This came up at the NAC, but I was scatterbrained and LSJ was busy. So
here I am to try again, but much cleaner this time :)
Scenario:
I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)
I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This gives
me priority again.)
I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
correct? Or, would my lack of anything to do mean I must pass priority
to my prey, and when he and all other Methuselahs pass in turn order,
then the action is blocked?
Or is it something else entirely?
I don't feel this will come up often, but Forced Awakening and No
Secrets from the Magaji introduce other reasons to want someone's block
to succeed or fail other than just the usual--and besides, it's always
good to understand the game better.
-- Brian
islando...@aol.com wrote:
> This came up at the NAC, but I was scatterbrained and LSJ was busy. So
> here I am to try again, but much cleaner this time :)> Scenario:
> I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)> I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This gives
> me priority again.)> I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
> correct? Or, would my lack of anything to do mean I must pass priority
> to my prey, and when he and all other Methuselahs pass in turn order,
> then the action is blocked?
I think, technically speaking, you need to wait for other Methuselahs to
play effects that would somehow cause the block to fail.
Example:
I declare a bleed with Jost Werner (+1 stealth).
My prey attempts to block with Isabel de Leon, playing Enhanced Senses for
intercept.
Before I can say "OK, the block is successful", I must allow for other
Methuselahs to play Direct Intervention on my prey's intercept.
I can't think of any effect that would cause someone's block to fail, without
needing to DI an intercept/stealth-reducing card, cross-table, though.
Of course the acting minion can cause the block to fail in many ways (Call of
the Hungry Dead, Elder Impersonation, steal the blocking minion with Temptation
counters), and the reacting minion can cause the block to fail (Peacemaker)...
Jozxyqk wrote:
> islando...@aol.com wrote:>> This came up at the NAC, but I was scatterbrained and LSJ was busy. So
>> here I am to try again, but much cleaner this time :)>>> Scenario:
>> I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)>>> I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This gives
>> me priority again.)>>> I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
>> correct? Or, would my lack of anything to do mean I must pass priority
>> to my prey, and when he and all other Methuselahs pass in turn order,
>> then the action is blocked?
Yes, it's correct.
The only anomaly there would be Black Sunrise after Wake and Eagle's Sight.
The Wake and Eagle's Sight combo produces a block attempt. Then, when you
declare the action blocked ("pass"), the blocker can still play Black Sunrise to
untap.
Normally (as much as such a corner case can be said to have a "normally"),
that's done all in one step: play the Wake, then the Eagle's Sight, then the
Black Sunrise all at once. Just like "Wake and attempt to block with 2 intercept
from Enhanced Senses" is normally played all at once, even though, technically,
the order passed back to the actor after the Wake.
> I think, technically speaking, you need to wait for other Methuselahs to
> play effects that would somehow cause the block to fail.
>
> Example:
> I declare a bleed with Jost Werner (+1 stealth).
>
> My prey attempts to block with Isabel de Leon, playing Enhanced Senses for
> intercept.
>
> Before I can say "OK, the block is successful", I must allow for other
> Methuselahs to play Direct Intervention on my prey's intercept.
Well, that's confusing the "as a card is played" window with the sequencing rules.
> I can't think of any effect that would cause someone's block to fail, without
> needing to DI an intercept/stealth-reducing card, cross-table, though.
>
> Of course the acting minion can cause the block to fail in many ways (Call of
> the Hungry Dead, Elder Impersonation, steal the blocking minion with Temptation
> counters), and the reacting minion can cause the block to fail (Peacemaker)...
Peacemaker doesn't cause the block to fail. Peacemaker can only be played once
the block is successful. It then causes the action to continue, but that isn't
exactly the same as causing the block to fail (for purposes of Forced Awakening,
for example).
> >> Scenario:
> >> I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)
> >
> >> I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This gives
> >> me priority again.)
> >
> >> I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
> >> correct?
>> Yes, it's correct.
