Here is a simple question. My predator takes an undirected action and
I let his predator block knowing he's been looking for the
oppurtunity. My predator then adds stealth. My grandpredator can
know longer block the action. I can't now block the action either
right? Since I had to decline to block for my grandpredator to be
able to block.
Thanks
Wisefool
Mercuriel
[ quoted text not captured ]
Your predator takes an undirected action.
If you decline to block, then you can no longer (ever) attempt to block that
action, whatever your grandpredator attempts to do
JC
"Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn" <jan-christoph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote
in message news:a1q374$q3l$1...@wanadoo.fr...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Barring Anneke, Eagle Sight, Falcon's eye.
These cards give you the opportunity to block again even if you declined
beforehand.
reyda
In message <a1q374$q3l$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn <jan-
christophe....@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>Your predator takes an undirected action.
>If you decline to block, then you can no longer (ever) attempt to block that
>action, whatever your grandpredator attempts to do
Untrue.
Whilst under normal circumstances giving up your right to block will
mean you cannot attempt later, to say that you can no longer ever
attempt to block is untrue.
Anneke, Eagle's Sight [TOM 19960106] and Falcon's Eye all allow this.
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <a1q374$q3l$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn <jan-
> christophe....@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> >Your predator takes an undirected action.
> >If you decline to block, then you can no longer (ever) attempt to block that
> >action, whatever your grandpredator attempts to do
>
> Untrue.
>
> Whilst under normal circumstances giving up your right to block will
> mean you cannot attempt later, to say that you can no longer ever
> attempt to block is untrue.
>
> Anneke, Eagle's Sight [TOM 19960106] and Falcon's Eye all allow this.
Anneke can, yes.
Eagle's Sight can, by the curious ruling cited (although Google doesn't
archive that article).
Pertinent text of that article:
*****
>Then my second question is can the minions of the target of say a directed
>action use eagle sight to block a action the Meth has already declined to
>block?
Yes, you can play Eagle's Sight when you could have blocked the action anyway,
as long as you play it at the right time.
*****
I don't see how that is achieved by card text, however.
I'll put it on the RT list for review.
Falcon's Eye won't overcome a "no block" decision, though.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
In message <3C40BEBA...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
wolf.com> writes:
>Falcon's Eye won't overcome a "no block" decision, though.
But it ignores the usual sequencing rules, by card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3C40BEBA...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes:
> >Falcon's Eye won't overcome a "no block" decision, though.
>
> But it ignores the usual sequencing rules, by card text.
Not by card text (nor is there any errata to accomplish that).
Card text doesn't address sequencing at all.
Only the restrictions on who may block are mentioned (and
overridden).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C40E62E...@white-wolf.com>...
> James Coupe wrote:
> >
> > In message <3C40BEBA...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> > wolf.com> writes:
> > >Falcon's Eye won't overcome a "no block" decision, though.
> >
> > But it ignores the usual sequencing rules, by card text.
>
> Not by card text (nor is there any errata to accomplish that).
> Card text doesn't address sequencing at all.
> Only the restrictions on who may block are mentioned (and
> overridden).
>
It ignores the normal sequencing rules in that normal block sequence
is prey, predator, no one else. Eagle's Sight ignores who is allowed
to block. If I am across the table from you, I can play Eagle's Sight
after your predator attempts and fails to block. I don't see why I
wouldn't get the same opportunity if I was your prey.
Chris Berger wrote:
> It ignores the normal sequencing rules in that normal block sequence
> is prey, predator, no one else. Eagle's Sight ignores who is allowed
There is no "no one else" in the sequence.
The sequence (or undirected actions) is Prey, Predator, others clockwise
from actor. The others are incapable of blocking without explicit card
text, however.
> to block. If I am across the table from you, I can play Eagle's Sight
> after your predator attempts and fails to block. I don't see why I
> wouldn't get the same opportunity if I was your prey.
Because you've already declines to block.
See 6.2.2.1
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C4171D9...@white-wolf.com...
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > It ignores the normal sequencing rules in that normal block sequence
> > is prey, predator, no one else. Eagle's Sight ignores who is allowed
>
> There is no "no one else" in the sequence.
> The sequence (or undirected actions) is Prey, Predator, others clockwise
> from actor. The others are incapable of blocking without explicit card
> text, however.
