Q: Eagle's Sight

Question... Eagle's Sight (V:TES) Type: Reaction Prerequisite: Auspex Card Text: This reacting vampire gets +1 intercept. SUP: This reacting vampire may attempt to block any action of any minion. Note the word 'may' contained within the SUP dialogue. Would it be legal to play several Eagle's Sight to 'block' a cross-table action, but make no attempt to block? Just to 'cycle' a jammed hand, for example? And if so, wouldn't this be a problem similar to the problem that was inherent to the pre-errata Wake With Evening's Freshness? Cheers, Mattrim. mattrim...@home.com

[ quoted text not captured ] It sounds like you could. but honestly it has never come up as an abusive situation. perhaps because if you're playing eagles sights you are trying to block, so that burning them is a major problem for the deck. just my two cents. Cameron Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:45:06 GMT, "Mattrim." <mattrim...@home.com> wrote: >Question... > >Eagle's Sight (V:TES) >Type: Reaction >Prerequisite: Auspex >Card Text: >This reacting vampire gets +1 intercept. >SUP: This reacting vampire may attempt to block any action of any minion. > >Note the word 'may' contained within the SUP dialogue. > >Would it be legal to play several Eagle's Sight to 'block' a cross-table >action, but make no attempt to block? Just to 'cycle' a jammed hand, for >example? Keeping in mind that you can only play one Eagle's Sight per action per minion, and as such you would require one untapped or "Waked" minion with superior Auspex for each Eagle's Sight you intended to waste in this fashion... Yes, it would be legal. >And if so, wouldn't this be a problem similar to the problem that was >inherent to the pre-errata Wake With Evening's Freshness? Not really. Pre-errata Wake had one requirement: a tapped vampire, which EVERY deck generally has two or three of available at any given time. Some have more. Eagle's Sight has three requirements, none of which are especially common (making it difficult to burn large quantities of Eagle's Sight at once). In addition, Eagle's Sight only has value in an intercept deck - if you don't ever intend to actually USE it to block, it is silly to put it in your deck. Discarding it in this fashion is generally a significant cost. Wake has value in any deck, and if you end up just discarding it, it isn't much of a cost at all. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

"Mattrim." <mattrim...@home.com> wrote: > Eagle's Sight (V:TES) > SUP: This reacting vampire may attempt to block any action of any > minion. > > Note the word 'may' contained within the SUP dialogue. > > Would it be legal to play several Eagle's Sight to 'block' a > cross-table action, but make no attempt to block? Only one per ready untapped superior-auspex-bearing vampire per action, but yes. Note the "cross-table" qualifier isn't needed. You could play Eagle's Sight at superior when your predator hunts or attempts to bleed you. > And if so, wouldn't this be a problem similar to the problem that was > inherent to the pre-errata Wake With Evening's Freshness? Similar, yes, but unlike Wakey, the effect is not as great, the user need to be untapped (or woken), and the user needs superior auspex. Enough to keep the card in line. -- LSJ (vte...@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/ [ quoted text not captured ]