Rules Question - Deflection

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Jack Lo

unread,
Nov 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/4/95
to
This is quick question for all those in the know. If a minion is declaring
an action, I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I attempt to block
it with another minion who has higher intercept.

The second question is if I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I
then play deflection either with the minion that attempted to block or
another minion. Thanks in advance.


Shane Travis

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
Jack Lo (pi...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
: This is quick question for all those in the know. If a minion is declaring
: an action, I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I attempt to block
: it with another minion who has higher intercept.

Yes. You may continue to (attempt to) block as long as you have minions
who can get enough intercept.

Example: Ozmo trying to bleed you. Camille attempts to block. Ozmo slaps
down +1 stealth. It is now perfectly legal to slap +1 intercept on
Anneke and use her to try and block Ozmo.

: The second question is if I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I

: then play deflection either with the minion that attempted to block or
: another minion. Thanks in advance.

Certainly. Anytime before the bleed actually resolves (i.e. you take the
damage from the bleed) you may play additional modifiers including
bouncing it to someone else. Because the first minion failed to block,
he/she is not tapped, and thus may play other Reaction cards.

Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time,
tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Eric Wohlstadter

unread,
Nov 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/5/95
to
I'm sure there will be several other posts explaining exactly what the
case is in each of these questions but just in case no gets around to it:
The answer is Yes in both occurances.

--
-Eric Wohlstadter

Stuart J. Pieloch

unread,
Nov 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/6/95
to
Jack Lo <pi...@leland.stanford.edu> writes:

>This is quick question for all those in the know. If a minion is declaring
>an action, I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I attempt to block
>it with another minion who has higher intercept.

Most definately

>The second question is if I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I
>then play deflection either with the minion that attempted to block or
>another minion. Thanks in advance.

This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go.
currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and
Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before
and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules
that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming.
So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth.

The Deflection can be played at any time.
In fact attempting to block and then failing because of increased stealth,
and THEN deflecting is an excellent strategy because then the stealth
has already been added to the action going to your prey (usually)

Hope this Helps
Stu
--
Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe
DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html
GE/T/S d++(--) H(-) s++:- g+(-) p2 au++ a- w+++(--) v++ C++ U N++ W---() M+ V--
po+++(---) t--- 5+++ G+++ B--- e++ u++ f+ r++ n--- y*

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to

Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go.
>currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and
>Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before
>and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
>that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules
>that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming.
>So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth.

I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't
be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action
if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the
rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker
has at least +1 intercept.


Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.


Alan Kwan

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
In article <47lbfp$j...@acmey.gatech.edu> dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes:

>The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and
>Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before
>and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
>that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules
>that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming.
>So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth.

I don't think that is the case. You cannot play stealth unless someone
is actually trying to block you. If no one is attempting to block
you, visualize it as minus infinity intercept. So you can't play
stealth.

--
"Live Life with Heart."

Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Algustas

unread,
Nov 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/7/95
to
Hi Thomas,

On 7 Nov 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote:

>
> Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go.

> >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and

> >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before
> >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
> >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules
> >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming.
> >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth.
>

> I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't
> be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action
> if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the
> rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker
> has at least +1 intercept.
>

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you
can add +1 (or more, if from one card) stealth as long as your would be
blocker has intercept equal to your stealth, thus 0 stealth and 0
intercept means you can add stealth. Correct?

Algustas
*****I didn't kill him! I swear I didn't!***** The kid, X #1

*****I know. I did.***** X, X #1


Stephen Beaulieu

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
In article <DHpGD...@freenet.carleton.ca>, bh...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Pat Gilliland) wrote:
: Not so, noble net rep! You can go +1 stealth if the blocker has 0
: intercept, preventing the action from being blocked. If the blocker then goes
: to +1 intercept, the action will be blocked, so you can go to +2 stealth
: your opponent can _then_ go to +2 and so forth. What the rule prevents
: you from doing is jumping from +1 stealth vs +1 intercept to +3 vs +1
: (unless the card can _only_ give you +2). The example you cite, would
: allow you to go to +2 to beat the advantage the blocker has. Basically
: you can increase your stealth/intercept only enough to ensure the action
: is unblocked/blocked.


