Tier of Souls vs. Allies

prestonp wrote:

I disagree with this ruling. Blood and life have long been treated as equivalent (Theft of Vitae) and there's no good reason to treat it differently now.

No they haven't. "Steal blood" as a term is covered in rulebook to steal blood or life, but normally life doesn't count as blood. If it would be equivalent then you could pay any blood cost of cards with life.

prestonp wrote:

Blood and life have long been treated as equivalent

Incorrect.

Chanjelin Ward: "Other Methuselahs' actions targeting this vampire cost an additional blood. "
[LSJ 20040818]

LSJ wrote:

> Marijava Thuggee wishes to damage a minion with a Chanjelin Ward as an
> action. Can it, since they don't have the blood to pay for the action? Or
> can they lose a life to do it?

He cannot, since he cannot pay the cost. Allies have no blood, so cannot
pay blood cost (unless card text says otherwise

Extortion: "The minion with this card burns an additional blood to untap during his or her untap phase. "
[LSJ 20011004]

LSJ wrote:

The wording is intentional - it prevents allies from untapping, as they
have no blood to burn.

[LSJ 20050629]

LSJ wrote:

>>If I play Jar the Soul (sup) on himan ally, what happens ?
>
> He taps. The "burn 1 blood" is ignored, since allies ignore "burn
> blood" effects, having life.

Correct.

prestonp wrote:

and there's no good reason to treat it differently now.

Quite so, we should treat it the same as any other "Does this ally have blood?" interactions where there isn't a particular rule telling us to treat it differently.

Correct answers from a-e and jamesatzephyr.
Blood and life are different. Allies can't burn blood, and vampires can't burn life.
"Steal" converts blood / life into blood / life as appropriate.
Here are some examples with Theft of Vitae:
- Carna would steal 2 blood (becoming 2 blood) from Beetleman.
- Carna would steal 2 life (becoming 2 blood) from Shambling Hordes.
- Talaq would steal 1 blood (becoming 1 life) from Beetleman.
- Talaq would steal 1 life (becoming 1 life) from Shambling Hordes.

An ally's life represents blood only when that ally plays a card as a vampire (usually to pay its cost). Allies can't play cards that require a vampire, unless explicit cardtext allows it.

For instance, Delaying Tacticts costs a blood, which is a cost an ally cannot pay.
Channeling the Beast costs 1 blood, which is a cost an ally cannot play. However, a Shadow Court Satyr with a Channeling the Beast could play it, because of SCS's cardtext. It would burn 1 life to pay the 1-blood cost of the card.

So this means that you do not get the +1 bleed from superior, since you cannot remove one blood from the ally, correct?

Powerlord wrote:

So this means that you do not get the +1 bleed from superior, since you cannot remove one blood from the ally, correct?

Incorrect.
The acting vampire would indeed not gain blood, but the card would still be put on him.

LSJ wrote:

Tier of Souls may target an ally (any minion).
The "move blood" effect will have no effect, since the ally has no blood to
move.
The acting vampire wears the card and gets +1 bleed.

(that quote is taken from Ginés's link)

(remember that the +1 bleed on Tier of Soul is only against your prey)

Powerlord wrote:

So this means that you do not get the +1 bleed from superior, since you cannot remove one blood from the ally, correct?

As Pascal points out, this works.

An "interesting" quirk of the targeting rules is that, ordinarily, if the target is no longer there or in a legal state, your action (or other similar effect) fizzles.

Actions targeting blood (or - by extension - life) counters, however, target the thing those counters are on, and then affect an appropriate number of those counters, up to the stated amount, but it can be less. For example:

- Theft of Vitae superior steals 2 blood (or life) counters. I play Theft of Vitae against your vampire, who has 2 blood. Your vampire plays a strike costing 1 blood. Strikes resolve: my Theft of Vitae resolves, taking the 1 remaining counter. It doesn't fizzle because there's only one counter (the target was the minion).

- Villein. (This is more controversial, but follows the same principle.) My vampire has 1 blood counter. I play Villein, declaring 2 counters. Villein doesn't fizzle, and takes as many counters as it can - 1.



There are a number of alternative approaches one might have taken in this area, but none of them are where we are. For example:

- Just like you pick which vampire you're rushing, you might pick which counters you're targetting. But that would be lead to weird situations like "I play Theft of Vitae against Arika who has 11 blood. I pick that counter and that counter." Arika then plays a combat card(s) costing 2 blood, and uses those specific counters. So then it fizzles. Currently, Arika would go down to 9 blood, then you'd steal two of the remaining 9.

- You might decide that although you didn't target specific counters, there had to be enough counters there when you announced the effect to legally take all of them. So you wouldn't be able to Villein a vampire with 1 blood, or superior Theft of Vitae against a vampire with 1 blood. But currently, you might be able to do something like: you have 1 blood. I play Theft of Vitae superior against you. Before my strike resolves, you gain some blood - perhaps you do your own Steal Blood strike, but at First Strike. Currently, I'd be able to take that blood with my strike. Similarly, I can play Theft of Vitae (at either level) against an empty target, just to cycle cards.

- You might decide that having insufficient counters to complete an effect causes the effect to fizzle. (Much like a tapped vampire untapping can cause your Ambush to fizzle.)