Blessing of Chaos (LSJ)
Miller Delmardigan
A situation happened at the last tournament :
My prey had Claven with a Blessing of Chaos on him.
My Vamps were trying to call referendums, and my prey said to me :
Claven tries to block, he fails, but you cannot play ANY Presence action
modifier (Bewitching Oration, Voter Captivation, and so on...)
Note that Claven didn't even try to add intercept.
What do you think about that ?
I thought that Claven needed to add intercept to attempt to block, not just
say I try, I fail, but you can't play action modifiers...
Miller Delmardigan
The Lasombra
>A situation happened at the last tournament :
>My prey had Claven with a Blessing of Chaos on him.
>My Vamps were trying to call referendums, and my prey said to me :
>Claven tries to block, he fails, but you cannot play ANY Presence action
>modifier (Bewitching Oration, Voter Captivation, and so on...)
>Note that Claven didn't even try to add intercept.
>What do you think about that ?
That your prey played it correctly.
Blessing of Chaos only requires a blocking attempt, it does not
require a successful block.
Blessing of Chaos [Sabbat]
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dementation
This is a +1 stealth action.
[dem] Put this card on the acting vampire. If the vampire with this
card attempts to block another vampire, that vampire cannot play
action modifiers requiring Dementation, Dominate, Presence, or
Chimerstry. Vampires opposing this vampire in combat cannot play cards
that require those Disciplines.
[DEM] As above, and actions requiring those Disciplines cannot be
directed at this vampire.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
LSJ
>
> Just to be sure...
>
> A situation happened at the last tournament :
> My prey had Claven with a Blessing of Chaos on him.
> My Vamps were trying to call referendums, and my prey said to me :
> Claven tries to block, he fails, but you cannot play ANY Presence action
> modifier (Bewitching Oration, Voter Captivation, and so on...)
> Note that Claven didn't even try to add intercept.
>
> What do you think about that ?
Good play on your prey's part.
> I thought that Claven needed to add intercept to attempt to block, not just
> say I try, I fail, but you can't play action modifiers...
No. In fact, you can't add intercept until after you're attempting to block
(since before you do, you don't "need intercept").
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Brian
> > say I try, I fail, but you can't play action modifiers...
>
> No. In fact, you can't add intercept until after you're attempting to block
> (since before you do, you don't "need intercept").
Just wondering:
I assume his saying "I attempt to block" is an event which allows the
acting Methuselah to play another card or effect. Is it?
I further assume that the acting Methuselah must pass again after that
before he can add intercept, correct?
If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
intercept)?
Wrapping my brain around block timing
--Brian
LSJ
>
> > > I thought that Claven needed to add intercept to attempt to block, not just
> > > say I try, I fail, but you can't play action modifiers...
> >
> > No. In fact, you can't add intercept until after you're attempting to block
> > (since before you do, you don't "need intercept").
>
> Just wondering:
> I assume his saying "I attempt to block" is an event which allows the
> acting Methuselah to play another card or effect. Is it?
>
> I further assume that the acting Methuselah must pass again after that
> before he can add intercept, correct?
Sure.
> If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
> Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
> way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
> blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
> intercept)?
Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
Dave Brereton
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3D07D78F...@white-wolf.com...
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > > > I thought that Claven needed to add intercept to attempt to block,
not just
> > > > say I try, I fail, but you can't play action modifiers...
> > >
> > > No. In fact, you can't add intercept until after you're attempting to
block
> > > (since before you do, you don't "need intercept").
> >
> > Just wondering:
> > I assume his saying "I attempt to block" is an event which allows the
> > acting Methuselah to play another card or effect. Is it?
> >
> > I further assume that the acting Methuselah must pass again after that
> > before he can add intercept, correct?
>
> Sure.
>
> > If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
> > Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
> > way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
> > blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
> > intercept)?
>
> Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
> Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
>
that's funny. Reminds me of what one guy in our play group said: "My
superior Potence is a +3 stealth modifier"
Brian
> > Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
> > way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
> > blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
> > intercept)?
>
> Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
> Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
How is it timed, though?
1 Acting minion: I call a vote
2 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
3 Blessing of Chaos minion: I attempt to block (trigger BoC)
4 Acting minion: I don't play an effect (1 stealth vs. 0 intercept)
5 Blessing of Chaos minion: I stop attempting to block
6 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
7 Blessing of Chaos minion: I don't play an effect
8 Only now is it the 3rd party's chance to play an effect, right?
So, unless at 5 Blessing of Chaos minion says "I don't play an effect"
like a buffoon, you can't force intercept on him (Or, I've missed
something. Most likely the latter.)