Well, actually I do not think you are restricted from playing Lost In
Crowds at the superior, if you only need +1 stealth to get past the
intercept.. You are restricted from playing an additional stealth card if
you don't need it. The rules is set up to make sure you cannot burn cards
taht are not needed, not to restrict you from using the superior aspect of
a card.

So in summary of this topic as I see it, you cannot play more stealth (or
intercept for that matter) CARDS than you need to match (for intercept) or
beat (for stealth) the current rating. So if you are performing a 0
stealth action and no one moves to block it, you cannot increase the
stealth. If someone does move to block, you can increase the stealth by
as much as you can with a single stealth card, but must wait until more
intercept is played before playing another stealth card.

The one possible exception I can think of is if you were bleeding and
wanted to play Bonding at the superior (+1 bleed +1 stealth) You could
then use the superior form even if you didn't need the stealth. (But as
you could play the card for the +1 bleed anyway I really don't think that
it falls under the ruling above as you weren't prevented from playing the
card)

I hope this helps

stephen beaulieu
hi...@mail.utexas.edu

Stuart J. Pieloch

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>On 7 Nov 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>>Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
>>>that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules

>>be,but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action


> if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the
>>rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker
> has at least +1 intercept.
> I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you
>can add +1 (or more, if from one card) stealth as long as your would be
>blocker has intercept equal to your stealth, thus 0 stealth and 0
>intercept means you can add stealth. Correct?

My point was that if an intercept of 0 exists as a block to an action
with 0 stealth. Then you may add 1 stealth
Basically the rules becomes a zero stealth ation may use one card (or item)
to add stealth to it. (even as it is announced)
This allows you to play the Faceless night (sup)
right as you declare the action so you make the statement
If you risk trying to block this minion and fail you minion will still
be tapped and won't be able to block the next bleed I'm coming with.

So we play with One card played for any 0 stealth action
and no more. If this card grants you +2 stealth
so be it. Otherwise you get to burn one and only card for any 0 stealth action
I'd really like an official interpritation of the rules from the netrep
so we can play correctly on this one.

Situation

Untapped Agrippina declares anaction of Computer Hacking
She would also like to play an action modifier of Faceless Night
In order to increase her stealth to 1 and let her prey's Meth know that
this action if unblocked will still tap the vamps who try and stop her.
Kind of a bluff since her Meth doesn't have any other Stealth Cards
in her hand.

Is the playing of the Added Stealth before block declaration legal?
Does the Meth have to wait until there is a block at 0 int before
raising stealth beyond 0?

Thanks


Stu
--
Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe
DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html

ld.so.1: /acme3/39/dsadmga/b5quote/quote: fatal: relocation error: symbol not found: srandom: referenced in /acme3/39/dsadmga/b5quote/quote

J. Andrew Lipscomb

unread,
Nov 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/8/95
to
In article <47ocqo$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:

> Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:

> >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go.
> >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and
> >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before

> >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
> >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules

> >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming.
> >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth.
>
> I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't

> be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action


> if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the
> rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker
> has at least +1 intercept.

What about the card (I can't remember what it is) that gives +1 bleed and
+1 stealth in superior version--how does this rule affect it?

J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com>
PGP keys by request
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Nov 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/9/95
to

Stephen Beaulieu <hi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>: Not so, noble net rep! You can go +1 stealth if the blocker has 0
>: intercept, preventing the action from being blocked. If the blocker [has]

>: to +1 intercept, the action will be blocked, so you can go to +2 stealth
>: your opponent can _then_ go to +2 and so forth. What the rule prevents
>: you from doing is jumping from +1 stealth vs +1 intercept to +3 vs +1
>: (unless the card can _only_ give you +2). The example you cite, would
>: allow you to go to +2 to beat the advantage the blocker has. Basically
>: you can increase your stealth/intercept only enough to ensure the action
>: is unblocked/blocked.

Sigh... I think my basic math center is breaking down.

>Well, actually I do not think you are restricted from playing Lost In
>Crowds at the superior, if you only need +1 stealth to get past the
>intercept.. You are restricted from playing an additional stealth card if
>you don't need it. The rules is set up to make sure you cannot burn cards
>taht are not needed, not to restrict you from using the superior aspect of
>a card.