>
> > to block. If I am across the table from you, I can play Eagle's Sight
> > after your predator attempts and fails to block. I don't see why I
> > wouldn't get the same opportunity if I was your prey.
>
> Because you've already declines to block.
> See 6.2.2.1
heyheyhey ! wait... it's already been ruled that when you decline to block a
bleed and opponent plays conditioning, you can play eagle sight to
block -after having declined. The same argument went on in a US tournament
when someone wanted to "eagle sight" block a referendum after he declined to
do so.
Everybody here seems to think that eagle sight (and btw falcons eye too) can
give you another opportunity to block if you've declined. If you state this
is not the case, you'll seriously hamper the mighty eagle sight. So what
should we believe ?
reyda
Reyda wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Chris Berger wrote:
> > > to block. If I am across the table from you, I can play Eagle's Sight
> > > after your predator attempts and fails to block. I don't see why I
> > > wouldn't get the same opportunity if I was your prey.
> >> > Because you've already [declined] to block.> > See 6.2.2.1
>
> heyheyhey ! wait... it's already been ruled that when you decline to block a
> bleed and opponent plays conditioning, you can play eagle sight to
> block -after having declined. The same argument went on in a US tournament
> when someone wanted to "eagle sight" block a referendum after he declined to
> do so.
Right. Which is why I've place that ruling back on the RT list - there's nothing
on Eagle's Sight that indicates that it can overcome the "I don't block" decision.
See previous messages in this thread.
> Everybody here seems to think that eagle sight (and btw falcons eye too) can
> give you another opportunity to block if you've declined. If you state this
> is not the case, you'll seriously hamper the mighty eagle sight. So what
> should we believe ?
Card text and rules text.
Eagle's Sight has a special ruling (errata, now that the inconsistency is
observed) that overcomes card text and rules text. So (until reversed), it
can be used to block after an "I don't block" decision.
Falcon has no such errata, so cannot.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>Card text and rules text.
>
>Eagle's Sight has a special ruling (errata, now that the inconsistency is
>observed) that overcomes card text and rules text. So (until reversed), it
>can be used to block after an "I don't block" decision.
>
>Falcon has no such errata, so cannot.
Uh oh. I like Eagle's Sight the way it already is! Alternatively, if the
current ruling/errata is reversed, perhaps the allowance of blocking after "I
don't block" can be made into card text in the Camarilla Edition? =)
Halcyan 2
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah,
Like Eagle Sight needs a power boost. Could we please try to keep
lame loopholes out of the game? We've already got enough people
bitching about Tapped Vampires being able to play Cloak the Gathering,
and Vampires in torpor being able to use their specials.
Bernie
LSJ wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
>>>It ignores the normal sequencing rules in that normal block sequence
>>is prey, predator, no one else. Eagle's Sight ignores who is allowed
>>>
> There is no "no one else" in the sequence.
> The sequence (or undirected actions) is Prey, Predator, others clockwise
> from actor. The others are incapable of blocking without explicit card
> text, however.
>
Er, where does it say that sequencing for undirected actions runs as
above? I thought it was strictly acting Meth and then clockwise and
that I, if I prefer to be pesky with rules, can force the playing of
Eagles Sight BEFORE my predator is allowed to state if he/she will
block - and that the if the table allows my predator to decline to
block, that the opportunity to play Eagles Sight is lost.
Sten During
In message <3C42C665...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>> There is no "no one else" in the sequence. The sequence (or
>>undirected actions) is Prey, Predator, others clockwise from actor.
>>The others are incapable of blocking without explicit card
>> text, however.
>>>
>Er, where does it say that sequencing for undirected actions runs as
>above?
Sequencing occurs like that regularly (or in the case of a (D) action,
the target then clockwise...)
This does not give those in the line of effects a chance to block. But
they could play, say, Folderol.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <3c425e6a...@netnews.attbi.com>, Bernie B.
<berni...@NOSPAMattbi.com> writes:
>>Uh oh. I like Eagle's Sight the way it already is! Alternatively, if the
>>current ruling/errata is reversed, perhaps the allowance of blocking after "I
>>don't block" can be made into card text in the Camarilla Edition? =)>>Yeah,
>
>Like Eagle Sight needs a power boost.
As Halcyan points out, it is not a power boost. It has been that one
since 1996.
