Unleash Hells Fury vs "Burn X blood to attempt to block"

Can an Unleash Hell's Fury successfully attempt to block a vampire with a "burn X blood to attempt to block" clause?

Unleash Hell's Fury
Type: Action
Requires: infernal Daimoinon
Cost: 2 pool
+1 stealth action. Requires an infernal vampire. Unique.
[dai] Put this card in play. This card may attempt to block a action against you and is considered a 9-capacity infernal vampire with +2 intercept during that attempt; if successful, the acting minion takes 1 unpreventable aggravated damage, and this card is burned.
[DAI] As above, and untap this vampire. Burn option.

Dominion
Type: Master
Master.
Put this card on a Black Hand vampire. Vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block this Black Hand vampire. A vampire can have only one Dominion.

Force of Personality
Type: Action Modifier / Combat
Requires: Presence
Cost: 1 blood

 [COMBAT] Strike: combat ends.

 [ACTION MODIFIER] Only usable as the action is announced. Vampires must burn a blood to attempt to block this action. Non-zombie allies cannot block this action.



Archon

Type: Political Action

Requires: prince,justicar

Requires a prince or justicar.

Choose a Camarilla vampire. If this referendum is successful, put this card on the chosen vampire. This vampire may enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth  action. Any vampire attempting to block this vampire burns 1 blood. Blood hunts cannot be called on this vampire. Any Camarilla vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action.

I think no since it is a vampire at that time and can not fulfill the burn blood requirement.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Can an Unleash Hell's Fury successfully attempt to block a vampire with a "burn X blood to attempt to block" clause?

It depends on the wording.

If it's "burn a blood to attempt to block", or similar, then the UHF will be unable to block. Dominion and Force of Personality are in that category.

However, Archon is simply "burn 1 blood", and not a cost. Similarly, Camarilla Exemplary.

In both cases, empty vampires can block an Archon or Camarilla Exemplary. It's just a burn blood effect that they ignore. (Like an empty vampire simply ignores Blood to Water.)

Donal O' Connor would also be ignored by a UHF, as he would be by an empty vampire.


Also, Crocodile's Tongue against a UHF cannot be cancelled (using CT's built-in cancel), because the UHf has no blood.

Well, I still have to check a few things.
The card that declares a block attempt isn't a vampire, so effects that affect vampires' block attempt declarations wouldn't affect it. I think I remember something from LSJ about this.

Pascal wrote:

Well, I still have to check a few things.
The card that declares a block attempt isn't a vampire, so effects that affect vampires' block attempt declarations wouldn't affect it. I think I remember something from LSJ about this.

It doesn't matter, I don't think. If it's a vampire, it's prohibited. If it's a card and then pseudo-becomes a vampire, it hasn't met the cost to attempt, and the attempt is ongoing. An ongoing attempt where the vampire is ineligible is then terminated.

[LSJ 20100312]

LSJ wrote:

> It seems that many block fail cards cause
> the block to fail outright and then prohibit additional block
> attempts. Many use the text "That minion cannot attempt to block this
> action again". So some questions arises in how does this text
> interact with the timing of when UHF is a minion and a non-minion.

The card is played. The minion that is UHF is the target. The UHF card
may or may not be able to block again, but it is moot, since if it can
block, then it finds itself to be a minion who is prohibited from
blocking and so the attempt immediately ends itself.

And the fact that the prohibition is aimed at all vampires, or just this vampire, or whatever, would seem to be irrelevant.



Added several minutes later:
Along similar lines, a vampire who is attempting to block finds that the acting minion plays Mask. There isn't a period there where the would-be blocker has to attempt to block anew and, indeed, they can't back out (unless an effect allows it) - so you can find yourself going into combat with someone else, if you're still successfully blocking.

But if Giotto comes in, you have to burn a pool for your attempt, even though you didn't attempt anew - you just got the acting minion playing switcheroo on you.

[LSJ 20020626]

LSJ wrote:

The vampire must burn a blood to attempt to block Giotto.
If he doesn't burn a blood, he isn't atempting to block.

And earlier in that thread:

LSJ wrote:

If he plays the mask before the block is successful, the blocking minion
must then either pay a pool or not block him (i.e., he can decide not to
burn the blood and fail to block), thanks to the "to" wording on Giotto.

So I'd argue that if the blocker 'becomes' a vampire, the criteria are met, just as if the acting minion becomes Giotto part-way through.

Specifically, it's not just a check at the "I declare that I am attempting a block" moment.

Can we get a ruling on this?