This is correct. You may increase your stealth if the other minion's
intercept equals or exceeds yours, but you can overkill the increase.

>The one possible exception I can think of is if you were bleeding and
>wanted to play Bonding at the superior (+1 bleed +1 stealth) You could
>then use the superior form even if you didn't need the stealth. (But as
>you could play the card for the +1 bleed anyway I really don't think that
>it falls under the ruling above as you weren't prevented from playing the
>card)

You wouldn't be able to use the superior form if you didn't need the
stealth, but in that case you would use the inferior form, yes.

Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Nov 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/9/95
to

Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Untapped Agrippina declares anaction of Computer Hacking
>She would also like to play an action modifier of Faceless Night
>In order to increase her stealth to 1 and let her prey's Meth know that
>this action if unblocked will still tap the vamps who try and stop her.
>Kind of a bluff since her Meth doesn't have any other Stealth Cards
>in her hand.
>
>Is the playing of the Added Stealth before block declaration legal?

No. There isn't a minion trying to block her, so she doesn't know that
she needs increased stealth.

>Does the Meth have to wait until there is a block at 0 int before
>raising stealth beyond 0?

The player has to wait for a would-be blocker of intercept 0+, yes.

Steven Bauer

unread,
Nov 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/9/95
to
In article 100000@gladstone, Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
> Hi Thomas,

>
> On 7 Nov 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
>
> >
> > Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go.
> > >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and
> > >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before
> > >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed
> > >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules
> > >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming.
> > >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth.
> >
> > I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't
> > be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action
> > if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the
> > rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker
> > has at least +1 intercept.
> >
> I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you
> can add +1 (or more, if from one card) stealth as long as your would be
> blocker has intercept equal to your stealth, thus 0 stealth and 0
> intercept means you can add stealth. Correct?
>
> Algustas
> *****I didn't kill him! I swear I didn't!***** The kid, X #1
>
> *****I know. I did.***** X, X #1
>

The Jyhad rules state "A player can not increase stealth or incecept beyond what
is needed to counter directly another player's increase of stealth or intercept

The first point of intercept is not needed to counter a blocker if there is no blocker.
So it would seem you can't play it. However in the same text there is an example
where Tiberius plays one stealth as he announces his bleed. I don't know what
the official rule is.

I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other
weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand
became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had
more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game
plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the
only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to
crippled compared to combat or vote decks.

Steve


James Puzzo

unread,
Nov 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/9/95
to
Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Example: Ozmo (with superior dom) bleeds. Ramiel Dupre blocks. Ozmo
: pumps the stealth 1. Ramiel can't get the intercept. The bleed will go
: through, so Ozmo uses Bonding to increase the bleed by 1. He wants to use
: superior to have the stealth in case the bleed is bounced.

: Ramile pulls the Deflection, taps and bounces the bleed. Camille (or
: Raven) with a Raven Spy awaits poor Ozmo to send him to torporville. Is
: Ozmo forced to try and pull more stealth from the deck because at the time
: he didn't need that one stealth from the superior Bonding he was entitled
: to play?

This is a rules question from someone who is trying to learn. In the above
example, I would have thought that Bonding couldn't be played in this situation
because stealth was already greater than available intercept. Am I wrong?

-James


Alan Kwan

unread,
Nov 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/9/95
to
In article <47qhnr$i...@acmez.gatech.edu> dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes:


>Situation


>
>Untapped Agrippina declares anaction of Computer Hacking
>She would also like to play an action modifier of Faceless Night
>In order to increase her stealth to 1 and let her prey's Meth know that
>this action if unblocked will still tap the vamps who try and stop her.
>Kind of a bluff since her Meth doesn't have any other Stealth Cards
>in her hand.
>
>Is the playing of the Added Stealth before block declaration legal?

>Does the Meth have to wait until there is a block at 0 int before
>raising stealth beyond 0?
>

It is illegal. You can't play stealth if no one has yet declared
blocking. As a house rule, I don't think it is a good rule, either.
It gives stealth deck an advantage, in cycling extra stealth cards
which would otherwise jam their hands.

Don't players in your group like to play super-stealth (> 40% stealth
cards) decks?

Alan Kwan

unread,
Nov 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/9/95
to

>I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other
>weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand
>became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had
>more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game
>plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the
>only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to
>crippled compared to combat or vote decks.