Vexedly yours,
--Brian
The Lasombra
>> > If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
>> > Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
>> > way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
>> > blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
>> > intercept)?
>>
>> Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
>> Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
>
>How is it timed, though?
>
>1 Acting minion: I call a vote
>2 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
>3 Blessing of Chaos minion: I attempt to block (trigger BoC)
And must gain intercept now, before the acting minion can play further
stealth or effects. Should he fail to do so here, you may "force"
intercept onto them.
At this point, you may use the KRCG / London Evening Star / or
Tourette's Voice effect to given that minion intercept, or you can use
Draba / Ignis Fatuus to reduce the acting minion's stealth to zero.
>4 Acting minion: I don't play an effect (1 stealth vs. 0 intercept)
>5 Blessing of Chaos minion: I stop attempting to block
You can do it again, here. The BoC minion doesn't "stop attempting to
block", it "fails to add intercept".
>6 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
>7 Blessing of Chaos minion: I don't play an effect
>8 Only now is it the 3rd party's chance to play an effect, right?
Now it is too late.
>So, unless at 5 Blessing of Chaos minion says "I don't play an effect"
>like a buffoon, you can't force intercept on him (Or, I've missed
>something. Most likely the latter.)
You cannot "stop attemtping to block" with a minion that is attempting
to block, you can only "fail to generate the required intercept", or
"fail to block", and then "make no further block attempts" with your
other minions.
John Keech
news:3d145c3e...@text.giganews.com
> On 22 Jun 2002 00:05:12 -0700, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote:
>
> >> > If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
> >> > Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
> >> > way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
> >> > blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
> >> > intercept)?
> >>
> >> Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
> >> Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
What is this 'force intercept'? If I remember correctly, Rumor Mill
only allows the minion to burn a blood to get intercept. If they don't
want it, surely they don't have to burn blood? This then means that you
have tapped the Mill for no effect.
I agree with LSJ, that was great play by your prey...
JK
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
The Lasombra
>> >> > If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
>> >> > Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
>> >> > way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
>> >> > blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
>> >> > intercept)?
>> >> Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
>> >> Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
>What is this 'force intercept'?
Give them intercept when they do not truly want to block.
Tourette's Voice, KRCG News Radio, and London Evening Star: Tabloid
Newspaper all allow you to give intercept to a minion who is
attempting to block.
If I declare that I am attempting to block with a vampire with
Blessing of Chaos, I can prevent you from playing presence modifiers
on that action, ie Bewitching Oration or Voter Captivation. I am not
really interested in generating combat, so I will not play any
intercept cards for that vampire.
Other players at the table can "force intercept" onto my minion with
the three cards I listed above.
> If I remember correctly, Rumor Mill
>only allows the minion to burn a blood to get intercept.
Exactly.
That's why it was excluded from the list of cards that are capable of
forcing intercept.
> If they don't want it, surely they don't have to burn blood?
Correct.
> This then means that you have tapped the Mill for no effect.
Exactly.
Brian
> On 22 Jun 2002 00:05:12 -0700, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote:
>
> >> > If this is correct, how/when is a third player's KRCG/Rumor
> >> > Mill/London Evening Star/Tourette's Voice etc. played? Is there any
> >> > way to give him intercept during this exchange to "force" him into
> >> > blocking (since he is attempting and would suddenly have the
> >> > intercept)?
> >>
> >> Yes. If someone attempts to block, you can shove intercept on them.
> >> Note that Rumor Mill is not capable of forcing intercept, however.
> >
> >How is it timed, though?
> >
> >1 Acting minion: I call a vote
> >2 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
> >3 Blessing of Chaos minion: I attempt to block (trigger BoC)
>
> And must gain intercept now, before the acting minion can play further
> stealth or effects. Should he fail to do so here, you may "force"
> intercept onto them.
So announcing "I attempt to block" isn't "playing an effect", which
would allow the acting Methuselah a chance to play cards. Adding +1
Intercept, though, is.
> At this point, you may use the KRCG / London Evening Star / or
> Tourette's Voice effect to given that minion intercept, or you can use
> Draba / Ignis Fatuus to reduce the acting minion's stealth to zero.
>
>
> >4 Acting minion: I don't play an effect (1 stealth vs. 0 intercept)
> >5 Blessing of Chaos minion: I stop attempting to block
>
> You can do it again, here. The BoC minion doesn't "stop attempting to
> block", it "fails to add intercept".
