confused: is this still valid?
Jeroen
http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3?dmode=source&hl=nl
"Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
(unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
I can't find that ruling on the the clarifications and rulings page.
And the question: If you play deflection (and therefor implicitly say
that you are not blocking) and the deflection is 'Direct
Interventioned' does that mean that you don't get a new opportunity to
block?
TIA,
Jeroen
Johannes Walch
Certainly not (or I and others have been playing it wrong for quite a
while).
--
johannes walch
Akantes
Johannes Walch kirjoitti:
But what's the situation if the deflected bleed is bounced back to you
? Do you get a new opportunity to block, or are you required to play
Eagle's Sight, or a similar card for that ?
Jeroen
Akantes schreef:
> Johannes Walch kirjoitti:
>
> > Jeroen schrieb:
> > > I was searching the NG and I found this:
> > > http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3?dmode=source&hl=nl
> > > "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
> > > (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
> > >
> > > I can't find that ruling on the the clarifications and rulings page.
> > >
> > > And the question: If you play deflection (and therefor implicitly say
> > > that you are not blocking) and the deflection is 'Direct
> > > Interventioned' does that mean that you don't get a new opportunity to
> > > block?
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > > Jeroen
> > >
> >
> > Certainly not (or I and others have been playing it wrong for quite a
> > while).
> >
Do you mean 'no, you certainly don't get the opportunity to block' or
'no, this is not valid any more?'
>
> But what's the situation if the deflected bleed is bounced back to you
> ? Do you get a new opportunity to block, or are you required to play
> Eagle's Sight, or a similar card for that ?
That's not the problem, because you get a new opportunity to block if
the target of the bleed changes.
LSJ
> I was searching the NG and I found this:
> http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3?dmode=source&hl=nl
> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>
> I can't find that ruling on the the clarifications and rulings page.
Yes.
> And the question: If you play deflection (and therefor implicitly say
> that you are not blocking) and the deflection is 'Direct
> Interventioned' does that mean that you don't get a new opportunity to
> block?
Correct.
echia...@yahoo.com
Really? I thought that there was actually a difference between "stating
that you decline to block and then playing Deflection" and "not
declining to block and then playing Deflection."
As a result, I have seen many people play Deflection before waiting for
the final bleed amount (that might result from modifiers) because they
thought that they weren't forgoing a block opportunity (if the
Deflection was canceled). Oh well.
witness1
Does this mean that I can't play Eagle's Sight to block a bleed after I
deflect it, because I've implicitly declined to blocked it?
witness1
-believe the lie
LSJ
> Does this mean that I can't play Eagle's Sight to block a bleed after I
> deflect it, because I've implicitly declined to blocked it?
No.
Target changed.
gpett...@gmail.com
On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jeroen wrote:
> > I was searching the NG and I found this:
> >http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d...
> > "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
> > (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>
What is the logic behind this?
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
LSJ
Only the plain.
By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
(the window one is attempting to cancel).
gpett...@gmail.com
On Dec 11, 4:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> gpettig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Jeroen wrote:
> >>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
> >>>http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d...
> >>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
> >>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>
> > What is the logic behind this?Only the plain.
>
> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
By deciding to (attempt to) draw out your predator's Approximation of
Loyalty, one is clearly trying to make one's block successful. I'd say
your ruling contradicts 1.6.1.5 in that it tries to shoehorn two
effects: "play a reaction card" and "decline to block" into one effect
without specific card text or giving the acting minion the opportunity
to play cards.
LSJ
>
> On Dec 11, 4:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> gpettig...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Jeroen wrote:
>>>>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
>>>>> http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d...
>>>>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
>>>>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>>> What is the logic behind this?Only the plain.
>> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
>> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
>> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
>> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>
> By deciding to (attempt to) draw out your predator's Approximation of
> Loyalty, one is clearly trying to make one's block successful.
Sure. But drawing it out involves a decision not to block.
> I'd say
> your ruling contradicts 1.6.1.5 in that it tries to shoehorn two
> effects: "play a reaction card" and "decline to block" into one effect
> without specific card text or giving the acting minion the opportunity
> to play cards.
It does not. No more than Second Tradition condtradicts 1.6.1.5 by "shoehorning"
in three effects (reaction, block attempt, and added intercept).
Kushiel
> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
Wow. None of the half-dozen or so playgroups I've played with have
gotten this rule correct, apparently.
Here's what I don't understand about what you wrote above: why does
_attempting_ to cancel the current block window _actually_ cancel the
current block window? It seems extremely counter-intuitive to me to
have the block window cancelled if the bounce card is also cancelled -
the effect that would close the block window never occurred, so why
does the window close anyway? I don't see why playing an effect which
has nothing to do with blocking (unless that effect actually happens)
should have an effect on blocking.
Does this rule also apply to other, non-block reaction effects, such as
bleed reduction?
John Eno
John Flournoy
Since reducing a bleed (or playing any other reaction effects that are
not redirecting the bleed) does not attempt to create a new block
window, it would follow from the above logic that it does not imply
intending to end the current block window.
Which fits with the current rulings that you can freely first reduce a
bleed and then decide to block, so long as you haven't explicitly ended
your attempts to block.
> John Eno
-John Flournoy
Johannes Walch
> Only the plain.
>
> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and
> replace it with a new one (the new block window resulting from the
> alteration of the target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to)
> block in the current window (the window one is attempting to cancel).
But the player playing the Deflection is only -attempting- to close the
window. If he doesn´t suceed in closing the window (because Deflection
is cancelled by Direct Intervention) why should the window be closed?
Let´s assume he is just abstaining from blocking for the moment (which
is perfectly legal when casting votes).
The current ruling is highly confusing to me and apparently to others
because I have seen that played "wrong" in dozens of tournaments. (D.I
on Deflection happens quite often in my environment). I think there
should be a more intuitive ruling.
--
johannes walch
gpett...@gmail.com
> gpettig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 4:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> gpettig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> Jeroen wrote:
> >>>>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
> >>>>>http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d...
> >>>>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
> >>>>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
> >>> What is the logic behind this?
> >> Only the plain.
> >> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
> >> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
> >> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
> >> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>
> > By deciding to (attempt to) draw out your predator's Approximation of
> > Loyalty, one is clearly trying to make one's block successful.
> Sure.
> But drawing it out involves a decision not to block.
>
At no point do I explicitly decline to block. At no point does my
current block attempt even fail since the card that would have rendered
my block attempt null is cancelled.
> > I'd say
> > your ruling contradicts 1.6.1.5 in that it tries to shoehorn two
> > effects: "play a reaction card" and "decline to block" into one effect
> > without specific card text or giving the acting minion the opportunity
> > to play cards.
> It does not. No more than Second Tradition condtradicts (sic) 1.6.1.5 by "shoehorning"
> in three effects (reaction, block attempt, and added intercept).
Second Tradition has explicit card text. Where do you see the explicit
card text on Deflection that says "If this card is canceled, you cannot
attempt to block again"?
LSJ
> LSJ schrieb:
>> Only the plain.
>>
>> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and
>> replace it with a new one (the new block window resulting from the
>> alteration of the target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to)
>> block in the current window (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>
> But the player playing the Deflection is only -attempting- to close the
> window. If he doesn´t suceed in closing the window (because Deflection
> is cancelled by Direct Intervention) why should the window be closed?
Similarly, the player taking her transfers is only -attempting- to close the
"minion phase" window.
Or the player playing Giant's Blood is only -attempting- to close the "untap
phase" window.
If the Giant's Blood is Suddened, that doesn't mean the untap phase wasn't closed.
Johannes Walch
> Similarly, the player taking her transfers is only -attempting- to close
> the "minion phase" window.
Moot. There is no way to cancel tranfers (as far as I know).
> Or the player playing Giant's Blood is only -attempting- to close the
> "untap phase" window.
>
> If the Giant's Blood is Suddened, that doesn't mean the untap phase
> wasn't closed.
Of course , because the MPA is still used, so there is a clear "must"
situation. There is no "block action" or similiar.
None of these exampels DO show anything regarding the blocking window. IMHO
--
johannes walch
LSJ
> At no point do I explicitly decline to block. At no point does my
> current block attempt even fail since the card that would have rendered
> my block attempt null is cancelled.
Similarly, if you take your transfers without explicitly ending your minion
phase, you still have implicitly ended your minion phase.
>>> I'd say
>>> your ruling contradicts 1.6.1.5 in that it tries to shoehorn two
>>> effects: "play a reaction card" and "decline to block" into one effect
>>> without specific card text or giving the acting minion the opportunity
>>> to play cards.
>> It does not. No more than Second Tradition condtradicts (sic) 1.6.1.5 by "shoehorning"
>> in three effects (reaction, block attempt, and added intercept).
>
> Second Tradition has explicit card text. Where do you see the explicit
> card text on Deflection that says "If this card is canceled, you cannot
> attempt to block again"?
Where do you see card text on any action card that says "If this card is
canceled, you cannot go back and use a Blood Doll"?
witness1
LSJ wrote:
> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
> > At no point do I explicitly decline to block. At no point does my
> > current block attempt even fail since the card that would have rendered
> > my block attempt null is cancelled.
>
> Similarly, if you take your transfers without explicitly ending your minion
> phase, you still have implicitly ended your minion phase.
The rules are pretty clear that the phases of a turn go in a particular
order and don't go backwards. By normal rules, you can play reactions
before and after declining to block. There's no text on deflection that
limits it to being played after declining to block.
Sure, if deflection has been successfully played, then you've lost your
opportunity to block because the target has changed, creating a new
block window and closing the old one. But there's no rule (or card text
on deflection) that states that your block window closes when you
_attempt_ to play a card that would close that window if it were
successfully played, and that you still close that window when the card
is canceled.