>
> The only anomaly there would be Black Sunrise after Wake and Eagle's Sight.
> The Wake and Eagle's Sight combo produces a block attempt. Then, when you
> declare the action blocked ("pass"), the blocker can still play Black Sunrise to
> untap.
So, to make sure I understand what you're saying:
After I declare the action is blocked, the blocker can still play Black
Sunrise, which creates a block attempt. Correct?
Therefore, after declaration this action is blocked, the blocker could
still play Eagle's Sight, or any other card which creates a block
attempt, right?
Furthermore, would Forced Awakening be a legal play at this time?
And lastly, none of these scenarios allow the acting minion to play
more stealth after the defender's play, since the action has already
been declared as blocked. Correct?
-- Brian
islando...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> Scenario:
>>>> I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)
>>>> I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This gives
>>>> me priority again.)
>>>> I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
>>>> correct?>> Yes, it's correct.
>>
>> The only anomaly there would be Black Sunrise after Wake and Eagle's Sight.
>> The Wake and Eagle's Sight combo produces a block attempt. Then, when you
>> declare the action blocked ("pass"), the blocker can still play Black Sunrise to
>> untap.>
> So, to make sure I understand what you're saying:
> After I declare the action is blocked, the blocker can still play Black
> Sunrise, which creates a block attempt. Correct?
It only "creates" a block attempt if one didn't already exist.
In this case, it would merely reaffirm the block attempt started by Eagle's Sight.
> Therefore, after declaration this action is blocked, the blocker could
> still play Eagle's Sight, or any other card which creates a block
> attempt, right?
Perhaps, but only Black Sunrise is interesting. The rest are merely examples of
cycling.
> Furthermore, would Forced Awakening be a legal play at this time?
Cycling again, yes.
> And lastly, none of these scenarios allow the acting minion to play
> more stealth after the defender's play, since the action has already
> been declared as blocked. Correct?
No. The "I'm blocked" declaration is just shorthand for "pass". In all but the
most pedantic of cases, it is equivalent to the block succeeds. In the case of
Black Sunrise, well, the Black Sunrise gets played first (before the defender
actually pauses for the the actor's declaration of being blocked) as a matter of
course, as I said. Same with the other examples of cycling.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:bF20h.23906$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> islando...@aol.com wrote:>>>>> Scenario:
>>>>> I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)
>>>>> I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This
>>>>> gives
>>>>> me priority again.)
>>>>> I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
>>>>> correct?>> And lastly, none of these scenarios allow the acting minion to play>> more stealth after the defender's play, since the action has already
>> been declared as blocked. Correct?>
> No. The "I'm blocked" declaration is just shorthand for "pass". In all but
> the most pedantic of cases, it is equivalent to the block succeeds. In the
> case of Black Sunrise, well, the Black Sunrise gets played first (before
> the defender actually pauses for the the actor's declaration of being
> blocked) as a matter of course, as I said. Same with the other examples of
> cycling.
Angel of Berlin can have some effect at this point, too.
It sounds like you're saying the block "really" succeeds (and "when the
block is successful" effects become playable, then combat is entered) when
all Meths pass on further effects and stealth is no greater than intercept.
This makes it seem that the acting Meth can add more stealth after initially
passing on adding stealth, if Angel of Berlin is played while intercept
matches stealth. E.g., Xian Dzidzat Quan attempts to block Calebros the
Martyr; Calebros declines to add stealth; Xian gets an Ivory Bow via Angel
of Berlin; Calebros can now add stealth. Yes? The ruling on the
rulings-summary page describes Angel of Berlin as being playable "after a
block succeeds" - does that just mean that it is playable when a block is
"about to" succeed and, since priority goes back to the acting Meth at that
point, the block may end up failing if more stealth is added? Or is Angel
of Berlin also playable "as combat is about to be entered", when it is too
late to play more stealth?
thanks!
Josh
too pedantic?
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:bF20h.23906$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...>> islando...@aol.com wrote:>>>>>> Scenario:
>>>>>> I declare a bleed (priority is still mine.)
