Tenebrous Form vs Allies, and declaring additional strikes

Didn't turn anything up googling, so... Question #1: The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays superior Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue), the NWC's block failed. Correct? Superior Tenebrous Form: "[+1 stealth], and minions without obtenebration must pay 1 blood to attempt to block" Question #2: Alexandra is blocked by Fatima. Alexandra dodges, Fatima fires her Assault Rifle uselessly. Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response? It was ruled that she could, keeping with 1.6.1.6 -- Fatima generating additional strikes was an effect that would reset the loop. Correct? --Colin McGuigan

> The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays superior Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue), the NWC's block failed. Correct? yes. since he fails to pay one 'blood'... > Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response? no. there is no 'response' like that, like there is no 'loop'. acting player declares if he gets some or not, then the reacting does, thats it...

denis wrote: >>The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless > > Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays > superior > Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the > since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue), > the NWC's block failed. Correct? > > yes. since he fails to pay one 'blood'... Correct. >>Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if > > Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response? > > no. there is no 'response' like that, like there is no 'loop'. acting > player declares if he gets some or not, then the reacting does, thats > it... Correct. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:PhGQd.222476$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > denis wrote: > >>>The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless >> >> Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays >> superior >> Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the >> since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue), >> the NWC's block failed. Correct? >> >> yes. since he fails to pay one 'blood'... > > Correct. > >>>Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if >> >> Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response? >> >> no. there is no 'response' like that, like there is no 'loop'. acting >> player declares if he gets some or not, then the reacting does, thats >> it... > > Correct. But what about 1.6.1.6? [Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. 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. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect.] Why wouldn't the acting player be able to decline playing a card to gain additional strikes and then respond by playing a card to gain additional strikes if the reacting player plays a card to gain additional strikes? If the acting player declines to play any cards before range is determined, are they unable to play cards before range is determined if the reacting player plays any cards before range? Past rulings do not seem to agree. Google search: before range card playing order Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? -- Mike Ooi "You have left the world. Click to continue."

"UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:YsydncjZbtS...@texas.net... > Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f RTR 31 May 1995: 2) Following the initial Resolve Strike step of a round, the acting minion decides whether to play any additional strikes, and then the blocking minion decides whether to do so. If the acting minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind. Presses and maneuvers follow a different procedure because each maneuver or press played after the first cancels the previous play. Additional strikes don't cancel each other, so the process used for presses and maneuvers is not used for additional strikes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:37hffeF...@individual.net... > "UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message > news:YsydncjZbtS...@texas.net... >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? > > > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet. > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f > RTR 31 May 1995: > > 2) Following the initial Resolve Strike step of a round, the > acting minion decides whether to play any additional strikes, and > then the blocking minion decides whether to do so. If the acting > minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking > minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind. > Presses and maneuvers follow a different procedure because > each maneuver or press played after the first cancels the previous > play. Additional strikes don't cancel each other, so the process > used for presses and maneuvers is not used for additional strikes. INteresting. The rest of the post is a good read, too. So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, sent to the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change? I also noticed from this "classic" ruling that Cat's Guidance is be played before combat ; ) As is superior Freak Drive. Look out Theft decks! I'm gonna start combat untapped with no blood! Crazy '95 style! [ quoted text not captured ]

"UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:xM-dnZYYFt1...@texas.net... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > "UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message > >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? > > > > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet. > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f > > RTR 31 May 1995: > So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, sent to > the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change? I'll put it on the RT list for review. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > "UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:YsydncjZbtS...@texas.net... > > Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? > > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet. > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f > RTR 31 May 1995: > > 2) Following the initial Resolve Strike step of a round, the > acting minion decides whether to play any additional strikes, and > then the blocking minion decides whether to do so. If the acting > minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking > minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind. > Presses and maneuvers follow a different procedure because > each maneuver or press played after the first cancels the previous > play. Additional strikes don't cancel each other, so the process > used for presses and maneuvers is not used for additional strikes. While I understand that it has always been that way, the rulebook currently says "Additional strikes are announced (gained) and performed (used) only after the first pair of strikes are completed. The acting minion decides whether or not to gain additional strikes before the opposing minion, AS USUAL." (emphasis mine). In other circumstances, when an effect is played (such as a press, maneuver, equipping a zip gun, playing Drawing out the Beast or whatever), the rulebook says that the loop of opportunities to play effects is reset. Yes, the rules explicitly say that you can play presses and maneuvers in response to your opponent playing them to counter their effect, but the rules don't state anywhere that doing so would _not_ be legal without this explicit text; they reiterate and clarify the already established rules on playing effects back-and-forth as itemized under Sequencing (and prohibit you from playing multiple presses/maneuvers on your own.) Since this concept that the acting minion only gets one opportunity to play additional strikes is not actually 'as usual' as the rulebook states, but a distinctly different case than the defaults elsewhere in the rulebook, could future versions of the Rulebook please include the sentence you list above ("If the acting minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind."), considering that this distinctly not-by-the-current-rulebook circumstance is an inherent possibility of every combat a player will ever be in? That way, this excepting rule would be explicitly clear not only to older players like Mike or Colin but also to anybody picking up the game for the first time - without their having to look up rulings on the internet on how an integral and basic part of combats actually works. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1108577939.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > While I understand that it has always been that way, the rulebook > currently says "Additional strikes are announced (gained) and performed > (used) only after the first pair of strikes are completed. The acting > minion decides whether or not to gain additional strikes before the > opposing minion, AS USUAL." (emphasis mine). Yes, he decides. As usual, the acting minion goes first. Once he makes his decision, then the blocking minion makes his. Then you handle any additional strikes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Yes, he decides. As usual, the acting minion goes first. > Once he makes his decision, then the blocking minion makes his. > Then you handle any additional strikes. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Since you've already replied to Mike that this will be forwarded to the Rules Team for review and/or rulebook inclusion, I don't need to see the rest of the truncated reply; that's all I was really asking for (admittedly in a long-winded way.) -John Flournoy

> In other circumstances, when an effect is played (such as a press, > maneuver, equipping a zip gun, playing Drawing out the Beast or > whatever), the rulebook says that the loop of opportunities to play > effects is reset. If you consider Additional Strike Declaration to be in line with Strike Declaration, then the acting minin chooses first and only first.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure, and Strike Declaration specifies that this is the case; similarly the strikes generated by additional strikes are declared in this order as part of a standard 'choose strike phase' - and the rulebook says this explicitly. However, nothing in the rulebook indicates that using cards and/or effects to actually generate the strikes in the first place behaves differently than playing and sequencing any other card and/or effect, and I'd like to see the long-standing ruling about it (which I totally agree with, btw) made part of the rulebook for clarity's sake - since the way that using cards and effects to generate additional strikes functions differently than using cards and effects for just about everything else in the game, a.k.a 'the default rules in the book'. And that's important, because a new player picking up a starter and reading the rules won't have any reason to automatically think that additional strikes don't work back-and-forth like presses, maneuvers, playing stealth or intercept, or whatever, without having to look online; if additional strikes are important enough to warrant inclusion in the rulebook, the correct, exceptioning rules on how additional strikes work differently than most things should be included as well, IMO. (And not just the exception rule that says that you can only get additional strikes from one source, as is the case now.) There's no reason (again, IMO) why the Additional Strike section of the rulebook should include only _some_ of the ways it is inherently different from the default rules on sequencing cards and effects. -John Flournoy