What is being asked for is clarification of that (preserving the current
state of play) in the Camarilla set.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3C42C665...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
>>>> There is no "no one else" in the sequence. The sequence (or
>>>undirected actions) is Prey, Predator, others clockwise from actor.
>>>The others are incapable of blocking without explicit card
>>>text, however.
>>>
>>>>>Er, where does it say that sequencing for undirected actions runs as
>>above?
>>>
> Sequencing occurs like that regularly (or in the case of a (D) action,
> the target then clockwise...)
>
> This does not give those in the line of effects a chance to block. But
> they could play, say, Folderol.
>
>
I disagree. Rulebook clearly states strictly clockwise for undirected
actions, so, with the exception of Anneke, after Predator has made up
his/her mind that's it, final. The above wording would suggest that
after Predator is finished then we're in an "any other takers?" -phase,
which the rulebook does not allow.
Sten During
In message <3C42F65D...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>I disagree.
This is fine; however, the rulebook does not agree with you.
>Rulebook clearly states strictly clockwise for undirected
>actions,
This is clearly untrue, as a cursory reading of [6.2.2.1] will show.
"If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something
controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected*
and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the
prey getting the first opportunity to block."
>so, with the exception of Anneke, after Predator has made up
>his/her mind that's it, final.
This is untrue; Eagle's Sight also allows an opportunity at this point,
for instance.
>The above wording would suggest that
>after Predator is finished then we're in an "any other takers?" -phase,
>which the rulebook does not allow.
There is, effectively, an "any other takers" phase - it simply requires
card text to activate it.
The rule is, for undirected actions, prey, then predator. Then, as per
[1.6.1.6] (Sequencing), if other Methuselahs on the table have card text
allowing them to block, they go now, clockwise.
For instance, there are five players on the table. In order: You, LSJ,
Me, PDB6 and Derek Ray.
I call a vote with Gratiano. As it is an undirected action, Peter
Bakija gets the first option to block. He fails to block, and then
declines.
LSJ gets an opportunity to block. He also fails to, and so declines.
At this point, under usual circumstances there is no way for other
players to block - but if they can, they are allowed to attempt at this
point, going clockwise.
For instance, if Derek controls Enzo Giovanni (thus allowing him an
attempt to block any political action called by a non-
Prince/Justicar/Inner Circle) and you control Anneke (thus allowing you
an attempt to block also), you could both block. (But without these
card texts, you wouldn't have the opportunity.) You would then have to
go first based on who was clockwise from the actor - in this instance,
Derek would get the third opportunity to block, then you could have the
fourth.
Also see Madness Network, which allows multiple different blockers than
usual. These are handled in the manner given by LSJ - target (if (D)),
prey then predator (if not directed), followed by the other starting
clockwise from the actor.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
from 6.2: taking an action:
The target Methuselah may try to block the action with any of her ready
untapped minions. If the action doesn't target another Methuselah (or targets
more than one), then the minions of the prey and predator may try to
block.
that's where it says it. O:)
salem.
....salem christ.... wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Still disagree, 1.6.1.6 states the sequence. Usually only prey and
predator will be allowed to block, which in no way changes the
sequence. I'm only aiming at your losing your opportunity to play
Eagles Sight the very moment predator gets to decide wether to
decline blocking or not.
Sten During
In message <3C440969...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>I'm only aiming at your losing your opportunity to play
>Eagles Sight the very moment predator gets to decide wether to
>decline blocking or not.
What you are aiming for and what the current rules allow are different
things.
Under current rules, you can play Eagle's Sight in the timing given.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3C42F65D...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
>>>I disagree.
>>>
> This is fine; however, the rulebook does not agree with you.
>
It does, 1.6.1.6.
>>>Rulebook clearly states strictly clockwise for undirected
>>actions,
>>>
> This is clearly untrue, as a cursory reading of [6.2.2.1] will show.
>
> "If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something
> controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected*
> and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the
> prey getting the first opportunity to block."
Above ruling only states which Methuselahs are always allowed to
attempt to block an undirected action, and in which order this
happens. Actually 6.2.2.1 is only specifying 1.6.1.6 in the normal
case where an undirected action is concerned and people want to
block. 6.2.2.1 is a subset of 1.6.1.6, nothing else.
>
>>>so, with the exception of Anneke, after Predator has made up
>>his/her mind that's it, final.