>>>>>> I pass, giving my prey priority, and he attempts to block. (This
>>>>>> gives
>>>>>> me priority again.)
>>>>>> I have no effect to play, so I declare the action is blocked. Is this
>>>>>> correct?>>>> And lastly, none of these scenarios allow the acting minion to play
>>> more stealth after the defender's play, since the action has already
>>> been declared as blocked. Correct?>> No. The "I'm blocked" declaration is just shorthand for "pass". In all but
>> the most pedantic of cases, it is equivalent to the block succeeds. In the
>> case of Black Sunrise, well, the Black Sunrise gets played first (before
>> the defender actually pauses for the the actor's declaration of being
>> blocked) as a matter of course, as I said. Same with the other examples of
>> cycling.>
> Angel of Berlin can have some effect at this point, too.
Not significantly -- it's normally played in the same window one would play
Obedience.
> It sounds like you're saying the block "really" succeeds (and "when the
> block is successful" effects become playable, then combat is entered) when
> all Meths pass on further effects and stealth is no greater than intercept.
No. I'm saying that there is a fuzzy area in there (on account of Black Sunrise).
> This makes it seem that the acting Meth can add more stealth after initially
> passing on adding stealth, if Angel of Berlin is played while intercept
> matches stealth.
Not if Angel of Berlin is played in the Obedience window.
> E.g., Xian Dzidzat Quan attempts to block Calebros the
> Martyr; Calebros declines to add stealth;
That is: Calebros says "I'm blocked".
> Xian gets an Ivory Bow via Angel
> of Berlin;
... after waiting for Calebros to decline post-block-succeeds stuff like Change
of Target.
> Calebros can now add stealth. Yes?
No.
> The ruling on the
> rulings-summary page describes Angel of Berlin as being playable "after a
> block succeeds" - does that just mean that it is playable when a block is
> "about to" succeed
No. It means what it says -- that it is playable in the Obedience window.
> and, since priority goes back to the acting Meth at that
> point, the block may end up failing if more stealth is added? Or is Angel
> of Berlin also playable "as combat is about to be entered", when it is too
> late to play more stealth?
The point is largely moot, since using that timing instead of the Obedience
timing isn't beneficial to the person playing it.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:PF50h.23944$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:bF20h.23906$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...>>> No. The "I'm blocked" declaration is just shorthand for "pass". In all>>> but the most pedantic of cases, it is equivalent to the block succeeds.
>>> In the case of Black Sunrise, well, the Black Sunrise gets played first
>>> (before the defender actually pauses for the the actor's declaration of
>>> being blocked) as a matter of course, as I said. Same with the other
>>> examples of cycling.>>
>> Angel of Berlin can have some effect at this point, too.>
> Not significantly -- it's normally played in the same window one would
> play Obedience.
Oh, okay. That makes sense. I guess I wasn't clear on exactly which window
was being discussed here. :-)
>> It sounds like you're saying the block "really" succeeds (and "when the
>> block is successful" effects become playable, then combat is entered)
>> when all Meths pass on further effects and stealth is no greater than
>> intercept.>
> No. I'm saying that there is a fuzzy area in there (on account of Black
> Sunrise).
I must be missing something - why does Black Sunrise cause fuzziness here?
Black Sunrise says: "Only usable by a tapped vampire.
[qui] Only usable during a (D) action directed at you or something you
control. This vampire untaps and attempts to block.
[QUI] As above, but usable on any action."
This window - after the acting Meth has declared the block successful
because she's not adding stealth - is the Change of Target/Obedience window,
is it not? I'm not sure why Black Sunrise would open it up to other kinds
of reactions. Black Sunrise doesn't say it can be played when a block
succeeds. It says it can be played to attempt to block, but if a block
attempt already exists and has already succeeded, it doesn't seem like you
should be able to play a fresh card that starts a block attempt - aren't you
already past that point in the current block attempt? Similarly, you can't
play Guard Dogs after starting a block with Wake/Eagle's Sight, can you?
