LSJ: Q - Timing
The Plenipotentiary
It is with regards to timing of action mods. and reactions - when to
play these cards.
Situation is: Player A declares a bleed against Player B, who in turn
declines to block Player A. Player A then proceeds to play an action
modifier on his now unblocked bleed increasing the bleed. Player B now
wants to use a deflection in response to the action modifier just played
by Player A ... is this legal? Or should Player B in turn decline to
block and decline to play reactions such as Deflection or Telepathic
Misdirection - then allowing the acting vampire to play action mods.???
Thanks in advance!
Claus Staal
Prince of Copenhagen
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
<c...@mbureauet.dk> wrote:
>This question always seems to pop up at least once during a game.
>It is with regards to timing of action mods. and reactions - when to
>play these cards.
>
>Situation is: Player A declares a bleed against Player B, who in turn
>declines to block Player A. Player A then proceeds to play an action
>modifier on his now unblocked bleed increasing the bleed. Player B now
>wants to use a deflection in response to the action modifier just played
>by Player A ... is this legal?
Absolutely. He just cannot attempt to block now that he has declined.
>Or should Player B in turn decline to
>block and decline to play reactions such as Deflection or Telepathic
>Misdirection - then allowing the acting vampire to play action mods.???
>
Nope, see;
6.2.2. Resolve Any Block Attempts
Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block,
that decision is final.
Note that declining to block does not prevent a Methuselah from
playing reaction cards later during the action.
Jozxyqk
> Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block,
> that decision is final.
> Note that declining to block does not prevent a Methuselah from
> playing reaction cards later during the action.
A followup question to this one:
Player A declares a bleed against Player B.
Player B declines to block.
Player A then plays Conditioning.
Can Player C play Eagle's Sight and block at this time?
I'd say yes, since Player C never explicitly declined to block.
LSJ
Yes.
Note also that current ruling/errata from [TOM 06-JAN-1996] allows
a Methuselah to use Eagle's Sight to block after declining to block
in her normal position in the rotation (but can still be thwarted if
the acting Methuselah asks for "all other blocking attempts" - it's
not clear how the sequencing is handled for this "after everything"
effect vs. Anneke's "after everything" effect). That oddity is
currently on the RT list for review.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Rodrigo Diaz
Jyhad...
A doubt is nagging me: block attempt vs Faceless Night
If I do not have enough intercept Vs. a bleed attempt, I take I could
still be able to play a deflection with an untapped vampire that
wasn't able to block because of the faceless night. Right?
Thanks
Rod
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C95F4E5...@white-wolf.com>...
LSJ
Sure.
Faceless Night only bothers blockers. Even then, the would-be
blocker isn't tapped until later, and could still play
deflection.
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
>Sure.
>Faceless Night only bothers blockers. Even then, the would-be
>blocker isn't tapped until later, and could still play
>deflection.
Er what?!
minion announces action and taps
blocker announces attempted block
minion stealths FN
blocker fails (without intercept) and is tapped
I see no room between attempting to blcok and resolving that attempt
where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
Lets not strengthen bounce decks any further please, without a very
good reason.
T
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:52:54 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >Sure.
> >Faceless Night only bothers blockers. Even then, the would-be
> >blocker isn't tapped until later, and could still play
> >deflection.
>
> Er what?!
>
> minion announces action and taps
> blocker announces attempted block
> minion stealths FN
> blocker fails (without intercept) and is tapped
>
> I see no room between attempting to blcok and resolving that attempt
> where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
> doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
No.
FN doesn't tap him at the end of "that attempt".
It taps him when his Methuselah declares "I don't block" (or when
a block is successful). [LSJ 02-MAY-1999]
That is, when it becomes clear that the minion won't block.
Xian
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9c3acb.2537728@news...
> Lets not strengthen bounce decks any further please, without a very
> good reason.
"Strengthen bounce decks"?? What sort of crack are you talking? Do decks
that *just* bounce exist in your neck of the woods? What do they do when
they happen upon vote decks? Or rush combat?
Dude, the rules have been as LSJ explains, like...forever. "Bounce decks"
don't rule the game, if they even exist as such.
Xian
Wes
> where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
> doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
Think of it this way:
Would the blocking vampire have room to play more intercept cards?
If so, why not other reaction cards?
Cheers,
WES
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:52:54 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sure.
>> >Faceless Night only bothers blockers. Even then, the would-be
>> >blocker isn't tapped until later, and could still play
>> >deflection.
>>
>> Er what?!
>>
>> minion announces action and taps
>> blocker announces attempted block
>> minion stealths FN
>> blocker fails (without intercept) and is tapped
>>
>> I see no room between attempting to blcok and resolving that attempt
>> where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
>> doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
>
>No.
