few q's from the last tournament [LSJ]
Henrik Isaksson
from the bleed before he have to pay for govern or does the action fizzle?
2. gabrin is blocked by someone with an ivorybow. blocker wants to strike with ivory bow and play
rötschrek. Can Gabrin play that mayapatparptapta card on inferior to save himself? And if he can,
how early must he play it?
3. does ankara citadel reduce the cost of magic of the smith if the citadel is brought into play
with the MotS?
4. Just to check: Kyoko can't hunt freak drive hunt, righ?
5. Lazverinus (acting) with superior masochism (no counters) and one blood torporizes opposing
minion with his strike. Takes one damage. Will he get two counters he'll eventually get on masochism
early enough to play his decapitate, or is the timing wrong in any way?
--
/Henrik Isaksson
LSJ
> 1. If a vampire with capitalist and one blood bleeds with govern+conditioning, does he get the blood
> from the bleed before he have to pay for govern or does the action fizzle?
Fizzles. You have to pay for the action in order to resolve it. A fizzled
bleed is not a successful bleed.
> 2. gabrin is blocked by someone with an ivorybow. blocker wants to strike with ivory bow and play
> rötschrek. Can Gabrin play that mayapatparptapta card on inferior to save himself? And if he can,
> how early must he play it?
Mayaparisatya.
He would have to play it before the Rötschreck is played.
> 3. does ankara citadel reduce the cost of magic of the smith if the citadel is brought into play
> with the MotS?
No.
> 4. Just to check: Kyoko can't hunt freak drive hunt, righ?
Correct. Kyoko is a card in play. The action her card text provides is an
action provided by a card in play.
> 5. Lazverinus (acting) with superior masochism (no counters) and one blood torporizes opposing
> minion with his strike. Takes one damage. Will he get two counters he'll eventually get on masochism
> early enough to play his decapitate, or is the timing wrong in any way?
The first counter comes when the damage is done, so that's not an issue.
The second (superior Masochism) counter comes at the end of the round, so
can be used for other "end of the round" effects, like Decapitate, sure.
--
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/
Derek Ray
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>> 2. gabrin is blocked by someone with an ivorybow. blocker wants to strike with ivory bow and play
>> rötschrek. Can Gabrin play that mayapatparptapta card on inferior to save himself? And if he can,
>> how early must he play it?
>
>Mayaparisatya.
>He would have to play it before the Rötschreck is played.
Isn't there a timing issue here?
- Acting minion declares strike (pants for 1)
- Opposing minion declares strike (Ivory Bow for 1)
- Under current rules, acting minion has the opportunity to play
Mayaparisatya before blocking minion can play Rotschreck, because the
acting minion ALWAYS has first option.
However, this sets up a game of Snap and accusations, doesn't it? Right
now, blocking minions typically play Rotschreck immediately with their
strike, satisfying card text, since Rotschreck must be played during the
"attempt" to use aggravated damage. By the same token, the acting
minion needs to play Mayaparisatya BEFORE he knows if the blocking
minion is going to play Rotschreck -- and he might choose not to do so
because he has something else in hand (say, Fortitude prevent) and wants
to save the strike card.
What likely will happen is this:
- Acting minion declares strike (pants for 1)
- Opposing minion declares strike (Ivory Bow for 1) and plays Rotschreck
immediately (c.
- Acting minion says "ah-ah, I get first option", and plays
Mayaparisatya at inferior.
- Loud arguments ensue about whether or not the acting minion would've
played it if he hadn't seen the Rotschreck, and whether or not the
blocking minion gave him any time to do so, or if the blocking minion is
even supposed to pause for three long seconds during which the acting
minion must say "I decline to play any pre-strike-resolution cards".
This is going to be a semi-rare scenario at the moment, of course. But
Rotschreck is the culprit here, and will continue to be a thorn as more
cards are printed; perhaps there is already a ruling (or should be one)
saying that Master: Out-of-Turn cards are not subject to normal
acting/reacting timing restrictions?
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
Halcyan 2
>
>Correct. Kyoko is a card in play. The action her card text provides is an
>action provided by a card in play.
>
Note that Kyoko can hunt multiple times (after a Freak Drive) if other cards in
play allow her to. CI'ing to Ravnos while a Week of Nightmares is in play or
having a Legacy of Caine placed on her (after upping her capacity) would allow
her to hunt with her special once and then hunt once with each of those other
means.
Halcyan 2
Henrik Isaksson
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i meddelandet news:3FEE08C9...@white-wolf.com...
> Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> > 3. does ankara citadel reduce the cost of magic of the smith if the citadel is brought into play
> > with the MotS?
>
> No.
Hmm, so you don't think that the citadel is on the acting minion when it's time to pay the cost for
the MotS? When exactly do you play for the MotS?
I thought it was something like this:
{ take MotS action
{search for AC
pay for AC}
pay for MotS}
/henrik isaksson
Henrik Isaksson
news:av6suvk5ojnj2lnir...@4ax.com...
