is just that once an effect should start it is instantaneous (and the word immediate is there to ensure there is no MtG-Style Stack).

It might create odd scenarios where you can kill someone and yourself by bleeding them out with a minion that would explode during the pay step and oust yourself via Tensions in the Ranks.


So in the scenario originally under debate, I would suggest you have a successful action (cost is fully paid and unblocked) which kills the Marijava Thuggee (cost is paid) but also burns the target vampire (card was fully paid for). However, since the Thuggee died (it reaches a point where it had 0 life) as part of payment it can't gain blood from the action (it isn't ready to gain from Sacrificial Lamb's gain blood effect).