That `rule variant' is actually the official rule.

Combat decks are easier to cause jamming by prey than stealth decks,
even without using S:CE. An unlucky combat deck would simply jam
itself. Combat decks typically contain a lower percentage of `get into
combat' cards than stealth cards or Dominate bleeders in an S&B deck.

Vote decks don't jam becasue of vote pushing; if you're going to use
a house rule, fix /that/, instead of making S&B more powerful.

This is about the first time we hear here that S&B (under official
rules) is too powerful, isn't it?

Steven Bauer

unread,
Nov 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/10/95
to

Your right it is the official interpetation (for now) but you must admit that there
is no way to divine that from the rule book.

My rule book says:

" If you want to block, you indicate which minion is the blocker. That minion
must have an intercept at least as great as the acting minion's stealth; reaction
cards and cards in play can be used to increase the intercept.
Before the block is successful the blocked player has the opportunity to
play action modifiers or use cards in play to increase the acting minion's stealth. ...
Play continues with players alternatly increasing intercept and stealth.
A player cannot increase stealth or intercept beyond that needed to counter directly another player's increase of stealth or intercept....
Example: Your predator declares that his vampire Tiberius is bleeding you,
and plays a card that increases Tiberius's stealth to 1."

The rules don't really say anything about what the acting minion can play before the block is announced. The example clearly says you can play the first stealth card.
So it may not be a 'rule variant' to you but it is in the rule book, and rather
unarguable stated.

Steve


Steven Bauer

unread,
Nov 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/10/95
to
In article 2...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
> In article <1995Nov9.1...@schbbs.mot.com> sba...@cso.geg.mot.com writes:
>
> >I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other
> >weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand
> >became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had
> >more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game
> >plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the
> >only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to
> >crippled compared to combat or vote decks.
>
> That `rule variant' is actually the official rule.
>
> Combat decks are easier to cause jamming by prey than stealth decks,
> even without using S:CE. An unlucky combat deck would simply jam
> itself. Combat decks typically contain a lower percentage of `get into
> combat' cards than stealth cards or Dominate bleeders in an S&B deck.
>
True a combat deck can still jam, however there is a fix, put more get into combat
cards in your hand. There is no may to stop a player from playing a bum's
rush. The very fact that a S&B has so much stealth in his hand makes it so
cripples when he has no way of getting ride of it.


> Vote decks don't jam becasue of vote pushing; if you're going to use
> a house rule, fix /that/, instead of making S&B more powerful.
>
I use the one vote per meth per vote. You still get to use one vote card
per vote.


> This is about the first time we hear here that S&B (under official
> rules) is too powerful, isn't it?
>
> --
> "Live Life with Heart."
>
> Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

I have never felt malkavians are to powerful. Under tournament rules yes, but under
official rules no.

All other deck designs allow for a way to cycle cards. (with the possible exception
of prevent damage decks (altough combined with immortal grapple it will do fine)

Under the "official" rules you can not play stealth cards unless your opponent lets
you and this to me seems contrary to the mechanics of the rest of the game.

Steve


The Corrupter

unread,
Nov 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/10/95
to
In article <1995Nov10.1...@schbbs.mot.com>,
sba...@cso.geg.mot.com wrote:

> In article 6...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
writes:


> >
> > Stephen Beaulieu <hi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > You are restricted from playing an additional stealth card if
> > >you don't need it. The rules is set up to make sure you cannot burn
cards
> > >taht are not needed, not to restrict you from using the superior
aspect of
> > >a card.
> >
> > This is correct. You may increase your stealth if the other minion's
> > intercept equals or exceeds yours, but you can overkill the increase.
> >
> > >The one possible exception I can think of is if you were bleeding and
> > >wanted to play Bonding at the superior (+1 bleed +1 stealth) You could
> > >then use the superior form even if you didn't need the stealth.
(But as
> > >you could play the card for the +1 bleed anyway I really don't think
that
> > >it falls under the ruling above as you weren't prevented from
playing the
> > >card)
> >

> So in the case: I bleed my oppenent doesn't block,
> I play bonding, for +1 bleed.
> Know my opponent blocks and I am out the stealth.
> Not fair
>

Not exactly how it works. Once a Methuselah has _declined_ to block,
though they may still play reaction cards (a la Deflection/Counter), they
may _not_ block. Perfectly fair, you still get your bonding. If it is
deflected, you don't get the advantage that bonding would have afforded
to you. "Say La Vee" (My French is awful :)

> How about Kine Dominance, can you (a) not play it till a blocker is
announced
> (b) play it but only get the +1 bleed or (c) break the rule and add
stealth
> you don't need.
>

Kine Dominance is an action. You must play it as the action is announced.