> In message <3FEE08C9...@white-wolf.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>
> >> 2. gabrin is blocked by someone with an ivorybow. blocker wants to strike with ivory bow and
play
> >> rötschrek. Can Gabrin play that mayapatparptapta card on inferior to save himself? And if he
can,
> >> how early must he play it?
> >
> >Mayaparisatya.
> >He would have to play it before the Rötschreck is played.
>
> Isn't there a timing issue here?
>
> - Acting minion declares strike (pants for 1)
> - Opposing minion declares strike (Ivory Bow for 1)
> - Under current rules, acting minion has the opportunity to play
> Mayaparisatya before blocking minion can play Rotschreck, because the
> acting minion ALWAYS has first option.
> However, this sets up a game of Snap and accusations, doesn't it?
Yes it does, and that was exactly what happened at last tournament. It sucks to have another almost
non-existant phase you have to ask specificly for.
"Any start of combat? Any pre range? Any maneuver? Any pre strikes? Any after strikedeclaration but
before strike resoltion effects?"
Gonna take a long time to resolve each combat if I have to ask all these questions each combat... =)
--
/Henrik Isaksson
The Lasombra
<hen...@nissamedia.net> wrote:
>Hmm, so you don't think that the citadel is on the acting minion when it's time to pay the cost for
>the MotS?
No.
>When exactly do you play for the MotS?
>I thought it was something like this:
>{ take MotS action
If unblocked, pay for it, then
>{search for AC
>pay for AC}
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
LSJ
> In message <3FEE08C9...@white-wolf.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>
>
>>>2. gabrin is blocked by someone with an ivorybow. blocker wants to strike with ivory bow and play
>>>rötschrek. Can Gabrin play that mayapatparptapta card on inferior to save himself? And if he can,
>>>how early must he play it?
>>
>>Mayaparisatya.
>>He would have to play it before the Rötschreck is played.
>
>
> Isn't there a timing issue here?
Depends on what you mean by "issue".
There is here, as most places, an application of the "timing" (i.e.
sequencing) rules specified in 1.6.1.6., yes.
> - Acting minion declares strike (pants for 1)
> - Opposing minion declares strike (Ivory Bow for 1)
> - Under current rules, acting minion has the opportunity to play
> Mayaparisatya before blocking minion can play Rotschreck, because the
> acting minion ALWAYS has first option.
Right.
> However, this sets up a game of Snap and accusations, doesn't it? Right
No.
See also Immortal Grapple.
> now, blocking minions typically play Rotschreck immediately with their
> strike, satisfying card text, since Rotschreck must be played during the
> "attempt" to use aggravated damage. By the same token, the acting
That would also trample all over the ability to Direct Intervention a Burst
of Sunlight strike declaration. Bad play is bad play. If you trample over
someone's opportunity to play, then back up and give them their
opportunity.
> minion needs to play Mayaparisatya BEFORE he knows if the blocking
> minion is going to play Rotschreck -- and he might choose not to do so
> because he has something else in hand (say, Fortitude prevent) and wants
> to save the strike card.
Yes.
> What likely will happen is this:
>
> - Acting minion declares strike (pants for 1)
> - Opposing minion declares strike (Ivory Bow for 1) and plays Rotschreck
> immediately (c.
Bad play.
> - Acting minion says "ah-ah, I get first option", and plays
> Mayaparisatya at inferior.
Yes.
> - Loud arguments ensue about whether or not the acting minion would've
> played it if he hadn't seen the Rotschreck, and whether or not the
> blocking minion gave him any time to do so, or if the blocking minion is
> even supposed to pause for three long seconds during which the acting
> minion must say "I decline to play any pre-strike-resolution cards".
Arguments handled succinctly by pointing out the timing rules in 1.6.1.6.
> This is going to be a semi-rare scenario at the moment, of course. But
> Rotschreck is the culprit here, and will continue to be a thorn as more
> cards are printed; perhaps there is already a ruling (or should be one)
> saying that Master: Out-of-Turn cards are not subject to normal
> acting/reacting timing restrictions?
See also Direct Intervention, The Jones, Immortal Grapple, etc.
Derek Ray
>That would also trample all over the ability to Direct Intervention a Burst
>of Sunlight strike declaration. Bad play is bad play. If you trample over
>someone's opportunity to play, then back up and give them their
>opportunity.
The identical problem exists with Direct Intervention, and in fact
aggravates the issue beyond what I had originally expected.
Say I am holding a Skin of Rock and a DI in hand, and the blocking
minion strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Look at all the pause-and-waits
that need to happen now, in order to avoid trampling someone's
opportunity to play and ALSO in order to avoid giving out extra
information?
-- The blocking minion MUST pause and wait before playing Rotschreck,
just in case I want to DI the Burst, even though he doesn't know if I
have DI in hand OR even in my deck. The act of either prompting me "any
pre-strike resolution cards?" or playing the Rotshreck reveals the
information that he has Rotschreck in hand, allowing me to ex-post-facto
DI the card, so he has to sit quietly.