So, what if they attempt to block with another minion? Then does the
first one stop attempting to block?
> >6 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
> >7 Blessing of Chaos minion: I don't play an effect
> >8 Only now is it the 3rd party's chance to play an effect, right?
>
> Now it is too late.
>
>
>
> >So, unless at 5 Blessing of Chaos minion says "I don't play an effect"
> >like a buffoon, you can't force intercept on him (Or, I've missed
> >something. Most likely the latter.)
>
> You cannot "stop attemtping to block" with a minion that is attempting
> to block, you can only "fail to generate the required intercept", or
> "fail to block", and then "make no further block attempts" with your
> other minions.
But you CAN stop attempting to block. Maybe not as a declaration, but
surely when you fail to block, you stop attempting to block?
Relatedly, if Tansu Bekir plays Night Moves, and Anton attempts to
block, and fails to add intercept, and Anatole across the table
Eagle's Sights, attempts to block, and adds sufficient intercept,
followed by Faceless Night at superior, does Anton tap? If you cannot
stop attempting to block, yes. If he stopped when Anatole started,
no.
--Brian
The Lasombra
>> >1 Acting minion: I call a vote
>> >2 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
>> >3 Blessing of Chaos minion: I attempt to block (trigger BoC)
>> And must gain intercept now, before the acting minion can play further
>> stealth or effects. Should he fail to do so here, you may "force"
>> intercept onto them.
>So announcing "I attempt to block" isn't "playing an effect", which
>would allow the acting Methuselah a chance to play cards. Adding +1
>Intercept, though, is.
Right.
>> At this point, you may use the KRCG / London Evening Star / or
>> Tourette's Voice effect to given that minion intercept, or you can use
>> Draba / Ignis Fatuus to reduce the acting minion's stealth to zero.
>> >4 Acting minion: I don't play an effect (1 stealth vs. 0 intercept)
>> >5 Blessing of Chaos minion: I stop attempting to block
>> You can do it again, here. The BoC minion doesn't "stop attempting to
>> block", it "fails to add intercept".
>So, what if they attempt to block with another minion?
If they gain intercept with another minion then the original minion is
no longer attempting to block, but has made the attempt, which is
sufficient for Blessing of Chaos.
> Then does the first one stop attempting to block?
Yes.
>> You cannot "stop attemtping to block" with a minion that is attempting
>> to block, you can only "fail to generate the required intercept", or
>> "fail to block", and then "make no further block attempts" with your
>> other minions.
>But you CAN stop attempting to block. Maybe not as a declaration, but
>surely when you fail to block, you stop attempting to block?
Yes.
But you must first fail.
If your intercept matches the stealth, you cannot back out of blocking
without specific card text allowing it (see Dawn Operation).
>Relatedly, if Tansu Bekir plays Night Moves, and Anton attempts to
>block, and fails to add intercept, and Anatole across the table
>Eagle's Sights, attempts to block, and adds sufficient intercept,
>followed by Faceless Night at superior, does Anton tap?
No.
His block has already failed and he is no longer attempting to block.
Joshua Duffin
> On 22 Jun 2002 16:05:18 -0700, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote:
>
> >> >1 Acting minion: I call a vote
> >> >2 Acting minion: I don't play an effect
> >> >3 Blessing of Chaos minion: I attempt to block (trigger BoC)
>
> >> And must gain intercept now, before the acting minion can play further
> >> stealth or effects. Should he fail to do so here, you may "force"
> >> intercept onto them.
>
> >So announcing "I attempt to block" isn't "playing an effect", which
> >would allow the acting Methuselah a chance to play cards. Adding +1
> >Intercept, though, is.
>
> Right.
I thought that wasn't true - "attempt to block" *is* an effect
which returns "priority" to the acting Methuselah. The acting
Meth probably won't want to do anything before the blocking
Meth (and after that all other Meths) gets a chance to add
intercept, though. (acting Meth can't add stealth at this
point because it's not needed yet, assuming the action started
at 1 stealth, and usually won't have any other effects she'll
want to play.)
LSJ, can you confirm or deny please?
Josh
it was the violent femmes
and the del fuegos
LSJ
Technically, it is an event, sure.
(I suppose if you really wanted to prevent someone from
moving intercept out of her hand you could Kiss of Ra before,
rather than after, allowing her to play intercept.)