I mean, if played a master that said "End your master phase..." and it
got Washed, I'd expect that I'd get to stay in my master phase, unless
it had explicit text that said "... even if this card is canceled".
witness1
-believe the lie
gpett...@gmail.com
> gpettig...@gmail.com wrote:
> > At no point do I explicitly decline to block. At no point does my
> > current block attempt even fail since the card that would have rendered
> phase, you still have implicitly ended your minion phase.
>
> >>> I'd say
> >>> your ruling contradicts 1.6.1.5 in that it tries to shoehorn two
> >>> effects: "play a reaction card" and "decline to block" into one effect
> >>> without specific card text or giving the acting minion the opportunity
> >>> to play cards.
> >> It does not. No more than Second Tradition condtradicts (sic) 1.6.1.5 by "shoehorning"
> >> in three effects (reaction, block attempt, and added intercept).
>
> > Second Tradition has explicit card text. Where do you see the explicit
> > card text on Deflection that says "If this card is canceled, you cannot
> canceled, you cannot go back and use a Blood Doll"?
The rulebook says that Minions can only attempt actions during the
Minion Phase. Clearly if they played an Action Card, they were in
either the Cheat Phase or the Minion Phase. Neither the Rulebook nor
Deflection says Deflection "can only be played if the reacting minion's
controller has chosen not to block". 6.2.2 states "Once a Methuselah
decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is
final." You've time and again supported the idea that Block Forfeiture
needs to be explicitly declared.
Dorrinal Blackmantle
On Dec 11, 4:05 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 11, 5:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > gpettig...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > At no point do I explicitly decline to block. At no point does my
> > > current block attempt even fail since the card that would have rendered
> > > my block attempt null is cancelled.Similarly, if you take your transfers without explicitly ending your minion
> > phase, you still have implicitly ended your minion phase.
>
> > >>> I'd say
> > >>> your ruling contradicts 1.6.1.5 in that it tries to shoehorn two
> > >>> effects: "play a reaction card" and "decline to block" into one effect
> > >>> without specific card text or giving the acting minion the opportunity
> > >>> to play cards.
> > >> It does not. No more than Second Tradition condtradicts (sic) 1.6.1.5 by "shoehorning"
> > >> in three effects (reaction, block attempt, and added intercept).
>
> > > Second Tradition has explicit card text. Where do you see the explicit
> > > card text on Deflection that says "If this card is canceled, you cannot
> > > attempt to block again"?Where do you see card text on any action card that says "If this card is
> > canceled, you cannot go back and use a Blood Doll"?The rulebook says that Minions can only attempt actions during the
> Minion Phase. Clearly if they played an Action Card, they were in
> either the Cheat Phase or the Minion Phase. Neither the Rulebook nor
> Deflection says Deflection "can only be played if the reacting minion's
> controller has chosen not to block". 6.2.2 states "Once a Methuselah
> decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is
> final." You've time and again supported the idea that Block Forfeiture
> needs to be explicitly declared.
I hate to say it, but rule 6.2.2 seems to support the ruling. Playing
Deflection is a decision "not to make any further attempts to block."
because you've decided to send it on somewhere else.
Damned counter-intuitive, though.
Wonder if I'll be flamed for supporting the ruling :(
--
Dorrinal Blackmantle
Chronicler of Clan Tremere
Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City
Damnans
If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your
Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Pat
news:elklpn$21d$1...@news01.versatel.de...
I'm with Johannes in being confused on this one. (I thought there was even a
semi-recent thread about this topic, but I couldn't immediately find it.)
Assume the following:
SCENARIO 1
Meths: A > B > C
Meth A: Frederick the Weak bleeds with Legal Manipulation.
Meth B: No block.
Meth A: Frederick plays Aire of Elation.
Meth B (who controls exactly 1 untapped vampire with DOM): Keith Moody plays
SUP Deflection to bounce to Meth C.
Meth C: I play Direct Intervention on the Deflection. (The DI is not
Suddened or Washed.)
Meth B has no Redirection and so must take the bleed, since she declined to
block.
SCENARIO 2
Meths: A > B > C
Meth A: Frederick the Weak bleeds with Legal Manipulations.
Meth B: [SILENCE]
Meth A: Frederick plays Aire of Elation.
Meth B: Keith Moody plays SUP Deflection to bounce to Meth C.
Meth C: I play Direct Intervention on the Deflection. (The DI is not
Suddened.)
Meth B still has no Redirection and but has the option to block, since she
did not decline to do so.
I was remembering that scenario 1 is different from scenario 2 because of
the absence of a "no block" declaration.
The original quoted ruling:
http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3?dmode=source&hl=nl
"Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
(unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
would seem to equate the two scenarios.
(There is also SCENARIO 3, where Meth A forces Meth B to declare whether she
is blocking before playing the Aire. Scenario 3 seems to be the preferred
approach by the World-Wide Player A Association, but I'm assuming that
Player A doesn't belong to the WWPAA.)
- Pat
Jeroen Rombouts
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> schreef in bericht
news:1165879726....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
>> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >> Jeroen wrote:
>> >>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
>> >>> http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d...
>> >>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
>> >>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>> >
>> > What is the logic behind this?
>>
>> Only the plain.
>>
>> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and
>> replace it
>> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
>> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current
>> window
>> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>
> If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your
> Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too.
>
played.' That's the same as with a SR-ed Week of Nightmares or a delayed
Ancient Influence. It's still played.
And the ruling (or clarification) says "Declaring that one is not blocking
is implicit in *playing* Deflection
(unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]"
Still, I was reminded of it yesterday. Seems we played it wrong for years.
Frederick Scott
news:1165879726....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
>> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > On Dec 11, 2:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >> Jeroen wrote:
>> >>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
>> >>> http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d...
>> >>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
>> >>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>> >
>> > What is the logic behind this?
>>
>> Only the plain.
>>
>> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
>> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
>> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
>> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>
> If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your
> Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too.
It kind of sounds like what LSJ is saying is that it isn't _legal_ to play
a bleed retargeter while your block window is still open. Therefore, to
even play the block retargerter at all, you must have volunteered to close
your block window. Then, if the retargeter gets canceled by whatever means,
you're not allowed to back up and reopen the block window.
Still, the point about not being able to attempt to retarget a bleed while
your block window is open doesn't seem very well documented.
Fred
Damnans
Does this mean that if I play Kiss of Ra (a card that ends the current
action) I am implicitly declining to play any further action modifiers
during the current action, so if my Kiss of Ra gets DI'ed I cannot back
up and play action modifiers?
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> It kind of sounds like what LSJ is saying is that it isn't _legal_ to play
>> a bleed retargeter while your block window is still open. Therefore, to
>> even play the block retargerter at all, you must have volunteered to close
>> your block window. Then, if the retargeter gets canceled by whatever means,
>> you're not allowed to back up and reopen the block window.
>
> Does this mean that if I play Kiss of Ra (a card that ends the current
> action) I am implicitly declining to play any further action modifiers
> during the current action, so if my Kiss of Ra gets DI'ed I cannot back
> up and play action modifiers?
I don't think so. I think you're just trying to play Kiss of Ra. I'm saying
that if a bleed retargeter is not legal to play until your block window was
closed by your voluntarily closing it, then LSJ's logic makes sense. And it
makes his comparison to the closing of the untap window by playing a Giant's
Blood make some sense. But I admit, I didn't know the block window was a
phase that had to be closed before someone could play a bleed retargeter.
I don't think your comparison to Kiss of Ra is correct either way, though.
Playing an action modifier couldn't possibly be illegal during the time
it's legal to play action modifiers - that's self-contradictory.
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>It kind of sounds like what LSJ is saying is that it isn't _legal_ to play
>a bleed retargeter while your block window is still open. Therefore, to
>even play the block retargerter at all, you must have volunteered to close
>your block window. Then, if the retargeter gets canceled by whatever means,
>you're not allowed to back up and reopen the block window.
Inconsistent with <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-
cards.jyhad/msg/65ca24fb5972d562>
****
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> I declare a bleed with Angra. Anvil attempts to block. I
> play Faceless Night at OBF. ("+1 stealth, and any
> vampire that attempts to block this action -{is tapped when
> the block succeeds or when that vampire's controller decides
> not to block}-.") Anvil gains +1 intercept with KRCG News
> Radio. I play Psychomachia at dai. ("The block fails. The
> blocking minion cannot attempt to block this action again.")
> Is Anvil tapped by Faceless Night before he gets the opportunity
> to play Deflection? Or is "when that vampire's controller
> decides not to block" when Anvil's controller decides not to
> block with *any* of her minions?
The latter.
****
If your version were the case, you'd have given up the chance to
block/closed the window, been tapped by a Faceless Night that worked
like that (when the block was or wasn't successful, rather than as it
does now), and then be already tapped when you came to play the bounce.
I'm not entirely certain what benefit is gained from ruling that playing
a bounce (distinct from resolving it) should be the trigger here. I'm
merely reporting existing rulings.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Damnans
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message
> news:1165880847.5...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> > Frederick Scott wrote:
> >> It kind of sounds like what LSJ is saying is that it isn't _legal_ to play
> >> a bleed retargeter while your block window is still open. Therefore, to
> >> even play the block retargerter at all, you must have volunteered to close
> >> your block window. Then, if the retargeter gets canceled by whatever means,
> >> you're not allowed to back up and reopen the block window.
> >
> > Does this mean that if I play Kiss of Ra (a card that ends the current
> > action) I am implicitly declining to play any further action modifiers
> > during the current action, so if my Kiss of Ra gets DI'ed I cannot back
> > up and play action modifiers?
>
> I don't think so. I think you're just trying to play Kiss of Ra.
No, no. According to Scott's reasoning playing cards implies that you
have made decisions, so playing Kiss of Ra implies you have no
intention to play any more action modifiers (i.e., you are closing the
window where action modifiers can be played during an action, because
you are endind that action).