-- I MUST pause and wait to see if he plays Rotschreck before playing my
prevent, even though I don't know if he's going to play Rotschreck and
it might not even occur to me that he has one in his deck. If I choose
to move on to the next phase by attempting to play a prevent card, he
knows that he needs to play Rotschreck, and can do so by simply saying
"I was waiting to make sure you weren't going to DI the Burst; you
trampled my opportunity to play".
-- Both of us are now sitting quietly and waiting because we can't
proceed without revealing critical information.
This unnecessarily creates situations for confusion and arguments to
occur, and is a very bad thing. I know it's logical to you, and I can
certainly interpret things appropriately, but at the same time, most of
the players out there don't think as pure-logically as you do. Think of
all the procedural errors you've seen in casual games in your travels?
Clearly, the timing rules need reworking with respect to Out-of-Turn
Masters and how they affect the normal timing rules -- specifically
Direct Intervention and Rotschreck, both of which are played in a
super-small time window which is bypassed 99% of the time. (And while
we're at it, the recent Australia tournament record features a 15-minute
argument that is ended by someone playing DI on the action card. WHAT?
Come ON. DI reads "cancel a card as it is played", not "Cancel a card
within 15 minutes of its initial play, assuming the debate doesn't go
your way.")
Otherwise, I see no alternative; I must take a 5-second pause after
every card and ask "Does anyone DI -this- card?" in order to avoid
revealing action modifiers (especially things like Seduction) that I
would otherwise not prefer to have people know I have in my hand. Plus,
I have to do it for EVERY card in order to not tip my hand that there's
something special about any particular individual card.
>> minion needs to play Mayaparisatya BEFORE he knows if the blocking
>> - Loud arguments ensue about whether or not the acting minion would've
>> played it if he hadn't seen the Rotschreck, and whether or not the
>> blocking minion gave him any time to do so, or if the blocking minion is
>> even supposed to pause for three long seconds during which the acting
>> minion must say "I decline to play any pre-strike-resolution cards".
>
>Arguments handled succinctly by pointing out the timing rules in 1.6.1.6.
You and I both know that this isn't going to happen, though. It will
just make a bigger argument, and now the judge is involved.
What if the blocker paused for 3 seconds and then said "and I play
Rotschreck?" Is that long enough for the acting minion to have the
opportunity to play Mayaparisatya? No judge can make an effective
ruling on this -- see above for the quandary the poor blocking minion is
in. Someone has to jump first, and right now nobody CAN, per the timing
rules in 1.6.1.6.
Should the acting minion be allowed to think as long as he wants,
without giving any sign that he might have a card to play that would
change the outcome? What if the acting minion is Gael Pilet and it's a
Daughters deck with exactly one Mayaparisatya in the whole thing? How
can the blocking minion be expected to EXPECT that sort of thing? There
isn't any pre-strike-resolution card that Gael can play out of her other
disciplines that will affect the Ivory Bow -- what then? The blocking
minion is surely correct to simply play Rotschreck with his strike, in
the interest of moving the game along -- unless you want him to wait and
say 'do you play Mayaparisatya on THIS strike?' every time he faces a
minion like Danielle Diron.
Should we have to enumerate every single possible phase of the game
verbally? "I don't play anything after strikes but before strike
resolution, do you?" The game is already too long as it is.
Halcyan 2
>aggravates the issue beyond what I had originally expected.
>
>Say I am holding a Skin of Rock and a DI in hand, and the blocking
>minion strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Look at all the pause-and-waits
>that need to happen now, in order to avoid trampling someone's
>opportunity to play and ALSO in order to avoid giving out extra
>information?
I agree that timing can be problematic at times, but I think to some degree,
it's unavoidable. Similar situations against with Heidelberg Castle. Or cards
like Dreams of the Sphinx and The Barrens.
Generally I don't think it's a problem but when it does, I do think that it
causes the "accusation" problem you mentioned. My best solution is that you
tailor your response to the particular situation. For example, against most
decks I wouldn't bother asking for "post manuever, pre-strike" but if the
opposing vampire has Potence I might specifically ask about an IG. Similarly,
for weapon decks I might want to specifically ask any Mytherceria vampires and
now also Chimerstry vampires if they want to play something.
Occasionally, when I want to do something special during a Master phase or
minion phase I might specifically ask if anyone else wants to use any special
effects. (Thus if they pass, I then take the action to burn the Heidelberg or
ToGP some vamp).
I think DI would be more problematic since it does indeed create a window where
you constantly have to ask if a card will be canceled. Then again, combat with
Watenda could also produce the same result.
Halcyan 2
Tim Eijpe
>
> Say I am holding a Skin of Rock and a DI in hand, and the blocking
> minion strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Look at all the pause-and-waits
> that need to happen now, in order to avoid trampling someone's
> opportunity to play and ALSO in order to avoid giving out extra
> information?
>
> -- The blocking minion MUST pause and wait before playing Rotschreck,
> just in case I want to DI the Burst, even though he doesn't know if I
> have DI in hand OR even in my deck.
[snip]
Hmn aren't we forgetting the tiny fact that both Rotschreck and DI are
OOT masters? Since the blocking minion has a Rotschreck, it means
you're controlling the acting minion which implies you cannot play DI
as it is your turn.