>>>
> This is untrue; Eagle's Sight also allows an opportunity at this point,
> for instance.
1.6.1.6 does not allow this.
>
>>>The above wording would suggest that
>>after Predator is finished then we're in an "any other takers?" -phase,
>>which the rulebook does not allow.
>>>
> There is, effectively, an "any other takers" phase - it simply requires
> card text to activate it.
My mistake, Anneke for example does indeed have the cardtext that allows
her to attempt to block when all others (effectively meaning predator)
have declined to block.
>
> The rule is, for undirected actions, prey, then predator. Then, as per
> [1.6.1.6] (Sequencing), if other Methuselahs on the table have card text
> allowing them to block, they go now, clockwise.
As I wrote above, 1.6.1.6 is the superset, not the subset. The rulesbook
is perfectly, mathematically clear here. Prey, Predator blocking order
falls under 1.6.1.6 and is therefore a subset.
>
>
> For instance, there are five players on the table. In order: You, LSJ,
> Me, PDB6 and Derek Ray.
>
> I call a vote with Gratiano. As it is an undirected action, Peter
> Bakija gets the first option to block. He fails to block, and then
> declines.
>
> LSJ gets an opportunity to block. He also fails to, and so declines.
>
> At this point, under usual circumstances there is no way for other
> players to block - but if they can, they are allowed to attempt at this
> point, going clockwise.
This is not true. Following 1.6.1.6 the going clockwise is at this
point already done, and we have reached the point (where I erred
earlier) where you ask for any other blockers, at which time the
only cardeffect I know that exists in the entire game is Annekes
allowing her to take the bid (shame on me, writing the Toreador
Newsletter *grin*).
>
> For instance, if Derek controls Enzo Giovanni (thus allowing him an
> attempt to block any political action called by a non-
> Prince/Justicar/Inner Circle) and you control Anneke (thus allowing you
> an attempt to block also), you could both block. (But without these
This is not true. I can block because I control Anneke (by cardtext on
Anneke). Derek cannot block with Enzo unless he tried to BEFORE
letting the opportunity pass to LSJ.
> card texts, you wouldn't have the opportunity.) You would then have to
> go first based on who was clockwise from the actor - in this instance,
> Derek would get the third opportunity to block, then you could have the
> fourth.
>
>
>
> Also see Madness Network, which allows multiple different blockers than
> usual. These are handled in the manner given by LSJ - target (if (D)),
> prey then predator (if not directed), followed by the other starting
> clockwise from the actor.
>
Madness Network doesn't add one single blocker. It only allows you to
potentially use minion-actions during another Meth's influence phase
rather than during your own Minion Phase.
It very simply comes down to one thing, 1.6.1.6 is very explicit about
in which order players may react to any undirected effect. For example
calling a vote is one such effect. When it's my turn to react, if I'm
not prey or predator, I may react by playing Eagles Sight in order to
actually try to block. By cardtext on Anneke I'm NOT allowed to block
with her UNLESS she tries with the help of an Eagles Sight.
Prey and Predator simply have one default additional way to react more
than all the other players - P&P may always attempt to block as a
reaction to an undirected minion-action. This does in no way change
1.6.1.6.
Sten During
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3C440969...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
>>>I'm only aiming at your losing your opportunity to play
>>Eagles Sight the very moment predator gets to decide wether to
>>decline blocking or not.
>>>
> What you are aiming for and what the current rules allow are different
> things.
>
> Under current rules, you can play Eagle's Sight in the timing given.
>
>
In that case current ruling is incorrect - see my long response
in the original thread.
Sten During
In message <3C44159E...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>> What you are aiming for and what the current rules allow are
>>different
>> things.
>> Under current rules, you can play Eagle's Sight in the timing given.
>>>
>In that case current ruling is incorrect
By virtue of it being the official rules of the game, it is correct.
It may be questionably derived, but it is correct. It also goes back to
1996, under TOM, which provides it with a certain amount more 'this is
what was intended' authenticity, though not exclusively so.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <3C44151F...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>> In message <3C42F65D...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
>> writes:
>>>>>I disagree.
>>>>> This is fine; however, the rulebook does not agree with you.>
>It does, 1.6.1.6.
[1.6.1.6] handles sequencing, which is the general case for playing
effects, in most instances.
Blocking is handled by different parts of the rules-book, in addition to
and as well as [1.6.1.6]
>> This is clearly untrue, as a cursory reading of [6.2.2.1] will show.