Sten During
LSJ wrote:
>>I thought that wasn't true - "attempt to block" *is* an effect
>>which returns "priority" to the acting Methuselah. The acting
>>Meth probably won't want to do anything before the blocking
>>Meth (and after that all other Meths) gets a chance to add
>>intercept, though. (acting Meth can't add stealth at this
>>point because it's not needed yet, assuming the action started
>>at 1 stealth, and usually won't have any other effects she'll
>>want to play.)
>>
>>LSJ, can you confirm or deny please?
>>
>
> Technically, it is an event, sure.
>
Er? Earlier this year I was explicitly told here that attempting
to block is NOT playing an effect. The question at that time
being sequencing of effects played by reacting metuselah.
Sten During
James Coupe
writes:
>Er? Earlier this year I was explicitly told here that attempting
>to block is NOT playing an effect. The question at that time
>being sequencing of effects played by reacting metuselah.
What you were told, as I recall, and Google appears to confirm this, is
that blocking order is covered in a separate section from [1.6.1.6],
*over-riding it* for the purposes of determining blocking order.
That this specific sub-class of effects works in a specific exceptional
way (like Force of Will is a sub-class of action that is playable by
tapped vampires) does not mean that it is not also an effect (in the
same way that Force of Will behaving differently to normal actions does
not prevent it being an action).
As was stated by me at the time:
Sequencing occurs like that regularly (or in the case of a (D)
action, the target then clockwise...)
This does not give those in the line of effects a chance to
block. But they could play, say, Folderol.
Blocking has certain specific exceptions to normal sequencing, in the
order in which it is handled. It is part of sequencing for all sorts of
other things, though.
If you would like more specific clarification, I suggest digging up the
thread on Google.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=589ebf00.0201121115.614cace0%40post
ing.google.com should provide you with a quick way to the start of what
I believe is the thread you're referencing. (View Complete Thread from
there. I believe there are ways to dig up the actual summaries easily,
but I've not yet found the quick way to do that on Google, due to
complete lack of being arsed.)
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Sten During
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3D1820F6...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
>
>>Er? Earlier this year I was explicitly told here that attempting
>>to block is NOT playing an effect. The question at that time
>>being sequencing of effects played by reacting metuselah.
>>
>
> What you were told, as I recall, and Google appears to confirm this, is
> that blocking order is covered in a separate section from [1.6.1.6],
> *over-riding it* for the purposes of determining blocking order.
>
> That this specific sub-class of effects works in a specific exceptional
> way (like Force of Will is a sub-class of action that is playable by
> tapped vampires) does not mean that it is not also an effect (in the
> same way that Force of Will behaving differently to normal actions does
> not prevent it being an action).
>
Thanks for pointing me there. What I was told is, apart from the above,
that blocking is not a reaction. Message number 32. After that I dropped
the actual topic as my reasoning was based on the assumption that
blocking was playing an effect, and with that assumption I also believed
that 1.6.1.6 was a superset to 6.2, which would effectively have forced
the playing of any blocking effects, normally not legal, within scope of
1.6.1.6 (ie I read 6.2 as a ruling that only prey and predator gets to
block a non-directed action, and as a clarification prey goes first).
Of course, if blocking is not playing a reaction-effect then my
reasoning falls immediately, which was the reason I dropped that topic.
Sten During
James Coupe
writes:
>Thanks for pointing me there. What I was told is, apart from the above,
>that blocking is not a reaction.
It's not. Playing reaction cards is a reaction.
However, playing cards is not the same as generating effects, or taking
advantage of effects.
>Message number 32. After that I dropped
>the actual topic as my reasoning was based on the assumption that
>blocking was playing an effect, and with that assumption I also believed
>that 1.6.1.6 was a superset to 6.2,
It's better to look at 1.6.1.6 and 6.2 as a Venn diagram sort of affair.
Most of 6.2 is in 1.6.1.6, but there are a couple of exceptions with
regards the order.
Specifically, declaring a block is an effect - for the purposes of
sequencing subsequent events - under 1.6.1.6. However, whether you are
in a position where you *can* declare a block is determined by 6.2 first
of all.
>Of course, if blocking is not playing a reaction-effect then my
>reasoning falls immediately, which was the reason I dropped that topic.
It's a form of effect - per LSJ's earlier post in this thread.
It's not a "reaction-effect", which appears to be a new piece of
terminology.
Sten During
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3D1847ED...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
>
>>Thanks for pointing me there. What I was told is, apart from the above,
>>that blocking is not a reaction.
>>
>
> It's not. Playing reaction cards is a reaction.
>
> However, playing cards is not the same as generating effects, or taking
> advantage of effects.