There is no timing problem unless you are sitting crosstable in
whichcase your Skin or Rock will do nothing.
Tim
Halcyan 2
>OOT masters? Since the blocking minion has a Rotschreck, it means
>you're controlling the acting minion which implies you cannot play DI
>as it is your turn.
Well let's say you're playing Malkavian OOT rush combat (not that uncommon
actually). So you're rushing someone during a different player's turn (thus
allowing you to play OOT masters).
Halcyan 2
John Flournoy
I think I'd disagree that it's 'not that uncommon' - I've seen a
variety of Malk OOT decks over the years, and I've never seen one
built around rush. I'm not certain I've ever even read a tourney/game
report that mentioned one being played! It's almost always built
around OOT voting to snipe weakened preys, or (these days)
Rachel/Homonculous bleed-you-on-everybody's-turn or occasionally
'Baltimore Purge during my predator's turn to set it off instantly.'
But yeah, if you're ultra-corner-casing a rush action using the
Madness Network, then yes, you can play DI during your action.
> Halcyan 2
-John Flournoy
Derek Ray
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) mumbled something about:
>>minion strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Look at all the pause-and-waits
>>that need to happen now, in order to avoid trampling someone's
>>opportunity to play and ALSO in order to avoid giving out extra
>>information?
>
>I agree that timing can be problematic at times, but I think to some degree,
>it's unavoidable. Similar situations against with Heidelberg Castle. Or cards
>like Dreams of the Sphinx and The Barrens.
Not QUITE the same, as Dreams and Barrens are tap-anytime and only
affect yourself, not another player. Heidelberg does have the timing
restriction, but Heidelberg is a known piece of information -- it can
only be used when it's on the table already. Also, I generally warn
Heidelberg players who like to shuffle things around that they need to
be alert, and while I won't hurry my turn to deliberately deny them the
ability to use Heidelberg, they DO need to be awake at the switch.
>tailor your response to the particular situation. For example, against most
>decks I wouldn't bother asking for "post manuever, pre-strike" but if the
>opposing vampire has Potence I might specifically ask about an IG. Similarly,
>for weapon decks I might want to specifically ask any Mytherceria vampires and
>now also Chimerstry vampires if they want to play something.
But this doesn't change that the act of asking the question still tips
my hand that something is about to happen.
>Occasionally, when I want to do something special during a Master phase or
>minion phase I might specifically ask if anyone else wants to use any special
>effects. (Thus if they pass, I then take the action to burn the Heidelberg or
>ToGP some vamp).
And this still doesn't change that the act of asking that question tips
my hand that something unusual is about to happen.
I know that when someone asks weird out-of-the-blue questions like that,
I tell them to hold up, and leisurely assess the situation, with my mind
open for possibilities I haven't seen. It's like they're saying "OK,
you could fuck up what I'm about to do but I'm hoping to sneak it by,
will you let me sneak it by?"
>I think DI would be more problematic since it does indeed create a window where
>you constantly have to ask if a card will be canceled. Then again, combat with
>Watenda could also produce the same result.
Watenda can only do his thing once per combat, and Watenda is
known-information -- there's no way to conceal his ability.
Derek Ray
time...@mail.com (Tim Eijpe) mumbled something about:
>[snip]
>>
>> Say I am holding a Skin of Rock and a DI in hand, and the blocking
>> minion strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Look at all the pause-and-waits
>> that need to happen now, in order to avoid trampling someone's
>> opportunity to play and ALSO in order to avoid giving out extra
>> information?
>>
>> -- The blocking minion MUST pause and wait before playing Rotschreck,
>> just in case I want to DI the Burst, even though he doesn't know if I
>> have DI in hand OR even in my deck.
>
> [snip]
>
>Hmn aren't we forgetting the tiny fact that both Rotschreck and DI are
>OOT masters? Since the blocking minion has a Rotschreck, it means
>you're controlling the acting minion which implies you cannot play DI
>as it is your turn.
Fine. I am playing a SER/FOR vampire and I wish to play The Jones to
cancel his Burst of Sunlight THAT way. Same timing problem.
Please at least TRY to address the actual issue, as opposed to picking
on the specific example I used and ignoring the rest...
Curevei
>every card and ask "Does anyone DI -this- card?" in order to avoid
>revealing action modifiers (especially things like Seduction) that I
>would otherwise not prefer to have people know I have in my hand. Plus,
>I have to do it for EVERY card in order to not tip my hand that there's
>something special about any particular individual card.
Related to this, what I find annoying is how asking/pausing for Eagle Sight
effects tip off when you are trying to oust someone and when you aren't.
I don't see any solution. Can't ask every single time you do a bleed whether
someone besides your prey will block - will drive everyone nuts. Can't not ask
when the possibility exists and you go for the kill as you may waste a bleed
mod. or whatever when someone does decide to block after you've modified the
action.