Guard Dogs: "Only usable by a tapped vampire when you are being bled.
[ani] Untap this reacting vampire.
[ANI] As above, with an optional maneuver during the resulting combat if
this vampire successfully blocks this bleed and combat occurs."
I mean... the reacting Meth might *want* to cycle her Black Sunrise on a
block that's already succeeding. But I can't see why the reacting Meth
actually gets priority to do so in the "still attempting to block" window if
the acting Meth passes on effects and declares the block successful.
Josh
must be approaching the most pedantic of cases
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's the theory. Except for the ruling that a minion can Wake-Eagle's
Sight-Black Sunrise.
> I'm not sure why Black Sunrise would open it up to other kinds
> of reactions. Black Sunrise doesn't say it can be played when a block
> succeeds. It says it can be played to attempt to block, but if a block
> attempt already exists and has already succeeded, it doesn't seem like you
> should be able to play a fresh card that starts a block attempt - aren't you
> already past that point in the current block attempt? Similarly, you can't
> play Guard Dogs after starting a block with Wake/Eagle's Sight, can you?
>
> Guard Dogs: "Only usable by a tapped vampire when you are being bled.
> [ani] Untap this reacting vampire.
> [ANI] As above, with an optional maneuver during the resulting combat if
> this vampire successfully blocks this bleed and combat occurs."
>
> I mean... the reacting Meth might *want* to cycle her Black Sunrise on a
> block that's already succeeding. But I can't see why the reacting Meth
> actually gets priority to do so in the "still attempting to block" window if
> the acting Meth passes on effects and declares the block successful.
Yeah. Not much point in holding on to this greased pig just for the Black
Sunrise corner case.
Reversal of the Black Sunrise ruling.
Cannot play Black Sunrise "out of sequence".
> Yeah. Not much point in holding on to this greased pig just for the
> Black Sunrise corner case.
>
> Reversal of the Black Sunrise ruling.
> Cannot play Black Sunrise "out of sequence".
So, for normal people, what the hell just happened here?
What was the original ruling and the reversal? I R dum and I's don't gets
it.
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Don't. Be. Dumb.
Ankur Gupta wrote:
>> Yeah. Not much point in holding on to this greased pig just for the
>> Black Sunrise corner case.
>>
>> Reversal of the Black Sunrise ruling.
>> Cannot play Black Sunrise "out of sequence".>
> So, for normal people, what the hell just happened here?
For normal people, nothing has changed.
> What was the original ruling and the reversal? I R dum and I's don't
> gets it.
Original ruling:
On an action with 0 stealth, a tapped vampire with 0 intercept who is not in the
list of normal blocked (is not controlled by the target of a (D) action, or is
not controlled by the prey or predator of a minion taking an undirected action)
could play Wake then Eagle's Sight then Black Sunrise (to untap before the block
succeeds; tapping if it succeeds or remaining untapped if it fails).
The reversal:
The same, but he cannot play Black Sunrise until and unless the acting minion
adds stealth (that is, he cannot play Black Sunrise if the block begun by
Eagle's Sight succeeds immediately -- that is, if the actor responds with "I'm
blocked").
The actor can still play Black Sunrise if the Eagle's Sight block doesn't
succeed immediately (like if the actor already had more stealth than the blocker
had intercept, or if the blocker adds more stealth).
So, aside from denying the ability to uselessly cycle the Black Sunrise, the
ruling also allows the acting minion to respond with a "he cannot block" effect,
like Elder Impersonation, which would leave the would-be blocker tapped and
unable to play Black Sunrise (since he is no longer permitted to attempt to
block the action) or, say, Kiss of Ra at inferior or superior (which would also
prevent the would-be blocker from untapping with Black Sunrise, since Kiss of Ra
ends the action).
LSJ wrote:
> >> Reversal of the Black Sunrise ruling.