> I'm saying
> that if a bleed retargeter is not legal to play until your block window was
> closed by your voluntarily closing it, then LSJ's logic makes sense. And it
> makes his comparison to the closing of the untap window by playing a Giant's
> Blood make some sense. But I admit, I didn't know the block window was a
> phase that had to be closed before someone could play a bleed retargeter.
When a card gets cancelled, it does not take effect. So you are not
actually redirecting a bleed action by the time you play Deflection,
since there is a previous "window" where as-the-card-is-played effects
can be played before Deflection's card text applies.
> I don't think your comparison to Kiss of Ra is correct either way, though.
> Playing an action modifier couldn't possibly be illegal during the time
> it's legal to play action modifiers - that's self-contradictory.
The fact is that, as others have already pointed out, there are no such
windows in the rulebook, and that Deflection's card text does not say
anything about closing your block window. So Scott's ruling is counter
intuitive (although his logic makes sense).
Kushiel
> Since reducing a bleed (or playing any other reaction effects that are
> not redirecting the bleed) does not attempt to create a new block
> window, it would follow from the above logic that it does not imply
> intending to end the current block window.
True. Good catch, thanks.
John Eno
Frederick Scott
> The fact is that, as others have already pointed out, there are no such
> windows in the rulebook, and that Deflection's card text does not say
> anything about closing your block window. So Scott's ruling is counter
> intuitive (although his logic makes sense).
I think I said all that myself. I'm not sure what point you were actually
making with this post.
Fred
Jeroen Rombouts
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:BFifh.6764$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Jeroen wrote:
>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>>
>
> Yes.
Is there any reason in particular it's not on the rulings page? It seems we
were not the only people who played it wrong.
LSJ
> The rulebook says that Minions can only attempt actions during the
> Minion Phase. Clearly if they played an Action Card, they were in
> either the Cheat Phase or the Minion Phase. Neither the Rulebook nor
> Deflection says Deflection "can only be played if the reacting minion's
> controller has chosen not to block".
No, but the long-standing ruling indicates that that is indeed the situation.
> 6.2.2 states "Once a Methuselah
> decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is
> final." You've time and again supported the idea that Block Forfeiture
> needs to be explicitly declared.
Similarly, at a tournament game at Gen*Con this year, a player pitched in a pool
for a bleed (an implicit declaration of "no block", just as Deflection has been
ruled to include an implicit declaration of "no block").
The acting minion played a bleed modifier to increase the amount of the bleed.
The blocking player said "but I didn't explicitly say 'I don't block'".
Petri Wessman
> Similarly, at a tournament game at Gen*Con this year, a player pitched in
> a pool for a bleed (an implicit declaration of "no block", just as
> Deflection has been ruled to include an implicit declaration of "no
> block").
>
> The acting minion played a bleed modifier to increase the amount of the
> bleed.
>
> The blocking player said "but I didn't explicitly say 'I don't block'".
Ok, just to be clear: the above was ruled to be "pitching in a pool means
you didn't block, even though you didn't explicitly declare it", right?
So the following all would be ruled as "declarations of not blocking":
1) implicit "no block" (or some such) from player
2) playing a card that would retarget the bleed
3) paying pool for the bleed
If yes, this should maybe be clarified in a web-available clear ruling
somewhere, since it's quite obvious that player groups play this in quite a
variety of ways -- which can bite you when you're playing in a tournament,
or running one.
//Petri
LSJ
> I'm with Johannes in being confused on this one. (I thought there was even a
> semi-recent thread about this topic, but I couldn't immediately find it.)
Judging by your description below, it seems you have successfully unconfused
yourself. :-)
The two scenarios differ slightly in that the [SILENCE] is not described as
either indicating (in the understanding of the players at the table) "no block"
or not indicating "no block".
If the silence indicates no block (in the understanding of the players at the
table), then the two scenarios are equivalent.
If the silence is merely a pause while player A plays her "next effect" after
the Legal, then the "no block" declaration comes implicitly after the Aire
(rather than before the Aire as in the first scenario), as implied by the play
of Deflection.
> (There is also SCENARIO 3, where Meth A forces Meth B to declare whether she
> is blocking before playing the Aire. Scenario 3 seems to be the preferred
> approach by the World-Wide Player A Association, but I'm assuming that
> Player A doesn't belong to the WWPAA.)
Correct.
LSJ
Well, that ruling is obsolete. It was based on the old wording of Faceless (as
quoted above).
The current wording avoids that troublesome/inconsistent timing issue:
"[OBF] +1 stealth, and any minion who attempts to block this action and fails
becomes tapped when the action is resolved (before resolving the action)."
LSJ
No reason at all. It simply hadn't been added, since the confusion over the
issue had not been raised until now, as far as I know.
I'm adding it now (and adding clarifications to the bounce cards' texts).
XZealot
I have to agree with you on that one. Our playgroup plays that the
blocking player reserves the right to block unless he has specifically
stated "I don't block" (so pitching a pool is retrieved if the acting
minion then modifies his bleed). Althought the acting player is
allowed to get an immmeidate straight answer when he asks "Do you
block?".
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>> Similarly, at a tournament game at Gen*Con this year, a player pitched in
>> a pool for a bleed (an implicit declaration of "no block", just as
>> Deflection has been ruled to include an implicit declaration of "no
>> block").
>>
>> The acting minion played a bleed modifier to increase the amount of the
>> bleed.
>>
>> The blocking player said "but I didn't explicitly say 'I don't block'".
>
> Ok, just to be clear: the above was ruled to be "pitching in a pool means
> you didn't block, even though you didn't explicitly declare it", right?
Correct. See parenthetical above.
> So the following all would be ruled as "declarations of not blocking":
>
> 1) implicit "no block" (or some such) from player
> 2) playing a card that would retarget the bleed
> 3) paying pool for the bleed
Correct.
> If yes, this should maybe be clarified in a web-available clear ruling
> somewhere, since it's quite obvious that player groups play this in quite a
> variety of ways -- which can bite you when you're playing in a tournament,
> or running one.
Correct, naturally.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:zuyfh.27476$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The rulebook says that Minions can only attempt actions during the
>> Minion Phase. Clearly if they played an Action Card, they were in
>> either the Cheat Phase or the Minion Phase. Neither the Rulebook nor
>> Deflection says Deflection "can only be played if the reacting minion's
>> controller has chosen not to block".
>
> No, but the long-standing ruling indicates that that is indeed the
> situation.
The "long-standing ruling" we're talking about here seems to be based on an
incorrect initial ruling on Forced Awakening. Since you posted this the
next day (1-Sep-1999):
LSJ wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes
> > >The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I
> > >don't
> > >block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller
> > >can't
> > >block at that point).
>
> Note: the above quote is not correct. It should be: "The vampire fails to
> block as soon as the action begins to resolve (successfully or not) -
> unless
> the vampire has blocked tha action, of course."
> (http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469218087&fmt=text)
Here, it seems you recognized that the failure to block is *not* implicit in
the play of Deflection. It seems to me that the ruling of 7-May-2000 (the
one Jeroen pointed to initially) is also in error, relying on the
almost-immediately-overturned post of 30-Aug-1999 instead of the corrected
rulings of 1-Sep-1999.
Here are the relevant posts.
The ruling of 7-May-2000 that Jeroen found and was confused by:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3
LSJ wrote:
> david hathorn <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > > > 2)If it is NOT a block, does that mean anyone waking with Forced
> > > > Awakening and bouncing has to pay a blood, because they failed to
> > > > block?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > but not right away, not until the action is completed, right?
>
> No, right away. Burn a blood as soon as the reacting (waking) vampire's
> controller succeeds in blocking (with another minion) or declares that
> she is not blocking.
>
> Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
> (unlike
> playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
The ruling on Forced Awakening referenced in *that* ruling, 30-Aug-1999:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4b99d847ac3a95b1
LSJ wrote:
> "davey! sprocket" wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, John M. Baker wrote:
> > > Jan Willem Wijsman wrote in message <37C96D...@planet.nl>...
> > > >Does a reacting vampire have to pay 1 (additional) blood if he played
> > > >forced awakening and a deflection? (i.e. if he did not try to block
> > > >but
> > > >just deflected it)
> > >
> > > Yes, the vampire will pay 1 blood for Deflection then burn 1 blood for
> > > failing to block with Forced Awakening. Any lack of an attempt to
> > > block is considered a failure.
> >
> > I believe, though this may be wrong, that the vampire doesn't fail to
> > block (and burn blood) until the action actually succeeds. So there may
>
> The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I don't
> block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller can't
> block at that point).
>
> > be a long time between playing the deflection and burning the blood,
> > long
> > enough for say another deflefction to be played to send the bleed back
> > to
> > you, which you could then block.
>
> You would get a new opportunity to block, but the Forced Awakening vampire
> would have already burned a blood for failing to block during your first
> "window of opportunity."
>
> > In any case, remember that you only burn the blood for failing to block
> > if
> > you have it, so you can do this trick even if the vampire has only 1
> > blood.
>
> True.
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp
Corrected ruling on Forced Awakening, 1-Sep-1999:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/73b36e4aa087ebfe
LSJ wrote:
> Oops. My mistake.
>
> Forced Awakening doesn't require the vampire to burn a blood until it
> is clear that the vampire won't block the action. Which has been ruled
> to be when the action begins to resolve
> (http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469218087&fmt=text).
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp
The earlier Deja post referenced in the above 1-Sep-1999 ruling, from
21-Apr-1999:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bafcc8bf38eca8a9
LSJ wrote:
> lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote:
> > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
> > >Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to
> > >play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has
> > >for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores
> > >that
> > >effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0
> > >blood.
> >
> > Hrm. this disturbs me in its possibility. Raises a question: if I
> > say "I don't block", encouraging him to bump the bleed, and THEN
> > FA/Deflect, since I've already failed to block by saying "I don't
> > block", shouldn't I have to burn the blood for FA first, before I can
> > even PLAY the second card?