Matt Mayoh
I've played an OOT rush deck in a storyline tournament and in last years
Aus champs. Never used DI in it, but the ability to use a sudden reversal
during my own action (on Rotschreck, DI or Archon Investigation) is nice.
Would have loved to have a sudden when my homunculus was DIed from across
the table.
Matt
LSJ
> But this doesn't change that the act of asking the question still tips
> my hand that something is about to happen.
Then ask all the time (when facing chi). Like you (should) ask for grapples
when facing pot.
Kevin M.
> Derek Ray wrote:
>> But this doesn't change that the act of asking the question still
>> tips my hand that something is about to happen.
>
> Then ask all the time (when facing chi). Like you (should) ask
> for grapples when facing pot.
LSJ, could you cite a case where me as the defender benefits from, at the
appropriate time, asking my POT opponent, "Do you have an IG?" Unless I too
have an IG, I can't think of one, and I don't see how it is a necessary step
for me as the defender to ask.
> 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/
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Tim Eijpe
>
> Fine. I am playing a SER/FOR vampire and I wish to play The Jones to
> cancel his Burst of Sunlight THAT way. Same timing problem.
Granted. In this sense it could be a problem. Not because of its many
occurrences but due to the fact that there is a window in which both
players have to wait. However as I, perhaps wrongly see it, it would
go like this:
you control the acting minion. You strike hands. reacting minion plays
Burst of sunlight <freeze> Anyone at the table has the opportunity to
play cards concerning the combat, like DI and the Jones. Then if none
are played Rotschreck is played with only a sudden reversal to prevent
your SER/FOR vamp from going to torpor before strike resolution.
I know this isn't completely correct as there is no exact turn-phase
in which to play OOT masters in combat. Moreover this issue also come
up with Wolf Claws et. al. If both minions strike hands there should
also be a window of opportunity before rotschreck can be played.
Wouldn't it be a solution for the above possible problems if minion
cards and M:OOTs by other meths must be played before master cards
played by the reacting/acting minion? If noone cancels the burst
(Jones/DI crosstable, THEN rotschreck is played BEFORE strike
resolution?
> Please at least TRY to address the actual issue, as opposed to picking
> on the specific example I used and ignoring the rest...
oh bullocks. I TRIED to address an actual issue. In none of the above
anyone mentioned Malky OOT decks. It just struck me, that's all. Call
it nitt-picking, call it whatever. I read it and commented. The
discussion is about the rules and timing of certain cards. DI is not
playable (without Malk OOT) within these same rules thus the example
was moot. The Jones question isn't.
Tim
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>>>But this doesn't change that the act of asking the question still
>>>tips my hand that something is about to happen.
>>
>>Then ask all the time (when facing chi). Like you (should) ask
>>for grapples when facing pot.
>
> LSJ, could you cite a case where me as the defender benefits from, at the
> appropriate time, asking my POT opponent, "Do you have an IG?" Unless I too
> have an IG, I can't think of one, and I don't see how it is a necessary step
> for me as the defender to ask.
Well, you cite one, so that's one.
But you'll note that I didn't say "defender".
Like the acting player needn't ask for Mayaparisatya all the time.
You ask only when the step could be of interest, obviously.
--
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>> But this doesn't change that the act of asking the question still tips
>> my hand that something is about to happen.
>
>Then ask all the time (when facing chi). Like you (should) ask for grapples
>when facing pot.
So I should ask after every card if someone is going to DI it, too?
salem
scrawled:
>In message <3FF17444...@white-wolf.com>,
>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>
>>Derek Ray wrote:
>>> But this doesn't change that the act of asking the question still tips
>>> my hand that something is about to happen.
>>
>>Then ask all the time (when facing chi). Like you (should) ask for grapples
>>when facing pot.
>
>So I should ask after every card if someone is going to DI it, too?
I wish people had done that against me at the aussie championships. i
looked at my hand, 'damn, no intercept', _completely_ ignoring the DI
i had.
sometimes asking all the time is a way to help people remember to play
cards they could. personally, i don't think it's an elegant solution.
i prefer things like pauses, asking "so we're up to strikes?" etc.
subtle things that, when answered, mean you're moved past the timing
window for those cards.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
LSJ
> So I should ask after every card if someone is going to DI it, too?
Yes, if it is appropriate.
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>> So I should ask after every card if someone is going to DI it, too?
>
>Yes, if it is appropriate.
But here's the core of the problem: It IS appropriate. I wish to deny
any unwarranted information about the contents of my hand to my
opponents, as information is the key to this game.
This means that I wish to be able to play Govern the Unaligned to bleed,
and if it is DI'd, save my Seduction, hidden, for later. To play any
card, in fact, and then hide the cards that follow on logically from the
first, in case the first is DI'd.
All of this is related to the timing on DI and other "vague" out of turn
Masters. If people were forced to announce IMMEDIATELY that they
intended to DI a card, instead of languishing about, listening to
debate, and then casually lofting a DI in fifteen minutes later, that
would help -- but not completely solve the problem.
