I've been pondering the timing of blocks, ever
since I heard the ruling on Faceless Night
and Deflection.
I assume that the timing for a blocked action
must be:
[action declared]
bleed for 1
[check for action modifiers]
none
[check for reactions]
none
[check for prey's desire to block]
blocker declared
[check for action modifiers]
none
[tap blocker]
[check for pre-combat action modifiers]
none
[check for pre-combat reactions]
none
[begin combat]
I'm assuming that it must be the case
that if no action modifers are played
to a block attempt, no reaction cards
can be played by the blocking minion
until after the block is ruled successful.
If this is not correct, then
it seems that the blocking minion should be allowed
to play Deflection at this time, thus cancelling the block
(as that minion's Methuselah is no longer the target of
the directed action), or, as above but:
...
blocker declared
[check for action modifiers]
none
[check for reactions]
Deflection
[check for new target's desire to block]
...
Is this legal, or does declining to modify the
action by the acting minion skip directly to
combat?
How about if the acting minion plays a
non-stealth action modifier (like conditioning)
while searching for stealth? Is it legal for the
still-on-target-to-block minion to play Deflection
then?
How about if the acting minion plays a
stealth action modifier which is not sufficient
to overcome the still-on-target-to-block
minion's current intercept? Is it legal for the
minion to play Deflection then?
If the answer to all of these questions is no,
then the timing must be something like:
...
blocker declared
[check for action modifiers until block is failing]
[tap blocker]
...
Or is there another reason that Deflection after
an on-target-to-block block attempt is not allowed
that I am missing?
Hey, what if as the reacting Methuselah, I believe
that the acting minion might play Form of Mist
at Superior? If the above is true, I assume I am
not allowed to play bleed-reduction reactions after
a block attempt, even if bleed-addition action
modifiers are played. If that's true, that doesn't
quite seem fair.
- Jason Bell
>
> it seems that the blocking minion should be allowed
> to play Deflection at this time, thus cancelling the block
>
If you attempt to block then you're stuck blocking unless you
fail to do so (Action ublockable, stealtch etc)
>
> not allowed to play bleed-reduction reactions after
> a block attempt, even if bleed-addition action
> modifiers are played. If that's true, that doesn't
> quite seem fair.
>
> - Jason Bell
Why not fair?
You can play wake for free and didn't loose a card during the combat
when the acting minion
played Form of Mist.
If you want to play bleed-reductions it's likely that you're playing
vamps with presence or
dominate. In the first case you can Majesty at superior and reduce bleed
and in the latter
Obedience is always an option before combat.
I very much like to play reactive decks as wakes are free unlike the one
blood Freak Drive. So I
get to do a lot of things, but I must admit that those decks usually
fail at much more than making
me the last man standing.
Sten During
--
NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote:
> I'm assuming that it must be the case
> that if no action modifers are played
> to a block attempt, no reaction cards
> can be played by the blocking minion
> until after the block is ruled successful.
Right. After you declare your block attempt (with sufficient
intercept), the acting Methuselah says "OK, I'm blocked" and there you
go. You could then play Obedience (or other pre-combat reactions), but
not, say, Deflection.
> Hey, what if as the reacting Methuselah, I believe
> that the acting minion might play Form of Mist
> at Superior? If the above is true, I assume I am
> not allowed to play bleed-reduction reactions after
> a block attempt, even if bleed-addition action
> modifiers are played. If that's true, that doesn't
> quite seem fair.
You can play your bleed reduction cards after the combat.
Besides, who ever said that vampires played fair? Combat is certainly
not fair, with the way the acting minion chooses his strike first and
all.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> You can play your bleed reduction cards after the combat.
> Besides, who ever said that vampires played fair? Combat is certainly
> not fair, with the way the acting minion chooses his strike first and
> all.
Yes, but for just about every opportunity to play cards by
one player, there is the opportunity for the other player
to play cards in response. This is not true for this case,
where the blocked minion can play action modifiers, but
the blocker may not play reactions in response. That's
all I meant, and no, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Yes, I've never really enjoyed having the weaker combat
acting minion, and dodging before knowing what the
strike is. I'd really like to see a card, maybe a celerity
card, that cancels your own strike after your opponent
plays a strike and makes your strike a dodge instead
(before strike resolution, of course, during the same
timing step that allows Claws of the Dead).
I don't think that would be terribly broken in any way,
it doesn't present any mechanics that don't already
exist in the game, and it sort of makes sense.
Call it Dive for Cover or something, I won't make a
fuss over intellectual property, I promise. Hey,
superior could be As above, and recover any costs paid
for your original strike, or maybe, Additional strike:
dodge, usable after the opposing minion uses an additional
strike, or maybe just Strike: dodge all opponent's strikes
this round. One blood off the vampire seems fair.
- Jason Bell
> Yes, I've never really enjoyed having the weaker combat
> acting minion, and dodging before knowing what the
> strike is. I'd really like to see a card, maybe a celerity
> card, that cancels your own strike after your opponent
> plays a strike and makes your strike a dodge instead
> (before strike resolution, of course, during the same
> timing step that allows Claws of the Dead).