>
> Good question.
> After declaring "no block", you still could end up blocking the action
> in theory - you deflect to your prey who, in turn, deflects back to you.
> So, to keep things clean, I'd say you only burn the blood when the action
> begins to resolve (successfully or not). So you could still play the
> Deflection in your example.
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
> http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Elaboration on what the corrected ruling should have said, 1-Sep-1999:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/95e5973e408a0a06
LSJ wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes
> > >The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I
> > >don't
> > >block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller
> > >can't
> > >block at that point).
>
> Note: the above quote is not correct. It should be: "The vampire fails to
> block as soon as the action begins to resolve (successfully or not) -
> unless
> the vampire has blocked tha action, of course."
> (http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469218087&fmt=text)
>
> > Pointless scenario....
> >
> > You control Chandler Hungerford and I have two vampires - a tapped copy
> > of Isabel de Leon, and Alexandra. You, Chandler, rush Isabel with a
> > Bum's Rush. I look at my hand and think "Oh, darn it." Having a bad
> > case of hand jam, I decide to throw away my Forced Awakening with Isabel
> > but, when replacing it, I pull a Flash which I think will do nicely with
> > Alexandra to get away from Chandler, so I block with Alexandra. Combat
>
> At this point, the action is resolving (unsuccessfully) [6.2.3], so
> Chandler would burn a blood when Alexandra's block succeeds.
>
> > occurs, I maneuver to long but you throw down a Form of Mist to continue
> > the blocked action - attacking Isabel. Following on from playing the
> > Flash, I pick up a Spirit's Touch. Isabel is, of course, desperate to
> > stay alive so, fearing the maneuver you would have if you succeeded in
> > your Bum's Rush, she decides to throw down the Spirit's Touch because
> > the Forced Awakening's ability to react as if untapped is still in
> > effect, right? (If it isn't, imagine I throw down a WWEF too - like I
> > say, pointless scenario.)
>
> It is still in effect - reaction cards' effects last for the duration of
> the action, by default.
>
> > So, at the end of all this, I *have* blocked. Yet, I would already have
> > burned a blood when Alexandra blocked instead. Is that correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp
Bram Vink
Joshua Duffin schreef:
<snip>
Might we get out from under this, not only counterintuitive, but
strange ruling?
Seeing as it has no basis whatsoever in cardtext, or rules.
I'd like that.
B
FC
ditto
Frede
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:zuyfh.27476$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The rulebook says that Minions can only attempt actions during the
>>> Minion Phase. Clearly if they played an Action Card, they were in
>>> either the Cheat Phase or the Minion Phase. Neither the Rulebook nor
>>> Deflection says Deflection "can only be played if the reacting minion's
>>> controller has chosen not to block".
>> No, but the long-standing ruling indicates that that is indeed the
>> situation.
>
>
> The "long-standing ruling" we're talking about here seems to be based on an
> incorrect initial ruling on Forced Awakening.
No. It was stated with such a ruling, but it is not based on that initial
ruling, nor does anything indicate that it was based on the ruling.
> Since you posted this the
> next day (1-Sep-1999):
>
> LSJ wrote:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes
>>>> The vampire "fails to block" as soon as his controller announces "I
>>>> don't
>>>> block" - which is implicit in the Delfection (since his controller
>>>> can't
>>>> block at that point).
>> Note: the above quote is not correct. It should be: "The vampire fails to
>> block as soon as the action begins to resolve (successfully or not) -
>> unless
>> the vampire has blocked tha action, of course."
>> (http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469218087&fmt=text)
>
> Here, it seems you recognized that the failure to block is *not* implicit in
> the play of Deflection.
No. It says nothing about Deflection.
It is a question of when the vampire is considered to fail to block, as stated.
The original ruling was that the vampire is considered to fail to block when his
controller makes the "I don't block" declaration (whether explicitly or implicitly).
The correction was that the vampire is considered to fail to block when the
action reaches resolution.
> It seems to me that the ruling of 7-May-2000 (the
> one Jeroen pointed to initially) is also in error, relying on the
> almost-immediately-overturned post of 30-Aug-1999 instead of the corrected
> rulings of 1-Sep-1999.
>
> Here are the relevant posts.
[snip]
All of which discuss the timing of Forced Awakening's penalty and do nothing to
alter the observation that playing Deflection implies a "no block" decision.
LSJ
> Petri Wessman wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>
>>> Similarly, at a tournament game at Gen*Con this year, a player pitched in
>>> a pool for a bleed (an implicit declaration of "no block", just as
>>> Deflection has been ruled to include an implicit declaration of "no
>>> block").
>>>
>>> The acting minion played a bleed modifier to increase the amount of the
>>> bleed.
>>>
>>> The blocking player said "but I didn't explicitly say 'I don't block'".
>> Ok, just to be clear: the above was ruled to be "pitching in a pool means
>> you didn't block, even though you didn't explicitly declare it", right?
>>
>> So the following all would be ruled as "declarations of not blocking":
>>
>> 1) implicit "no block" (or some such) from player
>> 2) playing a card that would retarget the bleed
>> 3) paying pool for the bleed
>>
>> If yes, this should maybe be clarified in a web-available clear ruling
>> somewhere, since it's quite obvious that player groups play this in quite a
>> variety of ways -- which can bite you when you're playing in a tournament,
>> or running one.
>
> I have to agree with you on that one. Our playgroup plays that the
> blocking player reserves the right to block unless he has specifically
> stated "I don't block" (so pitching a pool is retrieved if the acting
> minion then modifies his bleed).
You cannot pitch a pool for the bleed until resolution.
So you should either stop violating the rules by pitching it early or accept the
relatively obvious implication of the pitch.
sutekh_23
My 2 cents, for what it's worth
When you announce the action "I'm going to bleed you for X" you ask
your prey (assuming no kindred spirits/night moves) are you going to
block (NOT are you going to redirect the bleed), if they say no, you
then ask if anyone else wishes to block (via eagles sight or Anneke).
After this the block window on the action is closed.
After all attempts to block the action are settled, your prey can then
react with redirect or reduce. If you reduce the bleed one of 2 things
will happen, the bleed will resovle for a lesser amount or you can
still redirect the reduced bleed if you wish. If the bleed is
redirected at this stage (or immediatly after the block window closes
more likely) the Methusalah who is the new target once more has the
option to block (and I would assume Anneke and eagles sight once more
become viable block techniques) This continues to occour until the
action is successful (even for 0) or is blocked, I.E. resolved.
Although this is not spelled out directly in the rules the way in which
the rules are written and sequenced strongly suggest that this is the
way they are intended to function. Is it counter-intuiative? maybe, but
I don't think so.
Sutekh_23
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:BFifh.6764$Ga1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Jeroen wrote:
>>>>> I was searching the NG and I found this:
>>>>> http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3?dmode=source&hl=nl
>>>>> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection
>>>>> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999]
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't find that ruling on the the clarifications and rulings page.
>>>> Yes.
>>> Is there any reason in particular it's not on the rulings page? It seems we
>>> were not the only people who played it wrong.
>> No reason at all. It simply hadn't been added, since the confusion over the
>> issue had not been raised until now, as far as I know.
>>
>> I'm adding it now (and adding clarifications to the bounce cards' texts).
>
> My 2 cents, for what it's worth
>
> When you announce the action "I'm going to bleed you for X" you ask
> your prey (assuming no kindred spirits/night moves) are you going to
> block (NOT are you going to redirect the bleed), if they say no, you
> then ask if anyone else wishes to block (via eagles sight or Anneke).
> After this the block window on the action is closed.
Or other reactions can be played before the Methuselah says "I don't block".
For instance, he can play Telepathic Counter (maybe hoping to cycle into some
intercept, for example).
Of course, per the ruling, Deflection is not among the reactions that fit in
that window. Deflection is played only after declining to block.
sutekh_23
Ok now that ruling does seem more than a little abritrary, what
paramaters are used to determine what is or what isn't playable in the
the block window?
LSJ
> Ok now that ruling does seem more than a little abritrary, what
> paramaters are used to determine what is or what isn't playable in the
> the block window?
As given earlier in this thread, the bit you see as "arbitrary" stems from the
fact that attempting to change the target of the action implies that you've
already decided not to block in this block-opportunity window.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the ruling of 7-May-2000 (the one Jeroen pointed to
>> initially) is also in error, relying on the almost-immediately-overturned
>> post of 30-Aug-1999 instead of the corrected rulings of 1-Sep-1999.
>>
>> Here are the relevant posts.
>
> [snip]
>
> All of which discuss the timing of Forced Awakening's penalty and do
> nothing to alter the observation that playing Deflection implies a "no
> block" decision.
Feeling stubborn, are we? :-)
The 7-May-2000 ruling that Deflection implies a "no block" decision cited
the incorrect 30-Aug-1999 ruling that you pay for Forced Awakening as soon
as you play Deflection. The corrections to that ruling on 1-Sep-1999
explained that the block has not failed until the action reaches resolution;
clearly in that case the playing of Deflection in the Forced
Awakening/Deflection scenario has not caused an irreversible "no block"
decision to be made. There's a difference between performing an operation
that will make you unable to normally block (e.g. playing Deflection) and
making an explicit declaration defined in the rulebook ("I decline to
block"). The analogies you've been giving to scenarios in which a player
"skips over" game steps that are not supposed to be skipped (e.g. moving
pool to the blood bank in silence while a bleed action is going on) seem to
deny the existence of that difference - I don't really understand why. This
kind of difference is a significant aspect of many games, including VTES.
Since it seems further evidence is required, I will oblige you in digging
some up.