Honestly, there's not a great fix for DI -- the card itself creates many
problems by its simple existence. But perhaps reducing the timing
window to "instantly, or not at all" would help; in the above example,
this would let me pause in silence for a couple seconds, then play a
Seduction, which is a vast improvement over having to ask "Do you DI the
Govern?" of the table.
You could even define it that way in the rulebook -- that "as the card
is played" means "within three seconds of the card being announced and
laid on the table". People not paying attention cross-table? You
snooze, you lose. There's no "random cross-table out-of-turn Master"
phase defined in the game...
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>>Derek Ray wrote:
>>>So I should ask after every card if someone is going to DI it, too?
>>Yes, if it is appropriate.
>
> But here's the core of the problem: It IS appropriate. I wish to deny
> any unwarranted information about the contents of my hand to my
> opponents, as information is the key to this game.
What problem?
I do this all the time without giving up unwarranted information about the
contents of my hand to my opponents. Watch:
"DI?"
I've played with you. It is not my impression that you find this to
be a problem in actual play. Am I mistaken? Have you been put into a
position in actual play of giving up information?
> This means that I wish to be able to play Govern the Unaligned to bleed,
> and if it is DI'd, save my Seduction, hidden, for later. To play any
> card, in fact, and then hide the cards that follow on logically from the
> first, in case the first is DI'd.
>
> All of this is related to the timing on DI and other "vague" out of turn
> Masters. If people were forced to announce IMMEDIATELY that they
> intended to DI a card, instead of languishing about, listening to
> debate, and then casually lofting a DI in fifteen minutes later, that
> would help -- but not completely solve the problem.
Manufactured. No one attempts to play DI 15 minutes after the fact.
If they did, the judge would surely be able to correct them. This is
not an example of the acting player trampling over someone's
opportunity to play.
> Honestly, there's not a great fix for DI -- the card itself creates many
> problems by its simple existence. But perhaps reducing the timing
> window to "instantly, or not at all" would help; in the above example,
Intractable. One cannot play a card instantly - some measurable and
non-zero time will elapse between the card being played and the follow-up
DI.
> this would let me pause in silence for a couple seconds, then play a
> Seduction, which is a vast improvement over having to ask "Do you DI the
> Govern?" of the table.
This is perfectly acceptable, so long as everyone at the table had
an opportunity to play their DIs. Why manufacture this to be problem?
> You could even define it that way in the rulebook -- that "as the card
> is played" means "within three seconds of the card being announced and
> laid on the table". People not paying attention cross-table? You
> snooze, you lose. There's no "random cross-table out-of-turn Master"
> phase defined in the game...
Why is three seconds the magical line?
Defining it that way just lends ammo to those who would play from their
chairs instead of at the table.
Similarly, "snooze/lose" - if someone is snoozing, get their attention.
Don't play from your chair.
Derek Ray
>What problem?
>I do this all the time without giving up unwarranted information about the
>contents of my hand to my opponents. Watch:
>
>"DI?"
>
>I've played with you. It is not my impression that you find this to
>be a problem in actual play. Am I mistaken? Have you been put into a
>position in actual play of giving up information?
That gave up information to me -- it means there's something you want to
keep hidden that you need to play as the card is announced, or a
modifier to the card that can be played before blocks are decided.
This discussion was prompted by the revelation that something like this
actually happened in play, not that it is occurring constantly. I am
putting it under scrutiny before-the-fact, rather than after. :)
>> Masters. If people were forced to announce IMMEDIATELY that they
>> intended to DI a card, instead of languishing about, listening to
>> debate, and then casually lofting a DI in fifteen minutes later, that
>> would help -- but not completely solve the problem.
>
>Manufactured. No one attempts to play DI 15 minutes after the fact.
I've seen it quite a few times in tournaments. Also, you can read the
Australian Championships thread, where someone did just that:
In Message-ID: <icpcuvcgpt0gg20al...@4ax.com>:
>Minion Phase Delilah Easton
>+ Conservative Agitation
>+ Huge argument/dealings ensue
>+ Jason R Play's Direct Intervention
It doesn't list that it was 15 minutes, but I'm familiar with the types
of dealings that ensue -- I'm sure it was MUCH longer than necessary.
The tendency of people to assume that "no cards played is still during
that time period" is pretty bad.
>If they did, the judge would surely be able to correct them. This is
>not an example of the acting player trampling over someone's
>opportunity to play.
The judge apparently didn't. And it IS a side issue with DI, yes. But
it just illustrates the ways the timing on OOT Masters causes confusion.
>> Honestly, there's not a great fix for DI -- the card itself creates many
>> problems by its simple existence. But perhaps reducing the timing
>> window to "instantly, or not at all" would help; in the above example,
>
>Intractable. One cannot play a card instantly - some measurable and
>non-zero time will elapse between the card being played and the follow-up
>DI.
Then phrase it differently and don't use the word "instantly" -- say,
perhaps "immediately after the card is laid on the table".
>> this would let me pause in silence for a couple seconds, then play a
>> Seduction, which is a vast improvement over having to ask "Do you DI the
>> Govern?" of the table.