>
>
>
>>Message number 32. After that I dropped
>>the actual topic as my reasoning was based on the assumption that
>>blocking was playing an effect, and with that assumption I also believed
>>that 1.6.1.6 was a superset to 6.2,
>>
>
> It's better to look at 1.6.1.6 and 6.2 as a Venn diagram sort of affair.
> Most of 6.2 is in 1.6.1.6, but there are a couple of exceptions with
> regards the order.
>
>
> Specifically, declaring a block is an effect - for the purposes of
> sequencing subsequent events - under 1.6.1.6. However, whether you are
> in a position where you *can* declare a block is determined by 6.2 first
> of all.
Heh :) Seems we're here again.
I believe that was what the entire (old) thread was about :)
The way I read 1.6.1.6 and 6.2 was that 6.2 made clear who were eligible
to attempt to block and clarifying the order in which such attempts were
to be done. If for some reason an effect would enable a minion normally
not eligible to attempts to block to do so anyway, and if said effect
didn't carry any explicit wording about ordering, then I thought that it
would be covered by 1.6.1.6. Ie, 6.2 meaning something like 'minions
filling these demands may attempt to block, and by the way, said minions
may do so in this order'.
As Eagles Sight does have a rather explicit errata/ruling/clarification
the card turned out to be a very bad example. I know the current ruling,
play by it, but still feel that for example Enzo Giovanni should be
forced to decline to block a crosstable vote before predator gets to
attempt to block it. All based on the Golden Rule of Cards (Enzo may
block when normally not allowed to) and 1.6.1.6 (if declaring a block is
indeed playing an effect and said block, by virtue of cardtext breaks,
6.2 then 1.6.1.6 ought to kick in being the catch-all rule for
sequencing.
I believe it's all a matter of how 1.6.1.6 and 6.2 is read (ie 6.2 not
only states who are allowed to block but also states the explicit
ordering of all blocks, including those not covered by 6.2 and thus
implicitly overriding 1.6.1.6) This is the current rule, and thus by
definition the correct one, but with a section, 1.6.1.6, already
handling sequencing, using that rule seems, if nothing else, cleaner
than an implicit interpretation of 6.2.
Sten During
John Keech
>
> Give them intercept when they do not truly want to block.
> Tourette's Voice, KRCG News Radio, and London Evening Star: Tabloid
> Newspaper all allow you to give intercept to a minion who is
> attempting to block.
>
KRCG and London Evening Star are optional in the same way aren't they?
I do not see how you can force some intercept on a minion, and even if
they do get some intercept then surely they have the option not to
block. They are under the control of another Methuselah, so surely they
obey the wishes of him/her?
Xian
"John Keech" <john.d...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:94fd438a2231851202f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
[forcing intercept onto a minion]
> So, what cards force intercept then? I cannot think of any offhand...
> KRCG and London Evening Star are optional in the same way aren't they?
If another methuselah controls KRCG or the LES, he may (by paying a pool in the
case of KRCG, without cost for LES) give *any* minion +1 intercept.
> I do not see how you can force some intercept on a minion, and even if
> they do get some intercept then surely they have the option not to
> block. They are under the control of another Methuselah, so surely they
> obey the wishes of him/her?
If you attempt to block, and somehow end up with equal or greater intercept than
the acting minion's stealth, then you are successfully blocking. If you
declared an attempt to block, you cannot back out unless card text (Dawn
Operation, frex) allows it.
Xian
Brian
> > which returns "priority" to the acting Methuselah. The acting
> > Meth probably won't want to do anything before the blocking
> > Meth (and after that all other Meths) gets a chance to add
> > intercept, though. (acting Meth can't add stealth at this
> > point because it's not needed yet, assuming the action started
> > at 1 stealth, and usually won't have any other effects she'll
> > want to play.)
> >
> > LSJ, can you confirm or deny please?
>
> Technically, it is an event, sure.
>
> (I suppose if you really wanted to prevent someone from
> moving intercept out of her hand you could Kiss of Ra before,
> rather than after, allowing her to play intercept.)
So then:
Methuselah A calls a vote with Lucita.
Meth A passes.
Methuselah B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a Blessing
of Chaos.
Meth A passes.
Meth B attempts to block with Claven (failing Kite)
Meth A passes.
Meth B passes.
Methuselah C wishes to add intercept to Kite, but it is too late, as
Claven is the one presently attempting to block.
Is this correct?
If so, it seems they CAN force you to block in most circumstances, but
that you can choose who they will force you to block /with/.