>
>FN doesn't tap him at the end of "that attempt".
>It taps him when his Methuselah declares "I don't block" (or when
>a block is successful). [LSJ 02-MAY-1999]
>That is, when it becomes clear that the minion won't block.
>
>
What a bizarre card change that is. Even so, the blocker has already
declared an attempted block. As FN is played, it will tap him if he
blocks or not. There is no mechanism for changing your mind once you
have declared a block so FN should tap him immediately after it is
played, unless the blocker can somehow find some more intercept.
There is simply no room for the deflection by that same minion.
Please show me how this is somehow false.
T
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
>
><Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9c3acb.2537728@news...
>> Lets not strengthen bounce decks any further please, without a very
>> good reason.
>
>"Strengthen bounce decks"?? What sort of crack are you talking? Do decks
>that *just* bounce exist in your neck of the woods? What do they do when
>they happen upon vote decks? Or rush combat?
>
The same thing other decks do. Either fight hard, end combat/prevent
damage, or intercept/outvote.
>Dude, the rules have been as LSJ explains, like...forever. "Bounce decks"
>don't rule the game, if they even exist as such.
>
Bounce is incredibly strong, and the only way around it currently is
spying mission (OBF only) or perfect clarity. Or card denial, but
that is pre-emptive rather than reactive and nowhere near as
effecient.
T
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>
><Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9c3acb.2537728@news...
>>
>> I see no room between attempting to blcok and resolving that attempt
>> where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
>> doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
>
>Think of it this way:
>
>Would the blocking vampire have room to play more intercept cards?
Yes, because he must resolve the block attempt.
>
>If so, why not other reaction cards?
>
As above. If he fails the block attempt he is tapped as the FN is
played first.
T
Chris Berger
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9a5cb2.11218224@news...
B attempts to block.
A plays Faceless Night.
B can play Enhanced Senses at this point to gain intercept, right? If he was
tapped here, he could not, since you must be untapped to play reaction cards.
Therefore, B is not tapped until his block attempt officially fails. Instead
of playing Enhanced Senses, he plays Deflection.
Chris Berger
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9c5dd8.11512680@news...
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:38:10 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9c3acb.2537728@news...
> >>
> >> I see no room between attempting to blcok and resolving that attempt
> >> where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
> >> doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
> >
> >Think of it this way:
> >
> >Would the blocking vampire have room to play more intercept cards?
>
> Yes, because he must resolve the block attempt.
>
along? There's no rule against playing non-intercept reaction cards when
you're attempting to block. You don't fail to block until you say you do, or
can't play any more effects. For a parallel... when you are bleeding and a
minion attempts to block, you can play bleed modifiers to attempt to cycle to
your stealth. You don't have to "resolve the block attempt."
LSJ
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:45:14 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:52:54 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sure.
> >> >Faceless Night only bothers blockers. Even then, the would-be
> >> >blocker isn't tapped until later, and could still play
> >> >deflection.
> >>
> >> Er what?!
> >>
> >> minion announces action and taps
> >> blocker announces attempted block
> >> minion stealths FN
> >> blocker fails (without intercept) and is tapped
> >>
> >> I see no room between attempting to blcok and resolving that attempt
> >> where he can play defelctions. You must resolve the block before
> >> doing anything else, and in this case that taps the blocker.
> >
> >No.
> >
> >FN doesn't tap him at the end of "that attempt".
> >It taps him when his Methuselah declares "I don't block" (or when
> >a block is successful). [LSJ 02-MAY-1999]
> >That is, when it becomes clear that the minion won't block.
> >
> >
>
> What a bizarre card change that is.
No change.
> Even so, the blocker has already
> declared an attempted block. As FN is played, it will tap him if he
> blocks or not. There is no mechanism for changing your mind once you
> have declared a block so FN should tap him immediately after it is
> played, unless the blocker can somehow find some more intercept.
If it did so, the blocker would be unable to "find more intercept",
and indeed, would be unable to block at all, since playing reaction
cards and blocking requires an untapped minion.
> There is simply no room for the deflection by that same minion.
> Please show me how this is somehow false.
See my previous post.
FN taps him only when it becomes clear that he will not block this
action. He is free to allow others to try (before re-attempting himself),
to continue trying himself, or to play other reaction cards until that time.
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
See it seems obvious to me that in response to FN, his only option is
1-play intercept to continue the block process
2-fail to block, and become tapped
That is the effect of FN.
T
CurtAdams
>See it seems obvious to me that in response to FN, his only option is
>1-play intercept to continue the block process
>2-fail to block, and become tapped
>That is the effect of FN.
There's no restriction on playing non-intercept reaction cards
during a blocking attempt. FN has no text to add such a restriction;
so the blocking process is not changed.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
>>
>> What a bizarre card change that is.
>
>No change.
Argh!! Now that I've found this text you are referring to how can you
not call that a card change???? The original FN (and unreprinted in
any format to my knowledge);
"+1 stealth. A vampire that attempts to block this action is tapped,
whether or not the block is successful."
That is HUGELY different from the current text as shown on the
cardtext listing;
" +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}-."
That is a functional change. It now doesnt tap anybody, successfully
blocking or not, until someone does block or the action is successful.
The old version was immediate, and only allowed for a continued
attempt to block (intercept) before the tapping effect. The new one
is not.
Hurah.
Yet another card effect screwed by BS logic and useless erratta.
T
LSJ
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:42:27 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What a bizarre card change that is.
> >
> >No change.
>
> Argh!! Now that I've found this text you are referring to how can you
> not call that a card change???? The original FN (and unreprinted in
> any format to my knowledge);
>
> "+1 stealth. A vampire that attempts to block this action is tapped,
> whether or not the block is successful."
>
> That is HUGELY different from the current text as shown on the
> cardtext listing;
>
> " +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}-."
>
> That is a functional change. It now doesnt tap anybody, successfully
> blocking or not, until someone does block or the action is successful.
... because that's when you find out if the would-be blocker has
blocked the action or not. Before that time, the would-be blocker
may still block the action.
No functional change.
> The old version was immediate, and only allowed for a continued
> attempt to block (intercept) before the tapping effect. The new one
> is not.
The "old" version was not immediate, as has been explained
vis a vis playing intercept reaction cards (and other reaction
cards) and being able to block in general.
> Hurah.
>
> Yet another card effect screwed by BS logic and useless erratta.
No errata.
Xian
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c9b5d71.11409045@news...[what do "bounce decks" do in response to vote, combat, etc.]
> The same thing other decks do. Either fight hard, end combat/prevent
> damage, or intercept/outvote.
So these bounce decks have a mystical solution for every other deck style
imaginable? Wow, I gotta get me some of that juju. Why don't you post a
decklist?
> Bounce is incredibly strong, and the only way around it currently is
Only against heavy bleed.
> spying mission (OBF only) or perfect clarity. Or card denial, but
Or weenie bleed, or Change of Target/Red Herring (potentially), or
Contingency Plans...
Or hey! You could do something aside from bleeding!
Xian
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com
wrote:
>Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:42:27 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> What a bizarre card change that is.
>> >
>> >No change.
>>
>> Argh!! Now that I've found this text you are referring to how can you
>> not call that a card change???? The original FN (and unreprinted in
>> any format to my knowledge);
>>
>> "+1 stealth. A vampire that attempts to block this action is tapped,
>> whether or not the block is successful."
>>
>> That is HUGELY different from the current text as shown on the
>> cardtext listing;
>>
>> " +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}-."
>>
>> That is a functional change. It now doesnt tap anybody, successfully
>> blocking or not, until someone does block or the action is successful.
>
>... because that's when you find out if the would-be blocker has
>blocked the action or not. Before that time, the would-be blocker
>may still block the action.
>
>No functional change.
Not according to 6.2.2
"If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the
blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any
further attempts to block, that decision is final. "
If a block attempt fails, its clear that the meth can make further
attempts with other minions. That means that the old FN did tap the
first failed blocker before other attempts.
T
Chris Berger
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c9fcd02.302158454@news...
block once and only once. And FN says nothing (explicitly) about when you
determine if he's failed. Since it can only be apparent that a minion has
failed to block *after* a methuselah declares no more block attempts, that is
when FN's effect kicks in, at the same time that Forced Awakening decides if
you have failed to block (the difference being that FN requires that you have
*attempted* to block before tapping you, while FA makes no such provision).
You don't seem to have a grasp of the rules of this game. Maybe you should
figure out basic turn sequencing and *then* come back and argue finer points of
timing.
Halcyan 2
>to
>block once and only once. And FN says nothing (explicitly) about when you
>determine if he's failed. Since it can only be apparent that a minion has
>failed to block *after* a methuselah declares no more block attempts, that is
>when FN's effect kicks in, at the same time that Forced Awakening decides if
>you have failed to block (the difference being that FN requires that you have
>*attempted* to block before tapping you, while FA makes no such provision).
>
And don't forget there's always the corner-case of where you fail to block with
Vampire A (who is FN'ed or FA's), you successfully block with Vampire B, you
cycle a few cards and the acting minion Forms of Mist. You're cycling gives you
enough intercept to allow Vampire A to block so he did end up blocking in the
end.
Halcyan 2