"I can send and receive e-mail even over the internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>" #
$ sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu -<insert name of those quoted here> @
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
GAT/CS/O/WS d-(---) h++ s: a--- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ P+ L E- W+>++ N++(+)
o?> K+>++++ w--->? O? M++ V-->? PS+(-+) PE&++&- Y+>++ PGP(--) t 5->?
X++&-- R+++&* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ DI D(+)&--- G+>+++ e+*>++++ h(+) r(+)
y*+? /* Version 3.1 */ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ Spoutingly yours 8^)

James R. McClure Jr.

unread,
Nov 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/10/95
to
sba...@cso.geg.mot.com (Steven Bauer) wrote:

>I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other
>weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand
>became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had
>more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game
>plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the
>only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to
>crippled compared to combat or vote decks.

Peace Steve,

Causing your pred/prey's hand to jam by NOT performing some action is a completely
valid tactic. There is a good reason why you can't just throw stealth cards away
like that (it would allow you to nearly totally avoid hand jams). Believe it or not,
combat decks do jam (it has happened to me). By following the more balanced "one
vote per Meth per vote", vote decks can definitely jam. Building a deck that doesn't
jam (or rarely jams) takes quite a bit of skill. Jamming is a Good Thing (TM).

Nil carborundum illigitimi,

James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle

<insert disclaimer here>


Consoli Luca

unread,
Nov 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/11/95
to
jam...@gw.digibd.com (James Puzzo) wrote:
>Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
Example: Ozmo (with superior dom) bleeds. Ramiel Dupre blocks. Ozmo
>: pumps the stealth 1. Ramiel can't get the intercept. The bleed will go
through, so Ozmo uses Bonding to increase the bleed by 1. He wants to use
>: superior to have the stealth in case the bleed is bounced.
>: Ramile pulls the Deflection, taps and bounces the bleed. Camille (or
>: Raven) with a Raven Spy awaits poor Ozmo to send him to torporville. Is
Ozmo forced to try and pull more stealth from the deck because at the time
>: he didn't need that one stealth from the superior Bonding he was entitled
to play?
> In the above example, I would have thought that Bonding couldn't be played in this situationbecause stealth was already greater t=

han available intercept. Am >I wrong?
I think you are wrong in the sense that Bonding has two versions, the inferior
one and the superior one. The inferior one just says +1 bleed while the
superior one reads +1 bleed and +1 stealth. So Ozmo, having sup Dom, could
choose to use either version.
In the situation that Stephen Beaulieu describes I think the answer is : yes,
he should use another card because he was not allowed to use the sup version of
Bonding since there was no intercept to be used against. So torporville is
waitng for Ozmo.. :)
--

Luca "Democritus" Consoli
Web page: http://imoax1.unimo.it/~consoli/
|-------------------------------------------|
|" S'i fossi foco arderei lo mondo..." |
|{ Were I Fire, I would burn the world..." |------------|
| (Cecco Angiolieri, Italian poet)|
|--------------------------------------------------------|


Thomas R Wylie

unread,
Nov 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/12/95
to

Steven Bauer <sba...@cso.geg.mot.com> wrote:
>So in the case: I bleed my oppenent doesn't block,
> I play bonding, for +1 bleed.
> Know my opponent blocks and I am out the stealth.
> Not fair

First, if you're worried about this, then just don't play Bonding before
your opponent has decided whether to block. If you wait for any blocking
attempt, you will know whether or not you need the stealth.

Second, it's just as fair (or not) as an acting minion choosing its strike.
It has to decide whether to use a strike card or not before finding out
whether or not the blocking minion is going to dodge or end combat.

>How about Kine Dominance, can you (a) not play it till a blocker is announced
>(b) play it but only get the +1 bleed or (c) break the rule and add stealth
>you don't need.