LSJ wrote: >> > "UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message >> >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? >> > >> > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet. >> > >> So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, sent to >> the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change? > > I'll put it on the RT list for review. For a non-RT opinion: I think that it's fine the way that it is, that a decision to not take additional strikes is irrevocable. This is analogous to the decision to "not block" being irrevocable. It does appear, however, that the rulebook needs (at least for clarity) a statement, like blocking does, that a decision to not generate an additional strike is final. Having said that, if the declaration of additional strikes worked like Presses or Manoeuvres do, then it just means that the acting minion (sometimes) gets a second opportunity to play an additional strike. This would increase the value / playability of defensive additional strikes by the acting minion (additional strike to dodge or S:CE) - this decreases the value of blocking, marginally. Offensive additional strikes are still going to be played, generally, at the first opportunity. I don't think that the value of consistency outweighs the value of don't-make-unnecessary-changes, in this case. The current use of additional strikes is consistent, anyway - with the "not block" decision. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4213...@news.maxnet.co.nz... > LSJ wrote: >>> > "UniqueMaster" <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message >>> >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently? >>> > >>> > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet. >>> > >>> So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, >>> sent to >>> the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change? >> >> I'll put it on the RT list for review. > > For a non-RT opinion: I think that it's fine the way that it is, that a > decision to not take additional strikes is irrevocable. This is > analogous to the decision to "not block" being irrevocable. I'm not sure it fits. The decision to "not block" is the only explicitly irrevocable declaration IIRC other than casting votes in a referendum. I think a more analagous example is the sequencing of playing combat cards before range is determined. Currently, if the acting player declines to play cards before range and the reacting player does so, the acting player can "respond" by choosing to play cards before range, and if both decline to play cards before range then the acting player does not get to play cards before range, IIRC. > It does appear, however, that the rulebook needs (at least for clarity) > a statement, like blocking does, that a decision to not generate an > additional strike is final. If that's the RT's decision, definitely. > Having said that, if the declaration of additional strikes worked like > Presses or Manoeuvres do, then it just means that the acting minion > (sometimes) gets a second opportunity to play an additional strike. > This would increase the value / playability of defensive additional > strikes by the acting minion (additional strike to dodge or S:CE) - this > decreases the value of blocking, marginally. Offensive additional > strikes are still going to be played, generally, at the first opportunity. I agree with this assessment, although the ability to choose your strike after your opponent declares theirs is increidbly valuable - why would there be combat cards that specifically grant you this ability? - and keeps the advantage in combat with the reacting player. > I don't think that the value of consistency outweighs the value of > don't-make-unnecessary-changes, in this case. The current use of > additional strikes is consistent, anyway - with the "not block" decision. Ultimately, I think that if there are phases or sequences in the game that do not follow 1.6.1.6, then those should be explicitly defined in the rulebook. So a change one way or another would be necessary - either to an 10 year old online ruling, or the rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

UniqueMaster wrote: [lehrbuch] >> I think that it's fine the way that it is, that a >> decision to not take additional strikes is irrevocable. This is >> analogous to the decision to "not block" being irrevocable. > > I'm not sure it fits. The decision to "not block" is the only explicitly > irrevocable declaration IIRC other than casting votes in a referendum. I > think a more analagous example is the sequencing of playing combat cards > before range is determined... I mean that the _current_ additional strike system is analogous to the decision "not to block". If it was changed to be like some other thing, then yes, it would be analogous to that other thing. The only reason that I mentioned this at all is that it is not without precedent for additional strikes to work the way they do (ie "breaking" 1.6.1.6). (Not) blocking "breaks" it, similarly. Of course, (not) blocking explicitly states that it breaks 1.6.1.6. >> Having said that, if the declaration of additional strikes worked like >> Presses or Manoeuvres do, then it just means that the acting minion >> (sometimes) gets a second opportunity to play an additional strike. >> This would increase the value / playability of defensive additional >> strikes by the acting minion (additional strike to dodge or S:CE) - this >> decreases the value of blocking, marginally. Offensive additional >> strikes are still going to be played, generally, at the first opportunity. > > I agree with this assessment, although the ability to choose your strike > after your opponent declares theirs is increidbly valuable ... If your deck is designed that way, yes[0]. This is not, however, the effect that "making additional strikes chosen like Presses or play-before-combat-cards are" would have. This only changes the order in which additional strikes are _gained_. The actual strike(s) would still be declared (used) in the acting - reacting order. > Ultimately, I think that if there are phases or sequences in the game that > do not follow 1.6.1.6, then those should be explicitly defined in the > rulebook. So a change one way or another would be necessary - either to an > 10 year old online ruling, or the rulebook. Yep. [0] i.e. choosing strikes second is only valuable if you have several ways to strike - or your opponent thinks you do, and they do. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)