Here's an explicit ruling on 6-Dec-2001 that if Deflection is played but
canceled with Direct Intervention, the player who attempted to deflect may
still attempt to block:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2d17bda6906c5033
LSJ wrote:
> Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> > [Rehlow wrote]
>
> > >Does playing Deflection imply that you are declining to block? (ie If
> > >I play Deflection and my prey plays Direct Intervention can I now try
> > >to block?)
> >
> > No it doesn't imply that. If you played Deflection and haven't declined
> > to
> > block, you may then block if the Deflection is DI'ed.
>
> Correct.
And here's a ruling from 14-Aug-2000 where you espouse the belief that
playing Deflection implies an "I don't block" declaration, but that that
declaration does not *precede* the playing (or cancelation) of Deflection.
(Yes, I can easily see that you were discussing a case involving Faceless
Night again in this post, but it is quite clear that the ruling does not
apply *only* to the old wording of Faceless Night.)
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/48c2e55451f8bba1
LSJ wrote:
> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > However, if the stealth card is Faceless Night, you
> > get tapped before Deflection because by directing the action to
> > another player, you are no longer attempting to block it.
>
> Not quite. Since the "by directing it to another player" doesn't
> happen "before" playing Deflection, you can't draw the conclusion
> you have drawn above.
>
> The "I don't block" is implicit in the playing of Deflection, but
> that doesn't mean that it preceedes the playing of Deflection.
>
> After Faceless Night is played, the would-be blocker can play
> Deflection (and would immediately become tapped, even if Deflection
> is played at superior, by the Faceless Night effect).
>
> Corollary: blood burned for failing to block after a Forced Awakening
> would be burned after paying the cost for Deflection:
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=518858107
>
> (Because you don't "choose not to block" until the Deflection is
> paid).
I can't see why the power of Direct Intervention should be elevated in such
a way as you are currently describing. I can find no game-balance reason
that "Deflection -> Deflection back" should allow the original target an
opportunity to block, but "Deflection -> Direct Intervention" should
*eliminate* the original target's opportunity to block. At the least, the
cancelation of the Deflection should also cancel your Deflection-implied
declaration of "no block" - that can only be an *effect* of playing
Deflection, not a *prerequisite*, as stated in the long-standing rulings on
Forced Awakening and Deflection.
Josh
will recant if direct intervention is on the next tournament-rules list of
banned cards
sutekh_23
Not exactly, what makes it seem arbitrary is why is one reaction
allowed within the block window while another is not. What is the
Criteria under which they are deemed allowable and disallowed within
the current block window?
sutekh_23
And yes I see the difference between redirect and reduce, just
wondering why one inherently ends the block window whilst another does
not
XZealot
So you can play action modifiers on a action after an action has
resolved?
So the game is reduced to slaps.....
Joshua Duffin
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1165944368.1...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>> XZealot wrote:
>> > I have to agree with you on that one. Our playgroup plays that the
>> > blocking player reserves the right to block unless he has specifically
>> > stated "I don't block" (so pitching a pool is retrieved if the acting
>> > minion then modifies his bleed).
>>
>> You cannot pitch a pool for the bleed until resolution.
>>
>> So you should either stop violating the rules by pitching it early or
>> accept the
>> relatively obvious implication of the pitch.
>
> So you can play action modifiers on a action after an action has
> resolved?
>
> So the game is reduced to slaps.....
No. But the target of the bleed is playing incorrectly to lose pool before
declaring "no block" and thus giving priority back to the acting player.
The acting player has to receive priority again before the target can lose
pool.
Basically, in your example, no one is exactly playing by the rules, so
there's no really correct way to handle the acting player wanting to play an
action modifier. Instead, you end up backing up and having the target of
the bleed declare "no block" so that the acting player can then modify the
bleed, and then the target can Deflect or lose pool. The moral of the story
is, when steps are skipped, people only get hurt. :-)
Josh
skip to my lou
XZealot
So the implications involved are which of the following?
a) You should rewind to the "No Block" step for a mis-play.
b) Let the acting player play an action modifier on a resolved action.
c) Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
LSJ
Because changing the target ends the entire block window (in order to begin
another block window).
witness1
XZealot wrote:
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > No. But the target of the bleed is playing incorrectly to lose pool before
> > declaring "no block" and thus giving priority back to the acting player.
> > The acting player has to receive priority again before the target can lose
> > pool.
> >
> > Basically, in your example, no one is exactly playing by the rules, so
> > there's no really correct way to handle the acting player wanting to play an
> > action modifier. Instead, you end up backing up and having the target of
> > the bleed declare "no block" so that the acting player can then modify the
> > bleed, and then the target can Deflect or lose pool. The moral of the story
> > is, when steps are skipped, people only get hurt. :-)
>
> So the implications involved are which of the following?
>
> a) You should rewind to the "No Block" step for a mis-play.
> b) Let the acting player play an action modifier on a resolved action.
> c) Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
If the player who incorrectly pitched away his pool was trying to see
if the opponent was going to play a modifier and then back up and
declare a block, he's broken the rules. If he did so intentionally,
he's cheating (and there are guidelines for how a judge should handle
that), and if he wasn't cheating (maybe because he thought it was legal
play), then he should still not be allowed to use any knowledge gleaned
to his advantage (as far as I understand it).
It seems to me that the best way to handle it is _typically_ to rewind
the game state to the point just after the target has declined to block
and allow the acting minion to play cards. But this is what we have
judges for.
witness1
-believe the lie.
LSJ
> The 7-May-2000 ruling that Deflection implies a "no block" decision cited
> the incorrect 30-Aug-1999 ruling that you pay for Forced Awakening as soon
> as you play Deflection.
Actually, the 30-Aug-1999 post contained an incorrect ruling on Forced Awakening
and a correct ruling (given only as an observation of truth) on Deflection.
The 7-May-2000 ruling cited that post, since it contained the initial instance
of the observation being restated.
I have cited other posts that contain incorrect rulings as well for the parts of
them that remain correct.
> The corrections to that ruling on 1-Sep-1999
> explained that the block has not failed until the action reaches resolution;
Correct.
> clearly in that case the playing of Deflection in the Forced
> Awakening/Deflection scenario has not caused an irreversible "no block"
> decision to be made.
Incorrect. That irreversible decision was indeed acknowledged.
Also acknowledged was the case that, with a new block opportunity created by
changing the target, the vampire who had played Forced Awakening (and whose
controller had given the "no block" decision in that previous block window)
could yet end up blocking in the new block window.
> There's a difference between performing an operation
> that will make you unable to normally block (e.g. playing Deflection) and
> making an explicit declaration defined in the rulebook ("I decline to
> block").
One alternative, sure.
In the reality produced by the rulings, however, Deflection is played only after
the "no block" decision, since playing it would end the block window of that
decision.
> The analogies you've been giving to scenarios in which a player
> "skips over" game steps that are not supposed to be skipped (e.g. moving
> pool to the blood bank in silence while a bleed action is going on) seem to
> deny the existence of that difference - I don't really understand why. This
> kind of difference is a significant aspect of many games, including VTES.
Or, conversely, you are ignoring that the ruling makes it so that Deflection
cannot be played in the "before declining to block" step and that playing it is
an indication that you are done with the "before declining to block" step, much
like playing a maneuver indicates that you are done with the "before range". You
seem to be denying that parallel - I don't really understand why.
Yes, the rulings set could be different such that the result is different (and
is as you describe). That doesn't mean that the ruling set couldn't be the way
it is.
> Since it seems further evidence is required, I will oblige you in digging
> some up.
Any would be further than none, yes.
> Here's an explicit ruling on 6-Dec-2001 that if Deflection is played but
> canceled with Direct Intervention, the player who attempted to deflect may
> still attempt to block:
>
> groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2d17bda6906c5033
>
> LSJ wrote:
>> Halcyan 2 wrote:
>>
>>> [Rehlow wrote]
>>>> Does playing Deflection imply that you are declining to block? (ie If
>>>> I play Deflection and my prey plays Direct Intervention can I now try
>>>> to block?)
>>> No it doesn't imply that. If you played Deflection and haven't declined
>>> to
>>> block, you may then block if the Deflection is DI'ed.
>> Correct.
>
Excellent point.
Two contradictory rulings, the latter of which is not identified as a reversal
of the former.
Now you're getting somewhere.
Apologies for the contradiction, and the error in the 6-Dec-2001 post.
> And here's a ruling from 14-Aug-2000 where you espouse the belief that
> playing Deflection implies an "I don't block" declaration, but that that
> declaration does not *precede* the playing (or cancelation) of Deflection.
> (Yes, I can easily see that you were discussing a case involving Faceless
> Night again in this post, but it is quite clear that the ruling does not
> apply *only* to the old wording of Faceless Night.)
>
> groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/48c2e55451f8bba1
Yes. The old wording of Faceless Night caused timing problems, leading to some
inconsistencies.
Now that has been corrected. The obsolete rulings (and the inconsistencies that
arose about them) should not be held as absolute truths when they conflict with
the current rulings set. That's the whole point.
> I can't see why the power of Direct Intervention should be elevated in such
> a way as you are currently describing. I can find no game-balance reason
> that "Deflection -> Deflection back" should allow the original target an
> opportunity to block, but "Deflection -> Direct Intervention" should
> *eliminate* the original target's opportunity to block.
Who said it was a game-balance reason?
What game balance reason do you find for allowing Contingency Planning to cancel
the second Deflection in a Deflection-Deflection back pair but not a Direct
Intervention of a Deflection?
> At the least, the
> cancelation of the Deflection should also cancel your Deflection-implied
> declaration of "no block" - that can only be an *effect* of playing
> Deflection, not a *prerequisite*, as stated in the long-standing rulings on
> Forced Awakening and Deflection.
How "should"?
I understand you envision a different rulings set (and the effects that set
would achieve), but I don't see where you've given any empirical evidence that
one is inherently better than the other.