Lucita and Kite being admittedly extenuating,
--Brian
LSJ
No.
Meth C can add intercept to Kite before "failing Kite" can occur.
Brian
> >
> > Methuselah A calls a vote with Lucita.
> > Meth A passes.
> > Methuselah B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a Blessing
> > of Chaos.
> > Meth A passes.
> > Meth B attempts to block with Claven (failing Kite)
> > Meth A passes.
> > Meth B passes.
> > Methuselah C wishes to add intercept to Kite, but it is too late, as
> > Claven is the one presently attempting to block.
> >
> > Is this correct?
>
> No.
> Meth C can add intercept to Kite before "failing Kite" can occur.
But then, can't C trick B worse, by NOT adding intercept? Then, A
passes, B passes, C passes etc., since everybody passes, the action
has gone unblocked?
All I can think of is, declaring your block unsuccessful isn't
announced by B, it is announced by everyone in consensus, because when
everyone passes on an unsuccessful block attempt, it fails, and then
you move to the next minion who attempts to block (or B declares he
does not wish to block). Everyone passing makes the block fail, which
is an event (although nobody specific declared it), and the chance to
play effects passes back to A, before the action is unblocked.
Is the above correct?
-- Brian
LSJ
>
> > > So then:
> > >
> > > Methuselah A calls a vote with Lucita.
> > > Meth A passes.
> > > Methuselah B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a Blessing
> > > of Chaos.
> > > Meth A passes.
> > > Meth B attempts to block with Claven (failing Kite)
> > > Meth A passes.
> > > Meth B passes.
> > > Methuselah C wishes to add intercept to Kite, but it is too late, as
> > > Claven is the one presently attempting to block.
> > >
> > > Is this correct?
> >
> > No.
> > Meth C can add intercept to Kite before "failing Kite" can occur.
>
> But then, can't C trick B worse, by NOT adding intercept? Then, A
C could NOT add intercept, sure. If that "tricks" someone, OK.
> passes, B passes, C passes etc., since everybody passes, the action
> has gone unblocked?
Sure.
> All I can think of is, declaring your block unsuccessful isn't
> announced by B, it is announced by everyone in consensus, because when
> everyone passes on an unsuccessful block attempt, it fails, and then
> you move to the next minion who attempts to block (or B declares he
> does not wish to block). Everyone passing makes the block fail, which
> is an event (although nobody specific declared it), and the chance to
> play effects passes back to A, before the action is unblocked.
>
> Is the above correct?
All except th passing back to A.
Brian
> > > > Meth A passes.
> > > > Methuselah B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a Blessing
> > > > of Chaos.
> > > > Meth A passes.
> > > > Meth B attempts to block with Claven (failing Kite)
> > > > Meth A passes.
> > > > Meth B passes.
> > > > Methuselah C wishes to add intercept to Kite, but it is too late, as
> > > > Claven is the one presently attempting to block.
> > > >
> > > > Is this correct?
> > >
> > > No.
> > > Meth C can add intercept to Kite before "failing Kite" can occur.
A calls a vote with Lucita.
A passes.
B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a BoC (which triggers).
It is still B's opportunity to play an effect (such as add intercept)
because neither attempting to block nor triggering BoC are events, so
B passes.
C may either add intercept to Kite or pass.
If C adds intercept, that would be an event, and it would be A's turn
to play an effect.
If C passes, it goes to D and then E. If they pass, Kite would fail
to add intercept (and therefore fail to block).
B would announce (table would announce?) that Kite has failed to
block, which would be an event, and therefore A would have the next
chance to play an effect before B could attempt to block with another
minion.
If this is not correct, please tell me what is.
> > But then, can't C trick B worse, by NOT adding intercept? Then, A
>
> C could NOT add intercept, sure. If that "tricks" someone, OK.
I forgot you could try to block again later. If you could only try
once, then B would be "tricked" out of Kite blocking by the following
table talk:
C: I hate this vote, too. I'll give you intercept.
B: OK, then I don't add my own intercept. I pass.
C: I don't tap the KRCG.
D: Pass.
E: Pass.
(Kite fails)
B: EAT SHIT! EAT MY SHIT!
But, I forgot B could just try again.
Because when everyone passes on a failing block attempt, A gets
another chance to play an effect. Still, if I have this wrong, please
tell me what is correct.
-- Brian
LSJ
> A [attempts to call] a [referendum] with Lucita.
> A passes.
> B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a BoC (which triggers).