The rule is about increasing the stealth of an action with cards or effects,
not about the default stealth of an action. Actions such as hunting and
calling a vote say they are at +1 stealth, so they are, even if no one tries
to block them.

Brian Wilson

unread,
Nov 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/12/95
to
Before I could do anything to stop it, Consoli Luca wrote:

> I think you are wrong in the sense that Bonding has two versions, the inferior
> one and the superior one. The inferior one just says +1 bleed while the
> superior one reads +1 bleed and +1 stealth. So Ozmo, having sup Dom, could
> choose to use either version.
> In the situation that Stephen Beaulieu describes I think the answer is : yes,
> he should use another card because he was not allowed to use the sup version of
> Bonding since there was no intercept to be used against. So torporville is
> waitng for Ozmo.. :)

By this logic you would never be able to play a political card since each
of these has an inherent stealth bonus. Night Moves would be unplayable
because of it's built in +3 stealth. Bonding is a bleed enhancer, and the
stealth at superior is a bonus, useable whether it's "needed" or not.
Additional stealth cards cannot be "dumped" unless required, but stealth
bonuses on other cards do not count as stealth cards.

"It's at the end of his arm," thought Frito, nervously | Brian
shaking it, "it's got to be a hand." | Wilson

Shane Travis

unread,
Nov 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/12/95
to
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: Steven Bauer <sba...@cso.geg.mot.com> wrote:
: >So in the case: I bleed my oppenent doesn't block,
: > I play bonding, for +1 bleed.
: > Know my opponent blocks and I am out the stealth.
: > Not fair

: First, if you're worried about this, then just don't play Bonding before
: your opponent has decided whether to block. If you wait for any blocking
: attempt, you will know whether or not you need the stealth.

Uhhh... Tom? Hate to tell you this, but not only is your Basic Math
Centre breaking down - your Basic Literacy Centre isn't far behind. :-)

He already sayd (above) that the opponent had declined to block _before_
he played the Bonding, and then changed his mind after he saw the action
modifier.

Proper Netrep response should have been something like: "Once an opponent
has made the decision not to block a given action, they may not change
their mind if additional action modifiers are played. The opponent may
still play cards like Deflection, Telepathic Counter, Telepathic
Misdirection, etc. as these may be played even after the blocking decision
has been made."


Or something along those lines, anyway... :-)

Alan Kwan

unread,
Nov 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/12/95
to
In article <47u2af$2...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:

>This is about the first time we hear here that S&B (under official
>rules) is too powerful, isn't it?

Oops, I meant "... is crippled", not "... is too powerful". Sorry.

Alan Kwan

unread,
Nov 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM11/12/95
to
In article <1995Nov10....@schbbs.mot.com> sba...@cso.geg.mot.com writes:
>In article 2...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:

>> Combat decks are easier to cause jamming by prey than stealth decks,
>> even without using S:CE. An unlucky combat deck would simply jam
>> itself. Combat decks typically contain a lower percentage of `get into
>> combat' cards than stealth cards or Dominate bleeders in an S&B deck.
>>
>True a combat deck can still jam, however there is a fix, put more get into combat
>cards in your hand. There is no may to stop a player from playing a bum's
>rush. The very fact that a S&B has so much stealth in his hand makes it so
>cripples when he has no way of getting ride of it.

Well, using your idea of `fixing' (hurting a combat deck's efficiency
by putting in too many Bum's Rushes), then you can `fix' the S&B deck
by putting in more Dominate bleeders and less stealth. There is no
way to stop a player from playing Dominate bleeders.


>All other deck designs allow for a way to cycle cards. (with the possible exception
>of prevent damage decks (altough combined with immortal grapple it will do fine)
>
>Under the "official" rules you can not play stealth cards unless your opponent lets
>you and this to me seems contrary to the mechanics of the rest of the game.

Well, sometimes a player can build a deck which takes 0 stealth actions
all the time, and that jams the intercept deck.

The general mechanics of the game is that, mostly, you can't just
burn a card unless it does something useful (or unless you spend a
sequence-of-play resource specifically designated for that kind of
card, such as a strike). Letting a stealth card be burned freely
seems to me contrary to the mechanics of the rest of the game.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages