Choosing a Strike: LSJ

In the before range step (against a player with a Zip Gun) an acting Meth stated "I am happy to stay at short and hit you for one". The reacting Meth thought that this was a clear announcement of no maneuver and a hand strike for one. As such s/he did not manuever (stated as such), and started to take the one blood off, and stated punch for one. At which point the acting Meth said "hang on, at short my strike Coma". Can enforcable strikes be declared prior to the Choose Strike step? Is extra communication in those phases just talk (like the ramble that ensues about blocking when someone slaps down a KRC etc?)? So in the pre-range, can I state "Beast is just punching you for 2, and when they say no manuever, I slap down an immortal grapple"?

"Darth Una" <bibi.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130195316....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > In the before range step (against a player with a Zip Gun) an acting > Meth stated "I am happy to stay at short and hit you for one". > > The reacting Meth thought that this was a clear announcement of no > maneuver and a hand strike for one. As such s/he did not manuever > (stated as such), and started to take the one blood off, and stated > punch for one. > > At which point the acting Meth said "hang on, at short my strike Coma". > > Can enforcable strikes be declared prior to the Choose Strike step? Nope. All maneuvers or declaration of no maneuvers must be made before any strikes are chosen. > Is extra communication in those phases just talk (like the ramble that > ensues about blocking when someone slaps down a KRC etc?)? Well, all play must proceed in proper order. Misrepresenting rules - such as suggesting that it's legal to declare one's strike before all maneuvering is complete and an opportunity to declare pre-strike cards has been offered - could be construed as cheating with consequent punishment. (Possible warning, possible removal from tournament.) But aside from that, anything declared out of order is not legal and therefore cannot be taken as a commitment because it hasn't been legally declared. > So in the pre-range, can I state "Beast is just punching you for 2, and > when they say no maneuver, I slap down an immortal grapple"? You might get cited for cheating - but yes. The non-acting Methuselah in your original example made his mistake by assuming a commitment which did not exist. He should have demanded everything be done in order and if he chose to believe the acting Methuselah's statement about his strike, he did so at his own risk. Of course, his own strike declaration also doesn't take place until the acting Methuselah has properly declared _his_ strike, so if the former had a Dodge or S:CE in hand, he could still use it. Fred

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Darth Una wrote: > In the before range step (against a player with a Zip Gun) an acting > Meth stated "I am happy to stay at short and hit you for one". > > The reacting Meth thought that this was a clear announcement of no > maneuver and a hand strike for one. As such s/he did not manuever > (stated as such), and started to take the one blood off, and stated > punch for one. > I usually offer "Skip to Strike?" as an indication of no pre-strike funny business, but the other player needs to explicitly agree to such for it to happen. The rules do not prevent the two Methuselahs from making a deal to play no pre-strike cards. > At which point the acting Meth said "hang on, at short my strike Coma". > It's a little underhanded for him to do that, but unless he did something to give it away, he could have waited for his turn to declare and struck Coma anyway. If I were the Coma-er, the conversation might go: Coma-ee: "How about we just hit hands for one?" Coma-er: "So we can just skip to Strike declaration?" Coma-ee: "Sure." Coma-er: "OK, I choose Coma." Coma-ee: "Majesty. Whatever." > Can enforcable strikes be declared prior to the Choose Strike step? > Unofficially, yes. However, even when using Haymaker, which commits one to a Hand Strike, or using a maneuver from a Strike Card/Gun, one cannot Officially declare their strike until the Choose Strike step. Cards (such as Immortal Grapple) might prevent you from using your unofficially (or implicitly) declared Strike. > Is extra communication in those phases just talk (like the ramble that > ensues about blocking when someone slaps down a KRC etc?)? > It's deal-making. > So in the pre-range, can I state "Beast is just punching you for 2, and > when they say no manuever, I slap down an immortal grapple"? > Immortal Grapple in no way stops Beast from Strike: Hands for 2. That's just card cycling. :) In such an instance, I'd decline any attempts to "Skip to Strike", suggesting that we "play it through, if only because Beast has 2 Strength". -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Darth Una wrote: > In the before range step (against a player with a Zip Gun) an acting > Meth stated "I am happy to stay at short and hit you for one". > > The reacting Meth thought that this was a clear announcement of no > maneuver and a hand strike for one. As such s/he did not manuever > (stated as such), and started to take the one blood off, and stated > punch for one. Sounds reasonable. > At which point the acting Meth said "hang on, at short my strike Coma". Sounds possible. Depends on what the two Methuselahs in question have between them that would make "I am happy to stay at short and hit you for one" to mean. If they've been using that to mean "no maneuver and, assuming you also do not maneuver, I punch you for one" (which many groups do, including mine), then that's what it means. If not, then it doesn't. If the acting one used the phrasing in the hopes that the reacting Methselah would misunderstand the meaning, then that is misrepresentation, and is illegal. > Can enforcable strikes be declared prior to the Choose Strike step? "Enforceable strikes" meaning does he have to avoid misrepresentation, then yes. If it means can he bind himself to a strike before the choose strikes phase, the technical answer is no -- but many groups do to save time (since the game is already fairly long). > Is extra communication in those phases just talk (like the ramble that > ensues about blocking when someone slaps down a KRC etc?)? Depends on what the Methuselahs understand it as. > So in the pre-range, can I state "Beast is just punching you for 2, and > when they say no manuever, I slap down an immortal grapple"? Not in general. That is, in general, misrepresentation of a "pass" on the IG step. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/