> It is still B's opportunity to play an effect (such as add intercept)
> because neither attempting to block nor triggering BoC are events, so
> B passes.
Aside:
Attempting to block is an event. In theory, Lucita could play Elder
Impersonation to cancel the block attempt before Kite could play
any while-blocking effects. But this is a corner case - usually the
blocker-needing-intercept simply plays his intercept "at the same
time" that the block attempt is announced.
Assume: A passes and then B passes.
> C may either add intercept to Kite or pass.
> If C adds intercept, that would be an event, and it would be A's turn
> to play an effect.
> If C passes, it goes to D and then E. If they pass, Kite would fail
> to add intercept (and therefore fail to block).
> B would announce (table would announce?) that Kite has failed to
> block, which would be an event, and therefore A would have the next
> chance to play an effect before B could attempt to block with another
> minion.
B typically announces that Kite fails to block when B passes.
Kite only *really* fails to block when the rest of the table declines to
make the attempt succeed (by reducing the acing minion's stealth or adding
to Kite's intercept, for example).
Brian
> Brian wrote:
> > A [attempts to call] a [referendum] with Lucita.
> > A passes.
> > B (prey of A) attempts to block with Kite with a BoC (which triggers).
> > It is still B's opportunity to play an effect (such as add intercept)
> > because neither attempting to block nor triggering BoC are events, so
> > B passes.
>
> Aside:
> Attempting to block is an event. In theory, Lucita could play Elder
> Impersonation to cancel the block attempt before Kite could play
> any while-blocking effects. But this is a corner case - usually the
> blocker-needing-intercept simply plays his intercept "at the same
> time" that the block attempt is announced.
So when your prey announces a block attempt, you can play Faceless
Night to tap their blocker, and since they're still attempting to
block, play Elder Impersonation before they can play an effect? If
so, Elder Impersonation just got more useful.
> Assume: A passes and then B passes.
>
> > C may either add intercept to Kite or pass.
> > If C adds intercept, that would be an event, and it would be A's turn
> > to play an effect.
> > If C passes, it goes to D and then E. If they pass, Kite would fail
> > to add intercept (and therefore fail to block).
> > B would announce (table would announce?) that Kite has failed to
> > block, which would be an event, and therefore A would have the next
> > chance to play an effect before B could attempt to block with another
> > minion.
>
> B typically announces that Kite fails to block when B passes.
> Kite only *really* fails to block when the rest of the table declines to
> make the attempt succeed (by reducing the acing minion's stealth or adding
> to Kite's intercept, for example).
And when the rest of the table declines, Kite's attempt fails, future
Faceless Nights will not affect him (unless he again attempts to
block), another minion may be chosen to attempt to block, and it is
A's turn to play an effect?
-- Brian
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Attempting to block is an event. In theory, Lucita could play Elder
> > Impersonation to cancel the block attempt before Kite could play
> > any while-blocking effects. But this is a corner case - usually the
> > blocker-needing-intercept simply plays his intercept "at the same
> > time" that the block attempt is announced.
>
> So when your prey announces a block attempt, you can play Faceless
> Night to tap their blocker, and since they're still attempting to
> block, play Elder Impersonation before they can play an effect?
Correct.
> > B typically announces that Kite fails to block when B passes.
> > Kite only *really* fails to block when the rest of the table declines to
> > make the attempt succeed (by reducing the acing minion's stealth or adding
> > to Kite's intercept, for example).
>
> And when the rest of the table declines, Kite's attempt fails, future
> Faceless Nights will not affect him (unless he again attempts to
> block), another minion may be chosen to attempt to block, and it is
> A's turn to play an effect?
Correct.
Joshua Duffin
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02072...@posting.google.com...
>
> So when your prey announces a block attempt, you can play Faceless
> Night to tap their blocker, and since they're still attempting to
> block, play Elder Impersonation before they can play an effect? If
> so, Elder Impersonation just got more useful.
I'm not clear on how this makes Elder Impersonation "more" useful?
If the blocking Meth was able to play an effect before the acting
Meth, how would that make Elder Impersonation less useful? Just
in that the blocking Meth could declare the block unsuccessful
and so not allow the acting Meth to cycle the EI?
Josh
rule of thumb: it's always A's turn next
Brian
> > Night to tap their blocker, and since they're still attempting to
> > block, play Elder Impersonation before they can play an effect? If
> > so, Elder Impersonation just got more useful.
>
> I'm not clear on how this makes Elder Impersonation "more" useful?
