LSJ: Forced Awakening and Deflection

A search using "forced deflection author:lsj" revealed the following ruling: > In article <90r0c4$ld...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > afterhour...@my-deja.com wrote: >> so, I have a vampire with 1 blood on it, my predator bleeds me... >> Can I play Forced Awakening and then Deflection. Since I didn't >> block I have to pay an additional blood (due to Forced A.) , but >> the deflection goes first, so since Forced says ...burn an >> additional blood... that the vampire doesn't have , is my >> combination still legal ? > Yes. > >-- >LSJ (vtes...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. >Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ My question: If the play of deflection implies a no-block-declaration, shouldn't I have to FIRST burn a blood for not successfuly blocking and THEN I can't afford to play the Deflection? As I can't jump phases in VTES the no block should still be resolved first, before the play of the next card. Shouldn't it? Thanks in advance. Alf

"Alf" <tree.beard.D...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1166437144....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You only have to pay for the Forced awakening when the bleed resolves, IIRC. In case the bleed is bounced back to you, the vamp who played the forced awakening can still block.

[ quoted text not captured ] The first part of the question asked whether "play of Deflection implies a no-block-declaration" and that wasn't really answered so much. The way I see it is that you aren't actually "passing on blocking attempts" but rather *cannot* attempt to block any more *at this time* due to lack of intercept or valid blockers. For example, if the bleed gets bounced back to you somehow, a kind-hearted, yet self-interested Meth might then lend you intercept from a location, to prevent you from being ousted by said bleed, *after* you showed your bounce. Jeff

jeff...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>> "Alf" <tree.beard.D...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht >>>> My question: >>>> If the play of deflection implies a no-block-declaration, >>>> shouldn't I have to FIRST burn a blood for not successfuly blocking >>>> and THEN I can't afford to play the Deflection? >>>> As I can't jump phases in VTES the no block should still >>>> be resolved first, before the play of the next card. Shouldn't it? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>> You only have to pay for the Forced awakening when the bleed resolves, IIRC. >>> In case the bleed is bounced back to you, the vamp who played the forced >>> awakening can still block. >> Correct. > > The first part of the question asked whether "play of Deflection > implies a no-block-declaration" and that wasn't really answered so > much. More precisely, the first part states the assumption that X is true, which is reasonable given the amount of typing "X is true" that has gone on lately regarding that exact ruling. As the statement of the assumption is not a question in itself, it needs no answer. > The way I see it is that you aren't actually "passing on blocking > attempts" but rather *cannot* attempt to block any more *at this time* > due to lack of intercept or valid blockers. More precisely, you are declining to block ("passing on blocking attempts") before you play Deflection. > For example, if the bleed > gets bounced back to you somehow, a kind-hearted, yet self-interested > Meth might then lend you intercept from a location, to prevent you from > being ousted by said bleed, *after* you showed your bounce. Correct, since changing the target opens a new block window.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:51:27 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The way I see it is that you aren't actually "passing on blocking >> attempts" but rather *cannot* attempt to block any more *at this time* >> due to lack of intercept or valid blockers. > > More precisely, you are declining to block ("passing on blocking > attempts") before you play Deflection. > >> For example, if the bleed >> gets bounced back to you somehow, a kind-hearted, yet self-interested >> Meth might then lend you intercept from a location, to prevent you from >> being ousted by said bleed, *after* you showed your bounce. > > Correct, since changing the target opens a new block window. 1. Can an acting methuselah somehow pass the opportunity to play reaction effects before announcing the "blocking window"? 2. If the Deflection is cancelled via cross-table DI, for example, then no new block attempts are possible by the target of the bleed (target wasn't successfully changed), right? -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > 1. Can an acting methuselah somehow pass the opportunity to play reaction > effects before announcing the "blocking window"? The acting Methuselah doesn't play reactions. The blocking window comes as soon as the action is announced (after playing all "as announced" effects). The defending Methuselah may play reactions that are playable before blocks before the blocking attempts, sure. See Car Bomb for example. > 2. If the Deflection is cancelled via cross-table DI, for example, then no > new block attempts are possible by the target of the bleed (target wasn't > successfully changed), right? Correct. That's the only way this whole thing matters.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for the clear answers! -- Regards, Daneel