>
>This is perfectly acceptable, so long as everyone at the table had
>an opportunity to play their DIs. Why manufacture this to be problem?
Because it's not manufactured? I have encountered this consistently in
tournaments around the US; people attempting to deal prior to playing a
DI (occasionally including the threat of DI itself in the deal), and
that dealing going on for several minutes. Maybe it doesn't happen
around you, possibly because you are prone to correct people on the spot
who attempt to do it (and correctly so), but it DOES happen.
>> You could even define it that way in the rulebook -- that "as the card
>> is played" means "within three seconds of the card being announced and
>> laid on the table". People not paying attention cross-table? You
>> snooze, you lose. There's no "random cross-table out-of-turn Master"
>> phase defined in the game...
>
>Why is three seconds the magical line?
Arbitrary definition for the sake of argument.
>Defining it that way just lends ammo to those who would play from their
>chairs instead of at the table.
*chuckle* Where have we heard that before, eh? I think it's quite the
opposite, actually -- it would reduce the tendency of people to try to
hang around and weasel with the DI, instead of just playing the game and
their cards.
Admittedly, this could be used in other situations as well and would
require more than a cursory five-minute examination. But.
>Similarly, "snooze/lose" - if someone is snoozing, get their attention.
>Don't play from your chair.
Getting their attention reveals unnecessary information, though.
LSJ
> In message <3FF3151B...@white-wolf.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>
>
>>What problem?
>>I do this all the time without giving up unwarranted information about the
>>contents of my hand to my opponents. Watch:
>>
>>"DI?"
>>
>>I've played with you. It is not my impression that you find this to
>>be a problem in actual play. Am I mistaken? Have you been put into a
>>position in actual play of giving up information?
>
> That gave up information to me -- it means there's something you want to
> keep hidden that you need to play as the card is announced, or a
> modifier to the card that can be played before blocks are decided.
No such. I frequently ask the question when I have nothing else to do.
You'd be surprised (I guess) how easy it is to say "DI?" every now and
then.
> This discussion was prompted by the revelation that something like this
> actually happened in play, not that it is occurring constantly. I am
> putting it under scrutiny before-the-fact, rather than after. :)
>
>>>Masters. If people were forced to announce IMMEDIATELY that they
>>>intended to DI a card, instead of languishing about, listening to
>>>debate, and then casually lofting a DI in fifteen minutes later, that
>>>would help -- but not completely solve the problem.
>>
>>Manufactured. No one attempts to play DI 15 minutes after the fact.
>
> I've seen it quite a few times in tournaments. Also, you can read the
> Australian Championships thread, where someone did just that:
15 minutes?
Sure.
Even in that world, the judge can be called to the correct the
tardy player.
> Because it's not manufactured? I have encountered this consistently in
> tournaments around the US; people attempting to deal prior to playing a
> DI (occasionally including the threat of DI itself in the deal), and
> that dealing going on for several minutes. Maybe it doesn't happen
> around you, possibly because you are prone to correct people on the spot
> who attempt to do it (and correctly so), but it DOES happen.
It should be clear when a DI opportunity is passed.
If it is not, then ask "DI?". It's not that hard.
> Getting their attention reveals unnecessary information, though.
Not true. Make it a point to get their attention whenever their
attention is not had, and no information is revealed at all.
That's playing at the table.
Azel
Calling out the counter each and every action becomes easy after a while. It
forces players to pay attention, gives everyone a chance to know what i'm
doing (and i don't look like a shady fast player), and actually starts
shaping up everyone at the table to have good play manners.
in fact after each master i do i call out "sudden?" though i'm not as
diligent about DI i am about calling for the block after even the most
routine actions.
this really doesn't hamper my play. heck i'm gonna be doing what i'm doing
anyway. but i noticed it makes play clean - and more importantly it forces
greater pressure upon players who have coutners sitting in hand. i don't
have to sit there being anxious and overthinking each action, but they do!
if they don't respond after i call for reactions, and usually they in fact
state to decline using them - which can be held upon just like declining to
block, i continue play normally.
i understand the mental strategy of this issue, but after playing this way
from other games i realized that it's just easier to call it out and be done
with it. there's more benefits this way. try it, you'll like it.
Timlagor
> In Message-ID: <icpcuvcgpt0gg20al...@4ax.com>:
>
> >Minion Phase Delilah Easton
> >+ Conservative Agitation
> >+ Huge argument/dealings ensue
> >+ Jason R Play's Direct Intervention
>
> It doesn't list that it was 15 minutes, but I'm familiar with the types
> of dealings that ensue -- I'm sure it was MUCH longer than necessary.
> The tendency of people to assume that "no cards played is still during
> that time period" is pretty bad.
I wasn't there but it looks from the account as though the DI couldn't
be played until after the discussion. The Con Ag can't really be
considered to be played until after the terms have been set which is
presumably what the argument was about. I see no reason why you
shoulsn't be allowed to threaten a DI in such a discussion (whtehr or
not you have one or intend to play it)
The problem here isn't with the DI but with the bad play of the ConAg.
enforcing a rule that terms cannot be discussed for a card that has been
played would have clarified this situation: Delilah announces an
intention to play Con Ag and discussion may ensue; D plays CA; JR plays
DI.