> I don't think that would be terribly broken in any way,
> it doesn't present any mechanics that don't already
> exist in the game, and it sort of makes sense.
How about this one?
Primal Instincts [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Auspex
[aus] Strike: dodge.
[AUS] Only usable by the acting vampire after the opposing minion
has chosen his or her strike. Cancel this acting vampire's
strike and choose a new one.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:37:36 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Or this one?
Rapid Thought
Combat, Celerity
[cel] Maneuver or press. [CEL] Only usable during the Choose Strike
step, and only if this vampire would choose his or her strike first.
Instead, the opposing minion chooses his or her strike before this
vampire.
-- Derek
Maintenance: Keep the balls dry and clean and prevent them from violent collisions.
Disclaimer: We make no claim that use of these balls will improve health.
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>> wrote:
> >How about this one?
> >
> >Primal Instincts [Sabbat, SW]
> >Cardtype: Combat
> >Cost: 1 blood
> >Discipline: Auspex
> >[aus] Strike: dodge.
> >[AUS] Only usable by the acting vampire after the opposing minion
> >has chosen his or her strike. Cancel this acting vampire's
> >strike and choose a new one.
>
> Or this one?
>
> Rapid Thought
> Combat, Celerity
> [cel] Maneuver or press. [CEL] Only usable during the Choose Strike
> step, and only if this vampire would choose his or her strike first.
> Instead, the opposing minion chooses his or her strike before this
> vampire.
It's just wonderful to see White Wolf responding so quickly
to my requests for new cards and abilities.
Ahem.
- Jason Bell
vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.01071...@posting.google.com>...
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote:
> > I'm assuming that it must be the case
> > that if no action modifers are played
> > to a block attempt, no reaction cards
> > can be played by the blocking minion
> > until after the block is ruled successful.
>
> Right. After you declare your block attempt (with sufficient
> intercept), the acting Methuselah says "OK, I'm blocked" and there you
> go. You could then play Obedience (or other pre-combat reactions), but
> not, say, Deflection.
>
> Hey, what if as the reacting Methuselah, I believe
> that the acting minion might play Form of Mist
> at Superior? If the above is true, I assume I am
> not allowed to play bleed-reduction reactions after
> a block attempt, even if bleed-addition action
> modifiers are played. If that's true, that doesn't
> quite seem fair.
>
> You can play your bleed reduction cards after the combat.
> Besides, who ever said that vampires played fair? Combat is certainly
> not fair, with the way the acting minion chooses his strike first and
> all.
So you're saying that the acting minion can play non-stealth
action modifiers while intercept matches stealth (eg Conditioning),
but the reacting minion cannot play non-intercept reactions (except
Obedience, apparently, and presumably also Shilmulo Deception and
anything else with explicit "about to enter combat" text) regardless
of whether or not the acting minion has played anything?
This doesn't make sense to me. The rulebook is silent as to when
a block attempt with intercept >= stealth actually goes to combat,
but there is nothing that I can find to suggest that the acting
minion should have the ability to play cards during any period
in which the reacting minion cannot.
I don't see any basis (or need) in the rules to prohibit reactions
(or action modifiers) that would invalidate an existing block attempt.
Josh
enter partition id tag
>===== Original Message From duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) =====>vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote:>> Right. After you declare your block attempt (with sufficient
>> intercept), the acting Methuselah says "OK, I'm blocked" and there you
>> go. You could then play Obedience (or other pre-combat reactions), but
>> not, say, Deflection.>>So you're saying that the acting minion can play non-stealth
>action modifiers while intercept matches stealth (eg Conditioning),
>but the reacting minion cannot play non-intercept reactions (except
>Obedience, apparently, and presumably also Shilmulo Deception and
>anything else with explicit "about to enter combat" text) regardless
>of whether or not the acting minion has played anything?
Yes.
>This doesn't make sense to me. The rulebook is silent as to when
>a block attempt with intercept >= stealth actually goes to combat,
Not true. [6.2.3] [6.2.2.2] [1.6.1.6] taken together lead unabiguously
to the current ruling.
>but there is nothing that I can find to suggest that the acting
>minion should have the ability to play cards during any period
>in which the reacting minion cannot.
[1.6.1.6]
>I don't see any basis (or need) in the rules to prohibit reactions
>(or action modifiers) that would invalidate an existing block attempt.
There is none. But in this case we're not talking about the attempt.
We're talking about the successful block.
--
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/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
>===== Original Message From duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) =====
>vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote:>> Right. After you declare your block attempt (with sufficient
>> intercept), the acting Methuselah says "OK, I'm blocked" and there you
>> go. You could then play Obedience (or other pre-combat reactions), but
>> not, say, Deflection.>
>So you're saying that the acting minion can play non-stealth
>action modifiers while intercept matches stealth (eg Conditioning),
>but the reacting minion cannot play non-intercept reactions (except
>Obedience, apparently, and presumably also Shilmulo Deception and
>anything else with explicit "about to enter combat" text) regardless
>of whether or not the acting minion has played anything?