Why should canceling your Bewitching Oration not also cancel your implied "I
don't play Bribes"?
>
> Josh
>
> will recant if direct intervention is on the next tournament-rules list of
> banned cards
Meaining that you think DI is too strong/prevalent in the tourney scene, but
Deflection is not?
gpett...@gmail.com
> Why should canceling your Bewitching Oration not also cancel your implied "I
> don't play Bribes"?
Bribes can be played after Bewitching Oration if the Bewitching Oration
is played before votes are cast.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
gpett...@gmail.com
On Dec 12, 1:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Meaining that you think DI is too strong/prevalent in the tourney scene, but
> Deflection is not?
Meaning that Deflection should not be weakened by making DI stronger.
librarian
witness1 wrote:
> If the player who incorrectly pitched away his pool was trying to see
> if the opponent was going to play a modifier and then back up and
> declare a block, he's broken the rules. If he did so intentionally,
> he's cheating (and there are guidelines for how a judge should handle
> that), and if he wasn't cheating (maybe because he thought it was legal
> play), then he should still not be allowed to use any knowledge gleaned
> to his advantage (as far as I understand it).
>
At what point is it considered that you have pitched your pool? I
often like to reach for my pool and mutter dejectedly "ok, the bleed is
for how much?". I even will pick up a few pool, or start counting it
out, just to fully flesh out the image in my predator's mind that I
will be taking the bleed, so that they will then throw down the
modifier. But I have not yet had the pool leave my "pool area", so
that once I see the total bleed, then I can decide to bounce or not.
Legal?
best -
chris
Merlin
Why not? If DI is strengthened by this ruling, then perhaps it will get
the magic-card recognition it deserves and be banned from tournament
play. How does this make Deflection significantly less powerful? It
might make Terra Incognita a little more widespread...maybe.
Maybe Major Boon will see some more play when Deflection gets totally
nerfed by this ruling!
Merlin
Jeroen
Merlin schreef:
>
> Maybe Major Boon will see some more play when Deflection gets totally
> nerfed by this ruling!
>
LSJ
If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not
blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to
play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as
your declaration of "no block".
You can always bounce after a modifier, of course.
LSJ
Sure; I was obviously addressing the common usage of playing it in the "cast
votes" phase.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> The 7-May-2000 ruling that Deflection implies a "no block" decision cited
>> the incorrect 30-Aug-1999 ruling that you pay for Forced Awakening as
>> soon as you play Deflection.
>
> Actually, the 30-Aug-1999 post contained an incorrect ruling on Forced
> Awakening and a correct ruling (given only as an observation of truth) on
> Deflection.
>
> The 7-May-2000 ruling cited that post, since it contained the initial
> instance of the observation being restated.
>
> I have cited other posts that contain incorrect rulings as well for the
> parts of them that remain correct.
OK.... that's a bit confusing here since the "incorrect" ruling was all tied
up with the "correct" part of the ruling.
>> The analogies you've been giving to scenarios in which a player "skips
>> over" game steps that are not supposed to be skipped (e.g. moving pool to
>> the blood bank in silence while a bleed action is going on) seem to deny
>> the existence of that difference - I don't really understand why. This
>> kind of difference is a significant aspect of many games, including VTES.
>
> Or, conversely, you are ignoring that the ruling makes it so that
> Deflection cannot be played in the "before declining to block" step and
> that playing it is an indication that you are done with the "before
> declining to block" step, much like playing a maneuver indicates that you
> are done with the "before range". You seem to be denying that parallel - I
> don't really understand why.
>
> Yes, the rulings set could be different such that the result is different
> (and is as you describe). That doesn't mean that the ruling set couldn't
> be the way it is.
Ah, I see. It would seem that I'm denying that parallel because it takes as
given what it's trying to prove. :-)
OK. To me, the rulings set would be better as I describe, because it would
be more intuitive, follow the rulebook more closely, and avoid causing
unnecessary entanglement with Direct Intervention.
Several thoughtful players who know the rules in great detail have commented
on this thread. I don't think any of them found it natural that a Directly
Intervened Deflection should disallow the would-be Deflector from attempting
to block.
To me, the idea that attempting to change the target of an action (by
playing Deflection) must also mean that you're declining to block as the
current target of that action seems to pop up out of nowhere. For what
reason is it necessary that blocking be declined before attempting to change
the target? It's not intuitive to me, or apparently a lot of other people,
that the one requires the other. If there's no compelling argument that the
one *does* require the other, then it seems to me that it shouldn't, as the
rules would be simpler that way (i.e. *not* forcing two things to go
together if they don't inherently have to).
>> Since it seems further evidence is required, I will oblige you in digging
>> some up.
>
> Any would be further than none, yes.
>
>> Here's an explicit ruling on 6-Dec-2001 that if Deflection is played but
>> canceled with Direct Intervention, the player who attempted to deflect
>> may still attempt to block:
>>
>> groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2d17bda6906c5033
>>
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Halcyan 2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Rehlow wrote]
>>>>> Does playing Deflection imply that you are declining to block? (ie If
>>>>> I play Deflection and my prey plays Direct Intervention can I now try
>>>>> to block?)
>>>> No it doesn't imply that. If you played Deflection and haven't declined
>>>> to
>>>> block, you may then block if the Deflection is DI'ed.
>>> Correct.
>>
>
> Excellent point.
>
> Two contradictory rulings, the latter of which is not identified as a
> reversal of the former.
>
> Now you're getting somewhere.
>
> Apologies for the contradiction, and the error in the 6-Dec-2001 post.
Thanks. Perhaps you didn't identify it as a reversal because the earlier
ruling was so unintuitive, even you forgot that you had written it down?
:-)
>> And here's a ruling from 14-Aug-2000 where you espouse the belief that
>> playing Deflection implies an "I don't block" declaration, but that that
>> declaration does not *precede* the playing (or cancelation) of
>> Deflection. (Yes, I can easily see that you were discussing a case
>> involving Faceless Night again in this post, but it is quite clear that
>> the ruling does not apply *only* to the old wording of Faceless Night.)
>>
>> groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/48c2e55451f8bba1
>
> Yes. The old wording of Faceless Night caused timing problems, leading to
> some inconsistencies.
>
> Now that has been corrected. The obsolete rulings (and the inconsistencies
> that arose about them) should not be held as absolute truths when they
> conflict with the current rulings set. That's the whole point.
What happened to citing rulings in which some parts are not (any longer)
correct, but others still are? I don't think there's any reason the "you
pay for Deflection and its implicit "I don't block" takes effect when it
goes uncanceled" concept should be discarded from the several rulings that
exist on the old wording of Faceless Night. It is only Faceless Night that
has changed, not Deflection.
>> I can't see why the power of Direct Intervention should be elevated in
>> such a way as you are currently describing. I can find no game-balance
>> reason that "Deflection -> Deflection back" should allow the original
>> target an opportunity to block, but "Deflection -> Direct Intervention"
>> should *eliminate* the original target's opportunity to block.
>
> Who said it was a game-balance reason?
Well, I figure there has to be some reason, and there is no card-text or
rulebook reason, so...
> What game balance reason do you find for allowing Contingency Planning to
> cancel the second Deflection in a Deflection-Deflection back pair but not
> a Direct Intervention of a Deflection?
That's a card-text reason. There's no card text saying that playing
Deflection also includes an "I don't block" declaration.
Indeed, the rulebook spells out that "I don't block" is a declaration and an
event in and of itself. I would expect that such an explicit event should
not be subsumed into an implied declaration simply by playing a card (which
card makes no mention of including a "no-block" declaration in its effects).
[6.2.2.2 Resolve Any Block Attempts, Stealth and Intercept]: "...or the
defending Methuselah declares that she will not make any further attempts to
block the action. Note that this declaration is an event and so allows the
acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects."
>> At the least, the cancelation of the Deflection should also cancel your
>> Deflection-implied declaration of "no block" - that can only be an
>> *effect* of playing Deflection, not a *prerequisite*, as stated in the
>> long-standing rulings on Forced Awakening and Deflection.
>
> How "should"?
>
> I understand you envision a different rulings set (and the effects that
> set would achieve), but I don't see where you've given any empirical
> evidence that one is inherently better than the other.
It is better for the steps in the game to be explicit and separate from each
other than for them to be implicit and bound inextricably together. It
makes for a clearer and more consistent rules set. That's why people here
appear to find it more intuitive that declining to block should be separate
from whether or not a Deflection is played.
> Why should canceling your Bewitching Oration not also cancel your implied
> "I don't play Bribes"?
That's another example of card plays that occur in defined separate steps of
the game. It's not a relevant comparison to Deflection versus the decision
whether to attempt a block.
Rulebook [6.2] Taking an Action: "Note that action modifiers and reaction
cards can be played at any time in this process as appropriate, subject to
the restrictions on adding stealth and intercept listed below and the
restrictions against the same minion playing the same action modifier or
reaction card more than once (see "Minion Cards," sec. 1.6.3), and following
the same sequencing strictures of all effects (see "Sequencing," sec.
1.6.1.6)."
Deflection doesn't have any inherent restrictions on when it can be played;
therefore, it ought logically to be playable at any point in the course of a
bleed action, including before deciding whether to attempt to block.
>> will recant if direct intervention is on the next tournament-rules list
>> of banned cards
>
> Meaining that you think DI is too strong/prevalent in the tourney scene,
> but Deflection is not?
Meaning that if you're going to make Deflection have this strange effect
when canceled by Direct Intervention, the oddity would be largely remedied
if Direct Intervention didn't exist. (I wasn't thinking about Terra
Incognita and such at the time, so that wouldn't, as it turns out, remove
all the illogic.)
Josh
incognizant
Joshua Duffin
"librarian" <ino...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1165949197....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Scott also answered this, but I would say: it is legal, sure. But when one
uses gamesmanship to confuse another player as to what's going on, the
problem can be that one has then created confusion as to what's going on.
If disagreement arises as to the correct game state, and a judge has to be
called over, it's possible that several other players will end up with a
different conception of events, and the judge could end up making an
unfavorable ruling.
I think the moral of the story is, fooling people is fun, but using clear
game terms ("I'm not going to block", in a downtrodden tone, for example) to
do it may be the safest way. :-)
Josh
unsafe at any step
LSJ
>> (and is as you describe). That doesn't mean that the ruling set couldn't
>> be the way it is.
>
> Ah, I see. It would seem that I'm denying that parallel because it takes as
> given what it's trying to prove. :-)
?
A ruling doesn't try to prove itself. It simply is. That is inherent in the idea
of a ruling.
>> Why should canceling your Bewitching Oration not also cancel your implied
>> "I don't play Bribes"?
>
> That's another example of card plays that occur in defined separate steps of
> the game. It's not a relevant comparison to Deflection versus the decision
> whether to attempt a block.
Unless you have the ruling as it is: that the Deflection case is also an example
of a card play that occurs in a defined separate step of the game (after the
"I don't block" declaration).
> Rulebook [6.2] Taking an Action: "Note that action modifiers and reaction
> cards can be played at any time in this process as appropriate, subject to
> the restrictions on adding stealth and intercept listed below and the
> restrictions against the same minion playing the same action modifier or
> reaction card more than once (see "Minion Cards," sec. 1.6.3), and following
> the same sequencing strictures of all effects (see "Sequencing," sec.
> 1.6.1.6)."
>
> Deflection doesn't have any inherent restrictions on when it can be played;
Unless you have the ruling as it is: that Deflection's effect inherently
restricts itself to after declining to block in the current block-opportunity
window.
> therefore, it ought logically to be playable at any point in the course of a
> bleed action, including before deciding whether to attempt to block.
Except for the ruling that the effect inherently restricts when it can be played.
>>> will recant if direct intervention is on the next tournament-rules list
>>> of banned cards
>> Meaining that you think DI is too strong/prevalent in the tourney scene,
>> but Deflection is not?
>
> Meaning that if you're going to make Deflection have this strange effect
> when canceled by Direct Intervention, the oddity would be largely remedied
> if Direct Intervention didn't exist. (I wasn't thinking about Terra
> Incognita and such at the time, so that wouldn't, as it turns out, remove
> all the illogic.)
Ah, then.
witness1
LSJ wrote:
> Unless you have the ruling as it is: that the Deflection case is also an example
> of a card play that occurs in a defined separate step of the game (after the
> "I don't block" declaration).
Can we get text to that effect added to Deflection, then?
witness1
-believe the lie
LSJ
Merlin
It won't.
Merlin
witness1
Ah, my bad. Thanks.
witness1
-believe the lie
ira...@gmail.com
> LSJ wrote:
> > By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
> > with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
> > target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
> > (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>
> If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your
> Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too.
Is that correct, LSJ? From the discussion thus far, I believe Damnans
is wrong.
I'll add my voice to the cacophony as someone who thought that you
could Deflect, get DI'd, and still attempt to block (assuming you
didn't explicitly declare "I don't block.")
LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot
players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in
accordance with player wishes? It seems like a reversal of the current
ruling would actually cause no change in the way players have been
playing, and enforcing the current ruling would be a change for most
players.
Ira
XZealot
How is the action any more or less resolved if you can play a bounce
but can't announce a block if you haven't declined to block"?
If the action isn't completed by the obvious playing of an action
modifier then why are you disallowed from blocking?
If the acting player can wait until you have pitched a pool to announce
his action modifier then why can't a player who has not been asked "Do
you block?" not try and block?
It seems remarkably parallel to me.
LSJ
> Damnans wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
>>> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
>>> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
>>> (the window one is attempting to cancel).
>> If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your
>> Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too.
>
> Is that correct, LSJ? From the discussion thus far, I believe Damnans
> is wrong.
Right.
> I'll add my voice to the cacophony as someone who thought that you
> could Deflect, get DI'd, and still attempt to block (assuming you
> didn't explicitly declare "I don't block.")
>
> LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot
> players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in
> accordance with player wishes?
"A lot"?
Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal alternatives for
a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives are equal.
> It seems like a reversal of the current
> ruling would actually cause no change in the way players have been
> playing, and enforcing the current ruling would be a change for most
> players.
"Most"?
Damnans
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it
> > > with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the
> > > target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window
> > > (the window one is attempting to cancel).
> >
> > If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your
> > Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too.
>
> Is that correct, LSJ? From the discussion thus far, I believe Damnans
> is wrong.
Of course I am wrong :-) My above sentences were just a wish.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
gpett...@gmail.com
> A ruling doesn't try to prove itself. It simply is. That is inherent in the idea
> of a ruling.
>
Yes, yes, a ruling ends a dispute over two (or more) possible
interpretations of card play, presumably using logic or reason. I
understand the reasoning you're using, but I think it's inferior to the
alternative in addition to its being counterintuitive.
Your ruling creates an implicit card effect that is somehow not
cancelled when the entire card effect is cancelled. The closest thing
you've come to showing a parallel is mentioning cards with explicit
requirements (i.e. timing issues) that are commonly left implicit due
to speed of play and yet the effect you're trying to rule *implicit*
has repeatedly been deemed to be *required* to be *explicit*. The
fundamental rule for order of card and effect play is that everything
is explicit, but you're trying to rule one particular effect to be
implicit.
Damnans
LSJ wrote:
[...]
> > LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot
> > players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in
> > accordance with player wishes?
>
> "A lot"?
>
> Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal alternatives for
> a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives are equal.
>
> > It seems like a reversal of the current
> > ruling would actually cause no change in the way players have been
> > playing, and enforcing the current ruling would be a change for most
> > players.
>
> "Most"?
For what it is worth, most players I know and I have always misplayed
the Deflection & Direct Intervention issue.
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
I wonder why we get an change of deflection card text, and/or rules
addition, where none, to me, seems to be neccessary, wanted,
convenient, or intuitive. Deflection, as is, can be played before the
blocking declaration like all other non-blocking-relevant reaction
cards.
It usually will not be, and forcing it to be will change the game in a
minimal amount, make older copies have faulty text, confuse newer
players (although possibly making them play better) and just generally
add unneccessary text to the game.
The ruling as such doesn't bother me much. (As personally, for my
gameplay, it wouldn't change a thing) What bothers me is that there's
no basis on cardtext, gameplay, or rulebook for this to be a neccessary
change.
I personally don't think it is neccessary to make a change in the
rules/cardtext for such a pedantic issue, making the effect
additionally counterintuitive.
Could you please explain your reasoning behind this LSJ?
I dont see the implied denial of blocking when a bleed's target is
changed. Nor do I understand why it, when being canceled, would
continue to imply such a denial without a specific statement towards
the denial of blocking.
Thanks in advance,
B
witness1
XZealot wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not
> > blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to
> > play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as
> > your declaration of "no block".
> >
> > You can always bounce after a modifier, of course.
>
> How is the action any more or less resolved if you can play a bounce
> but can't announce a block if you haven't declined to block"?
The 'your communication of "no block"' means that you have declined to
block, even if you didn't use the English language to convey that
message.
> If the action isn't completed by the obvious playing of an action
> modifier then why are you disallowed from blocking?
Because you declined to block. Y'know, because you aren't just throwing
your pool into the blood bank for kicks.
> If the acting player can wait until you have pitched a pool to announce
> his action modifier then why can't a player who has not been asked "Do
> you block?" not try and block?
You have sped past several steps in the action sequence by pitching
that pool, only some of which you have control over. You have sped past
the "I decline to block" step, impicitly declaring as you did so that
you did not wish to block. That's legal, because you're allowed to
decide for yourself if you want to block or not. You have also sped
past the "allow acting minion to play further modifiers". That's the
illegal part, because you haven't allowed the other player the option
to play his cards. That's where you should rewind to.
> It seems remarkably parallel to me.
It's not. If you speed past your own option to play a card or effect,
you lose your window (see also, gaining pool for the edge). If you
speed past someone else's opportunity to play effects, then you don't
rewind all the way to the start of the phase, you rewind to window that
you illegally sped through.
Similarly, if someone had a Madness Network in play and you started
your transfers without allowing him to take actions, you should rewind
and let him take actions, but not (generally) rewind far enough to
allow you to take more actions first (you implicitly declared that you
were done with actions by moving on to influence).
witness1
-believe the lie.
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
Would not the target actually being changed end the entire block
window, instead of the attempt?
I thought the actual fact of the target being changed initiated an
another blocking possibility, not the playing of a deflection. Which
would be simultaneous with the successful resolving of deflection,
resulting in ending of current blocking window, and initiation of
another.
Does the actual attempt end the blocking window?
Bram Vink
Bram Vink schreef:
Just to clarify what I'm trying to say:
The actual changing of the target initiates another blocking window.
With this ruling, the attempt of changing the target ends the current
blocking.
It seems hard to rhyme to me.
Hope that clarifies things,
Bram
CthuluKitty
step in the timing sequence to be skipped. At present a minion can
play Deflection before the player explicitly states that he is not
blocking. If the play of Deflection automatically implies the latter,
then two things are happening at once. Under all other circumstances,
the declination to block passes priority to the acting player. This
ruling on bounce cards causes that window to be skipped, as the
reacting player simultaneously declines to block and plays a reaction,
without giving the acting player a chance to play action modifiers. At
present there are no cards in the game that would care if they were
played in this window, but the timing issue is very bizarre.
Ultimately this would seem to require an actual text modification of
all four bounce effects to say that they cannot be played until after
blocks have been declined, or else there's a gaping exception in the
timing rules. This whole affair strikes me not so much as a ruling,
but as a change to card text.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>> Yes, the rulings set could be different such that the result is
>>> different (and is as you describe). That doesn't mean that the ruling
>>> set couldn't be the way it is.