This might give rise to a problem with people feeling the need to
announce every action twice (once to see if nayone wants to discuss it)
but that's up to them. Generally it's only 'important' actinos that
people will want to discuss and they aren't usually hard to spot ime.
Matthew T. Morgan
> I wasn't there but it looks from the account as though the DI couldn't
> be played until after the discussion. The Con Ag can't really be
> considered to be played until after the terms have been set which is
> presumably what the argument was about. I see no reason why you
> shoulsn't be allowed to threaten a DI in such a discussion (whtehr or
> not you have one or intend to play it)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_2_1
Check out the EXCEPTION. The time to DI a political action is before
terms are set, as the card is played.
Matt Morgan
Derek Ray
Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray expounded:
>> In Message-ID: <icpcuvcgpt0gg20al...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> >Minion Phase Delilah Easton
>> >+ Conservative Agitation
>> >+ Huge argument/dealings ensue
>> >+ Jason R Play's Direct Intervention
>>
>> It doesn't list that it was 15 minutes, but I'm familiar with the types
>> of dealings that ensue -- I'm sure it was MUCH longer than necessary.
>> The tendency of people to assume that "no cards played is still during
>> that time period" is pretty bad.
>
>I wasn't there but it looks from the account as though the DI couldn't
>be played until after the discussion. The Con Ag can't really be
>considered to be played until after the terms have been set which is
>presumably what the argument was about. I see no reason why you
>shoulsn't be allowed to threaten a DI in such a discussion (whtehr or
>not you have one or intend to play it)
Absolutely incorrect.
The card is played when the action is announced. The terms for a
political action are not set until the referendum, and as such the terms
cannot be set until the action goes unblocked -- long after a DI could
ever have been played.
I reiterate: The window for DI is "as the card is played", not "after
extensive discussion has taken place". The card's existence is bad
enough -- let's not make it more powerful by assigning capability to it
that its card text doesn't permit.
>This might give rise to a problem with people feeling the need to
>announce every action twice (once to see if nayone wants to discuss it)
>but that's up to them. Generally it's only 'important' actinos that
>people will want to discuss and they aren't usually hard to spot ime.
The LA playgroup is used to playing this way, and in tournaments, prior
to putting a card on the table I will often ask "how does everyone feel
about ______ vote?" -- in order to test the waters before I tempt
blockers and such.
Very few actions other than votes should need to be "pre-announced".
90% of the time, when you say "I bleed for 3", the only person who wants
to discuss it is your prey and you KNOW he's against it, unless he has a
Deflection in hand.
Cameron
[me]"I bleed with Lucita, any blockers?"
[prey]"No"
[me]<quick glance at the rest of the table, seeing AUS> "you"
[them]<silence>
[me]Conditioning for 4.
Cameron, finds that tossing in "you" doesn't take up much time at all.
Curevei
>> effects tip off when you are trying to oust someone and when you aren't.
>>
>> I don't see any solution. Can't ask every single time you do a bleed
>whether
>> someone besides your prey will block - will drive everyone nuts. Can't not
>ask
>> when the possibility exists and you go for the kill as you may waste a
>bleed
>> mod. or whatever when someone does decide to block after you've modified
>the
>> action.
>
>[me]"I bleed with Lucita, any blockers?"
>
>[prey]"No"
>
>[me]<quick glance at the rest of the table, seeing AUS> "you"
>
>[them]<silence>
>
>[me]Conditioning for 4.
>
>Cameron, finds that tossing in "you" doesn't take up much time at all.
And, you do this every single time you bleed?
LSJ
>>[me]"I bleed with Lucita, any blockers?"
>>[prey]"No"
>>[me]<quick glance at the rest of the table, seeing AUS> "you"
>>[them]<silence>
>>[me]Conditioning for 4.
>>Cameron, finds that tossing in "you" doesn't take up much time at all.
>
> And, you do this every single time you bleed?
Except for the "lucita" part and conditionally based on the presence of
Conditioning in hand, yes. My "you" is typically phrased as "Eagle's?",
but it amounts to the same thing.
Sometimes I forget and have to be reminded by having an Eagle's Sight
played on me, but that's usually sufficient to jog my memory for the
next few times around.
Derek Ray
orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) mumbled something about:
>[me]"I bleed with Lucita, any blockers?"
>
>[prey]"No"
>
>[me]<quick glance at the rest of the table, seeing AUS> "you"
>
>[them]<silence>
>
>[me]Conditioning for 4.
[them] "I attempt to block with Eagle's Sight"
[you] "I just ASKED if you wanted to block"
[them] "And I hadn't answered yet, you didn't give me enough time"
(argument ensues over whether or not someone has to say the words 'i
don't block' or whether remaining silent in the face of a question is
considered declining, or just thinking, and whether or not you gave them
enough time to respond)
(dust settles)
[you] <asks "Yes or no: Do you block?" after every action for the rest
of the game and waits until he gets a verbal response>