> >> Cannot play Black Sunrise "out of sequence".
> >
> > So, for normal people, what the hell just happened here?
>
> For normal people, nothing has changed.
Unless you like to cycle Eagle's Sight after you declare a block. No
more of that.
However, it seems the rules prevent 3rd party stealth:
Anarch Railroad
Carnivale
Fortune Teller Shop
Paris Opera House
Sunset Strip, Hollywood
These cards are no longer usable to give anyone else's minion +1
stealth (since you would need the acting minion's controller to pass in
order to receive priority, but that would cause a successful block,
precluding use of the above.)
Sunset Strip could still be used before blocking, of course.
If this is how blocks are declared, I suppose there won't be any 3rd
party stealth anymore. Not that it's a big part of the game, just that
I don't think it was intended to leave.
-- Brian
LSJ wrote:
> Ankur Gupta wrote:>>> Yeah. Not much point in holding on to this greased pig just for the
>>> Black Sunrise corner case.
>>>
>>> Reversal of the Black Sunrise ruling.
>>> Cannot play Black Sunrise "out of sequence".>>
>> So, for normal people, what the hell just happened here?>
> For normal people, nothing has changed.
>>> What was the original ruling and the reversal? I R dum and I's don't
>> gets it.>
> Original ruling:
>
> On an action with 0 stealth, a tapped vampire with 0 intercept who is> not in the list of normal blocked [...]
did you mean "list of normal blockers"?
>
> The reversal:
>
> The same, but he cannot play Black Sunrise until and unless the acting
> minion adds stealth (that is, he cannot play Black Sunrise if the block
> begun by Eagle's Sight succeeds immediately -- that is, if the actor
> responds with "I'm blocked").
>
> The actor can still play Black Sunrise if the Eagle's Sight block
> doesn't succeed immediately (like if the actor already had more stealth
> than the blocker had intercept, or if the blocker adds more stealth).
[...]
Did you mean "The blocker can still play..."?
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
> Anarch Railroad
> Carnivale
> Fortune Teller Shop
> Paris Opera House
> Sunset Strip, Hollywood
>
> These cards are no longer usable to give anyone else's minion +1
> stealth (since you would need the acting minion's controller to pass in
> order to receive priority, but that would cause a successful block,
> precluding use of the above.)
>
> Sunset Strip could still be used before blocking, of course.
>
> If this is how blocks are declared, I suppose there won't be any 3rd
> party stealth anymore. Not that it's a big part of the game, just that
> I don't think it was intended to leave.
LSJ, please confirm that stealth effects which give "any Ravnos" etc.
+1 stealth are not usable on another player's Ravnos, due to the timing
issues above.
-- Brian
[ quoted text not captured ]
No, they're still usable.
Just trading one gray area for another, I guess.
Treat cross-table stealth as a reaction stack to "I'm blocked" that would
cancel that declaration (much like DI's reaction stack in canceling a card play).
That is, play it as it you always have.
> >> If this is how blocks are declared, I suppose there won't be any 3rd
> >> party stealth anymore. Not that it's a big part of the game, just that
> >> I don't think it was intended to leave.
> >
> > LSJ, please confirm that stealth effects which give "any Ravnos" etc.
> > +1 stealth are not usable on another player's Ravnos, due to the timing
> > issues above.
>
> No, they're still usable.
> Just trading one gray area for another, I guess.
> Treat cross-table stealth as a reaction stack to "I'm blocked" that would
> cancel that declaration (much like DI's reaction stack in canceling a card play).
OK. But this means it isn't a gray area--it's a lone effect that
doesn't follow the normal rules for playing effects.
This is probably better than letting all players get a shot to pass
before an action is considered blocked, since that would probably
reverse (by necessity) the long-standing "can't deflect when blocking"
ruling.