>>
>> Ah, I see. It would seem that I'm denying that parallel because it takes
>> as given what it's trying to prove. :-)
>
> ?
> A ruling doesn't try to prove itself. It simply is. That is inherent in
> the idea of a ruling.
No, the parallel I was denying was the analogy, not the ruling. You gave a
number of analogies over the course of this discussion, all of which
appeared to be intended to *show* that the ruling that playing Deflection =
"I already declined to block" made sense, but they only worked as analogies
if one already *accepted* that playing Deflection = "I already declined to
block".
Sure, as you say, a ruling can exist simply by fiat. But normally (IMO)
there should be some good logic and reasons behind it. A ruling that exists
only by fiat, and would be better the other way, is not a good ruling.
> Unless you have the ruling as it is: that the Deflection case is also an
> example of a card play that occurs in a defined separate step of the game
> (after the
> "I don't block" declaration).
Except that there's no reason for that ruling to exist, as far as I can see.
Nor have you provided such a reason, as yet. Nor is there card-text on
Deflection making it so, nor, as Greg and Bram have pointed out, would it be
a worthwhile project to add such card-text to make it so, since the effect
is unnecessary and therefore undesirable to add to the game.
As far as I can discover through Google-groups, the idea arose on August 30,
1999, that Deflection implicitly required you to have made a decision not to
block, in a description of when you would burn blood for failing to block
for Forced Awakening. I don't know why this implicit "obviously I'm not
blocking because now I'm not the target anymore" side-effect of Deflection
should be such a big deal, and apparently neither did you when you answered
a different post on December 6, 2001, saying that Deflection could be played
and canceled with Direct Intervention before the decision to decline blocks
had been made.
There has been presented no motivation for why Deflection should now have to
appear after (or create) the "I don't block" step of the game. There has
been no reason presented that the description of how Deflection operated
once upon a time in an interaction with Forced Awakening (for all of two
days!) should stand, but the description of how Deflection interacted once
upon a time with Faceless Night should not.
There's just no apparent reason for this ruling to exist and require putting
new card text on the bleed-bounce cards that we've had for twelve years.
Unless you know of some such reason, it seems to me that leaving the
bleed-bounce texts as they are and dropping the ruling would be the far
better course of action.
Josh
decontextualized
Joshua Duffin
> ira...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'll add my voice to the cacophony as someone who thought that you
>> could Deflect, get DI'd, and still attempt to block (assuming you
>> didn't explicitly declare "I don't block.")
>>
>> LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot
>> players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in
>> accordance with player wishes?
>
> "A lot"?
>
> Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal
> alternatives for a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives
> are equal.
I find only one other person in this thread (Dorrinal) who thinks that this
ruling makes sense (and even he noted that he found it "damned
counter-intuitive"). I count fifteen people who've posted to this thread
with the opinion that the ruling you've described is the worse of the two
alternatives.
I think the relative prevalence of these considered opinions gives some
credence to the notion that the other alternative is the more logical of the
two. Indeed, much more so than a mere vote (without reasoning attached).
Josh
who am i? why am i here?
tigernat1
> > Is there any reason in particular it's not on the rulings page? It seems we
> > were not the only people who played it wrong.
>
> No reason at all. It simply hadn't been added, since the confusion over the
> issue had not been raised until now, as far as I know.
>
> I'm adding it now (and adding clarifications to the bounce cards' texts).
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Why are you adding clarification to a card that has
been in existence for 12 years AND adding a ruling regarding when it
need be played? What happened to KISS?
This makes no sense and is overly confusing. I am not as eloquent or
research-happy as Mr. Duffin, but why can you NOT see the error in the
logic on this? Playing a reaction card is NOT the same as saying "No
Block"!!! Why are you artficially trying to make it so?
Is this an imposter LSJ? Will the real LSJ please stand up! I am just
dumbfounded how someone who has seen things so clearly in the past
could totally miss this one!
Vegas gNat
XZealot
It is only implicit that I have declined to block the current amount.
It is less implicit when he plays an action modifier as I may want to
block that. Nothing is stopping the acting player from asking "Do you
block?"
> > It seems remarkably parallel to me.
>
> It's not. If you speed past your own option to play a card or effect,
> you lose your window (see also, gaining pool for the edge). If you
> speed past someone else's opportunity to play effects, then you don't
> rewind all the way to the start of the phase, you rewind to window that
> you illegally sped through.
>
And yet when someone bleeds me for 1 and doesn't ask "Do you block",
aren't you allowed to reserve your blocking?
Honestly, what is the difference between the various forms of
"gamesmanship" presented in this thread: pitching the pool, whining,
passing your hand over your pool. They are all doing the same thing in
tryuing to fish out an action modifier. Why don't we just make it
simple and polite? Simply ask "Are you blocking?"
gpett...@gmail.com
> > You have sped past several steps in the action sequence by pitching
> > that pool, only some of which you have control over. You have sped past
> > the "I decline to block" step, impicitly declaring as you did so that
> > you did not wish to block. That's legal, because you're allowed to
> > decide for yourself if you want to block or not. You have also sped
> > past the "allow acting minion to play further modifiers". That's the
> > illegal part, because you haven't allowed the other player the option
> > to play his cards. That's where you should rewind to.
>
> It is only implicit that I have declined to block the current amount.
> It is less implicit when he plays an action modifier as I may want to
> block that. Nothing is stopping the acting player from asking "Do you
> block?"
>
But you can't do that. When the acting player looks at you, he is
expecting you to play an effect or pass. But when you're the target of
a directed action, you can only pass once you've declared No Block.
> Honestly, what is the difference between the various forms of
> "gamesmanship" presented in this thread: pitching the pool, whining,
> passing your hand over your pool. They are all doing the same thing in
> tryuing to fish out an action modifier. Why don't we just make it
> simple and polite? Simply ask "Are you blocking?"
>
Yes, they're all trying to fish an action modifier. But some are aware
that they've passed on blocking and would rather Deflect a bleed of 5
than block a bleed of 2, and some are cheating.
Preston
LSJ wrote:
> sutekh_23 wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> >> sutekh_23 wrote:
> >>> Ok now that ruling does seem more than a little abritrary, what
> >>> paramaters are used to determine what is or what isn't playable in the
> >>> the block window?
> >> As given earlier in this thread, the bit you see as "arbitrary" stems from the
> >> fact that attempting to change the target of the action implies that you've
> >> already decided not to block in this block-opportunity window.
> >
> > And yes I see the difference between redirect and reduce, just
> > wondering why one inherently ends the block window whilst another does
> > not
>
> Because changing the target ends the entire block window (in order to begin
> another block window).
Clearly this ruling signals that White Wolf is caving to the radical
gay agenda.
Preston
James Coupe
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>Well, that ruling is obsolete. It was based on the old wording of
>Faceless (as quoted above).
The ruling is obsolete, but that doesn't avoid the fact that it shows
how the play closes/closed the window, rather than there being distinct
close window and play card steps.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Wookie813
Merlin wrote:
> gpett...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 1:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > Meaining that you think DI is too strong/prevalent in the tourney scene, but
> > > Deflection is not?
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
> the magic-card recognition it deserves and be banned from tournament
> play.
<snip>
> Merlin
Fret not, everyone. You can cancel the DI with Wash.
New Dom defense module:
6x Wake
6x Deflection
3x Wash
See? Everything will be juuu-uuust fine.
LSJ
Sure.
It is no change to Deflection's card text neither/nor a rules addition.
Deflection, as is, cannot be played before declaring "no block".
At the time the observation was first made, it was made as a simple
clarification. Given the traffic in this thread, it seems that it might be a ruling.
> I dont see the implied denial of blocking when a bleed's target is
> changed. Nor do I understand why it, when being canceled, would
> continue to imply such a denial without a specific statement towards
> the denial of blocking.
Well, for that, see my other messages in this thread.
> Thanks in advance,
>
> B
>
LSJ
> The weird inconsistency I'm seeing with this ruling is that it causes a
> step in the timing sequence to be skipped. At present a minion can
> play Deflection before the player explicitly states that he is not
> blocking. If the play of Deflection automatically implies the latter,
> then two things are happening at once. Under all other circumstances,
No more than other plays that seem to skip steps.
The two things don't happen at once, technically.
LSJ
Considered opinions, all, were they?
OK.
That still doesn't address the issue of agreers being prone to lurking.
Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> I think the relative prevalence of these considered opinions gives some
>> credence to the notion that the other alternative is the more logical of the
>> two. Indeed, much more so than a mere vote (without reasoning attached).
>
> Considered opinions, all, were they?
Mostly, yes.
> OK.
>
> That still doesn't address the issue of agreers being prone to lurking.
>
> Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players.
I'm not appealing to the numbers themselves. I'm saying that, given the
people who think otherwise, maybe you should reconsider whether your
take on the situation is the right one.
Josh
listener to the voice of reason
LSJ
> I'm not appealing to the numbers themselves. I'm saying that, given the
> people who think otherwise, maybe you should reconsider whether your
> take on the situation is the right one.
I listen to all arguments, well-reasoned or otherwise, on this forum and others,
of course.
That hasn't changed since August 1999, either. :-)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Considered opinions, all, were they?
>
> Mostly, yes.
?
My dictionary must have a different definition of "all" than yours. :-)
gpett...@gmail.com
> Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players.
I'm not one for mob rule, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about a
vast proportion here.
Joshua Duffin
Or a different definition of "rhetorical device" maybe. :-P
Josh
taking dictation
librarian
Preston wrote:
>
> Clearly this ruling signals that White Wolf is caving to the radical
> gay agenda.
>
Thank you John Stewart.
now back to your regularly scheduled rules-quiddling.
best -
chris