Yes.
>This doesn't make sense to me. The rulebook is silent as to when
>a block attempt with intercept >= stealth actually goes to combat,
Not true. [6.2.3] [6.2.2.2] [1.6.1.6] taken together lead unambiguously
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:<3B81...@MailAndNews.com>...
> >===== Original Message From duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) =====> >This doesn't make sense to me. The rulebook is silent as to when> >a block attempt with intercept >= stealth actually goes to combat,
>
> Not true. [6.2.3] [6.2.2.2] [1.6.1.6] taken together lead unabiguously
> to the current ruling.
>
> >but there is nothing that I can find to suggest that the acting
> >minion should have the ability to play cards during any period
> >in which the reacting minion cannot.
>
> [1.6.1.6]
[1.6.1.6]: "...Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the
defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat),
then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the
acting Methuselah."
[6.2.3]: "If the action is blocked, then any card played to take
the action is burned, and the blocking minion is tapped and enters
combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). Once the
combat is resolved, the action is over."
[6.2.2.2]: "To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting
minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. The action is
blocked if the blocker's intercept is equal to or greater than the
acting minion's stealth. By default, minions have zero stealth and
zero intercept. So a block attempt will normally succeed unless the
action has inherent stealth (such as hunting) or a card or effect
is used to increase the acting minion's stealth."
Based on this, during an action, the defending Methuselah can
declare an attempt to block against, say, an action with an inherent
+1 stealth. The block is currently failing. The acting Meth can
play any number of non-stealth modifiers before the defending Meth
can play anything. (Read strictly, 1.6.1.6 seems to indicate that,
if a defending Meth wants to play Direct Intervention, she has to
wait until the acting Meth plays any number of cards she wants to
play - so the defender might not get the opportunity to DI the card
that she wants to. Presumably this is not the intent.)
When the acting Meth is done playing non-stealth modifiers, the
defending minion may gain intercept until its intercept matches or
exceeds the acting minion's stealth.
At that point, the block is succeeding. The acting Meth has the
option to add stealth. If the acting Meth does not add stealth,
the defending Meth (you're saying) cannot do anything (the block
immediately succeeds and goes to combat when the acting Meth says
the magic words "I don't add stealth") *unless* she has an Obedience
(or similar) that she wants to play. If the acting Meth adds non-
stealth action modifiers, the defending Meth (you're saying) still
can't do anything; the block immediately goes to combat when the
acting Meth says "I'm done adding action modifiers and none of them
increase my stealth".
This seems undesirable to me. If it's allowable for a defending
Meth to play Direct Intervention on an acting Meth's Conditioning
played while the defending minion's intercept matches the acting
minion's stealth, it should be equally allowable for the defending
Meth to play Deflection at that point. Indeed, it should be allowable
for the defending Meth to play Deflection even if the acting Meth
doesn't play anything - if there is a "window" in which one player
may play cards and use effects, that "window" should be open to every
player who wishes to play cards or use effects.
> >I don't see any basis (or need) in the rules to prohibit reactions
> >(or action modifiers) that would invalidate an existing block attempt.
>
> There is none. But in this case we're not talking about the attempt.
> We're talking about the successful block.
But I don't think the block should become successful until everyone
agrees (not just the acting Meth) that no one wants to play additional
effects before combat.
Josh
head... spinning...
>===== Original Message From duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) =====>This seems undesirable to me. If it's allowable for a defending
>Meth to play Direct Intervention on an acting Meth's Conditioning
>played while the defending minion's intercept matches the acting
>minion's stealth, it should be equally allowable for the defending
DI is playable as the other card is *played*, by card text, overriding
the sequencing rule (by necessity, in fact). All the cards that cancel
other cards use this template. That doesn't mean that all cards should
use this template.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:<3B84...@MailAndNews.com>...
> >===== Original Message From duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) =====
> >This seems undesirable to me. If it's allowable for a defending
> >Meth to play Direct Intervention on an acting Meth's Conditioning
> >played while the defending minion's intercept matches the acting
> >minion's stealth, it should be equally allowable for the defending
>
> DI is playable as the other card is *played*, by card text, overriding
> the sequencing rule (by necessity, in fact). All the cards that cancel
> other cards use this template. That doesn't mean that all cards should
> use this template.
Fair point. But I guess I'm used to multiplayer games enforcing a
kind of equality among the players in that generally, if anybody can
play effects, everybody can play effects - there may be restrictions
on what *kind* of effects you can use on other people's turns, but
if the active player can do something, so can the inactive players.
This may not be the case in VTES, but I have to say, I kinda think
it should be. Interaction between players is the basis of multiplayer
games, and prohibiting all but one player from doing things definitely
decreases interaction.
Josh
objection! argumentative!
i'll rephrase...