> If the blocking Meth was able to play an effect before the acting
> Meth, how would that make Elder Impersonation less useful? Just
> in that the blocking Meth could declare the block unsuccessful
> and so not allow the acting Meth to cycle the EI?
Yes. I never thought you could play one to make their block
unsuccessful unless their block was otherwise going to be successful.
I suppose I read that one in myself, eh?
> rule of thumb: it's always A's turn next
I know, but I was confused by the previous LSJ response:
Me:
> All I can think of is, declaring your block unsuccessful isn't
> announced by B, it is announced by everyone in consensus, because when
> everyone passes on an unsuccessful block attempt, it fails, and then
> you move to the next minion who attempts to block (or B declares he
> does not wish to block). Everyone passing makes the block fail, which
> is an event (although nobody specific declared it), and the chance to
> play effects passes back to A, before the action is unblocked.
>
> Is the above correct?
LSJ:
All except th passing back to A.
I said after the block fails, the chance to play effects passes back
to A, he said that part was incorrect.
In his most recent post, he states that when the block fails, it DOES
pass back to A, so I'm going to disregard what he wrote (reposted
above).
Can you make sense of this?
-- Brian
Xian
> I said after the block fails, the chance to play effects passes back
> to A, he said that part was incorrect.
Actually, you said "and the chance to play effects passes back to A, before the
action is unblocked."
I believe that LSJ was saying that there is no further chance to play effects
**before the action is unblocked**. After the block fails, the action, is by
definition, unblocked. A *now* has a chance to play further effects, but he
cannot play pre-block effects (of which there are few that matter, Kiss of Ra
being one of them, but it requires an attempted block).
Xian
LSJ
Correct.
Brian
I thought "going unblocked" was different from "block fails". How
does one communicate an action being entirely unblocked (ie too late
for B to choose another blocker)? When A calls a vote, and B attempts
to block with Kite but Kite's block fails, the action has not gone
unblocked; Kite merely failed to block. The action may be blocked by
another minion.
Before the action has gone unblocked, the chance to play effects DOES
pass back to A, given my terminology is correct.
See, there's "Action is not currently being blocked",
and then there's "Action is no longer blockable because B declined".
Is there an easier way to say either of these?
Is "Unblocked" even a game term?
-- Brian
Posting under another screen name
It's still me, though.
Xian
> Xian wrote:
> > I believe that LSJ was saying that there is no further chance to play
effects
> > **before the action is unblocked**. After the block fails, the action, is
by
> > definition, unblocked. A *now* has a chance to play further effects, but he
> > cannot play pre-block effects (of which there are few that matter, Kiss of
Ra
> > being one of them, but it requires an attempted block).
> >
>
"Block fails" typically refers to a specific minion being unable to block, due
to Call of the Hungry Dead or something. Some people also say it when they can
no longer gain enough intercept with the currently blocking minion, but I
believe that many players tend to avoid this terminology. (For example, I would
say instead, "...and Kite doesn't gain any more intercept." Or something along
those lines.)
> does one communicate an action being entirely unblocked (ie too late
> for B to choose another blocker)? When A calls a vote, and B attempts
> to block with Kite but Kite's block fails, the action has not gone
> unblocked; Kite merely failed to block. The action may be blocked by
> another minion.
That is up to methuselah B. Generally, I hear B say, "I decline to block." Or,
"I fail to block." It's never 'too late' for B to choose another blocker until
B says so.
> Before the action has gone unblocked, the chance to play effects DOES
> pass back to A, given my terminology is correct.
A takes an action, and uses 'as action is announced' modifiers.
B attempts to block, and plays necessary reaction cards.
A plays further action modifier.
B plays further reaction card.
etc.
If, at any point, A has a chance to play a further action modifier, but
declines, then A is done playing action modifiers.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with your statement above. Yes, during
bleeding, after B declines to block, you have a space to play Conditioning.
However, this gives B a chance to play other reaction cards, such as Deflection.
Is that what you're getting at?
> See, there's "Action is not currently being blocked",
> and then there's "Action is no longer blockable because B declined".
The space between these two is very short, generally.
> Is there an easier way to say either of these?
"Kite fails to block, but Lazvernius here would like to." (Failling to block
with one vampire does not mean that the chance to block has been declined.)
"I decline to block." (And therefore, may no longer do so.)
> Is "Unblocked" even a game term?
I don't know if it is specifically defined in the rulebook. OTOH, blocking and
failing to block is in there, so some form of block/unblocked *should* be in the
rulebook.
Xian