-- Brian
<islando...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1162212575....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, it's a bit weird either way. Is there any way the
stealth/intercept/blocking definitions could be cleaned up to make it work
more naturally? As far as I can see, as you say, if "effects when blocking"
worked the same as all other effects, you wouldn't be able to add stealth to
someone else's action. But if we didn't have an "I'm blocked" declaration
that can't be responded to - that is, if "I'm blocked" didn't happen until
the acting Meth passes and all other Meths also pass - you could Deflect
when a block was in the process of succeeding, which also seems undesirable
(at least, there's a lot of precedent behind it).
Stupid slippery pigs. :-) Maybe - here's my attempt to describe the
desired result - the next rulebook could have something saying that during
stealth-vs-intercept comparison, the block doesn't succeed until all Meths
get a chance to add or reduce both stealth and intercept of the acting &
blocking minions? But that non-stealth/intercept effects are only legal
through the normal "priority to play effects" rules?
Josh
the unruly
> > OK. But this means it isn't a gray area--it's a lone effect that
> > doesn't follow the normal rules for playing effects.
> >
> > This is probably better than letting all players get a shot to pass
> > before an action is considered blocked, since that would probably
> > reverse (by necessity) the long-standing "can't deflect when blocking"
> > ruling.
>
> Yeah, it's a bit weird either way. Is there any way the
> stealth/intercept/blocking definitions could be cleaned up to make it work
> more naturally? As far as I can see, as you say, if "effects when blocking"
> worked the same as all other effects, you wouldn't be able to add stealth to
> someone else's action. But if we didn't have an "I'm blocked" declaration
> that can't be responded to - that is, if "I'm blocked" didn't happen until
> the acting Meth passes and all other Meths also pass - you could Deflect
> when a block was in the process of succeeding, which also seems undesirable
> (at least, there's a lot of precedent behind it).
First, this isn't something that comes up a lot. I think if Deflect
type cards were usable while blocking, it would change so little about
actual gameplay that only advanced level players would really take
note. Requiring all Methuselahs to decline to play any further effects
before success of a block would make the rules much more clear, and
also change functionality of Deflection in a minor way. Which is
justifiable, because it's in order to maintain functionality of Paris
Opera House (and probably other effects which I've overlooked.)
Second, if you wanted, you could add a proviso like:
"A Methuselah whose minion is attempting to block cannot play any
effects that would remove his ability to block (unless that minions
block is already failing.)"
I think cleaning up the rules entirely, and then adding this to make
sure there are no functional changes, would be better than leaving the
rules concerning block declaration as they are.
I believe that any time LSJ says the rules have a "gray area", that
should be fixed, and I would like to see the simplest,
least-functionally-changing fix.
One of these suggestions is the simplest (a minion attempts a block +
all Meths pass = successful block).
One of these suggestions is the least-functionally-changing (as above,
+ "can't deflect" rule)
> Stupid slippery pigs. :-) Maybe - here's my attempt to describe the
> desired result - the next rulebook could have something saying that during
> stealth-vs-intercept comparison, the block doesn't succeed until all Meths
> get a chance to add or reduce both stealth and intercept of the acting &
> blocking minions? But that non-stealth/intercept effects are only legal
> through the normal "priority to play effects" rules?
This increases rule complexity even further. Why only give the other
players the ability to add intercept/stealth, but not other effects? I
would keep all stealth/intercept AND other effects played during the
normal "priority to play effects" rules, and if maintaining
functionality is desired, limit effects by "can't play effects which
would remove their eligibility to block" cause really it's JUST
deflection that we're worried about here--and we're only worried cause
it would be different, not cause we've played a few games under
proposed rules and Deflection was just out of control. I honestly
think it would come up very infrequently, as most players succeeding at
blocking a bleed have little or no desire to deflect it.
I think leaving voting (and bidding) free-form is a good thing.
However, bringing successful-block timing in line with everything else
(including frex unsuccessful-block timing) would probably leave the
game unchanged in most practical situations, while clarifying
sufficiently in the really truly odd ones. Which are the only ones
where it matters.
-- Brian