>> "If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at
>>something
>> controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected*
>> and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the
>> prey getting the first opportunity to block.">
>
>Above ruling only states which Methuselahs are always allowed to
>attempt to block an undirected action,
Correct.
>and in which order this
>happens.
Correct.
>Actually 6.2.2.1 is only specifying 1.6.1.6 in the normal
>case where an undirected action is concerned and people want to
>block. 6.2.2.1 is a subset of 1.6.1.6, nothing else.
Untrue. [1.6.1.6] does not cover who may or may not block. This is
entirely separate to the concept of Sequencing.
>>>so, with the exception of Anneke, after Predator has made up
>>>his/her mind that's it, final.
>>>>> This is untrue; Eagle's Sight also allows an opportunity at this
>>point,
>> for instance.>
>1.6.1.6 does not allow this.
[1.6.1.6] is concerned with sequencing.
It is also notable that [TOM 19960106] does explicitly allow the playing
of Eagle's Sight post-Predator decline, thus making it allowable.
However, if you want a situation that fits under [1.6.1.6] then this is
also possible.
Following the decline of the Predator to block, there is a phase of
other cards allowable (though not, of course, mandatory).
For instance, if I bleed you with Govern the Unaligned, I can then give
you the opportunity to block. You decline. At this point, other
effects are playable by me - for instance, a copy of Threats. If I
decline to play anything here (as I may) then everyone else still has
the opportunity to react. The target (or prey, then predator) have both
given up the opportunity to block - which is binding for the rest of the
action under most instances - but card text can still allow others to
sequence their blocks at this point, as per [1.6.1.6]
>>>The above wording would suggest that
>>>after Predator is finished then we're in an "any other takers?" -phase,
>>>which the rulebook does not allow.
>>>>> There is, effectively, an "any other takers" phase - it simply
>>requires
>> card text to activate it.>
>
>My mistake, Anneke for example does indeed have the cardtext that allows
>her to attempt to block when all others (effectively meaning predator)
>have declined to block.
Which means there is phase during which cards facilitating such blocks
can be played - an effective "any other blockers" stage, created by card
text.
>> The rule is, for undirected actions, prey, then predator. Then, as
>>per
>> [1.6.1.6] (Sequencing), if other Methuselahs on the table have card text
>> allowing them to block, they go now, clockwise.>
>
>As I wrote above, 1.6.1.6 is the superset,
Untrue, as LSJ's ruling shows.
[1.6.1.6] does not go (target OR prey, then predator), then clockwise
from the actor excluding those who have already shown.
The additional blockers are not generally handled in the rulesbook as
they are an exception generated by card text. These rulings clarify how
to handle this.
When the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.
>not the subset. The rulesbook
>is perfectly, mathematically clear here. Prey, Predator blocking order
>falls under 1.6.1.6 and is therefore a subset.
Not true, since it over-rides part of [1.6.1.6] and works differently.
Your intense desire to make it a subset such that your suggestion works
is a separate issue.
>> For instance, there are five players on the table. In order: You,
>>LSJ,
>> Me, PDB6 and Derek Ray.
>> I call a vote with Gratiano. As it is an undirected action, Peter
>> Bakija gets the first option to block. He fails to block, and then
>> declines.
>> LSJ gets an opportunity to block. He also fails to, and so
>>declines.
>> At this point, under usual circumstances there is no way for other
>> players to block - but if they can, they are allowed to attempt at this
>> point, going clockwise.>
>This is not true.
You are failing to pay attention.
Message-ID: <3C4171D9...@white-wolf.com>
[LSJ 20020113]
makes this crystal clear. (In this thread.)
If you are going to tell the Official Rules Authority that he is not
official anymore, that is fine. However, this is the official
interpretation of the rule.
>Following 1.6.1.6 the going clockwise is at this
>point already done,
Untrue. [LSJ 20020113]
>and we have reached the point (where I erred
>earlier) where you ask for any other blockers, at which time the
>only cardeffect I know that exists in the entire game is Annekes
>allowing her to take the bid
Untrue. [LSJ 20020113]
>> For instance, if Derek controls Enzo Giovanni (thus allowing him an
>> attempt to block any political action called by a non-
>> Prince/Justicar/Inner Circle) and you control Anneke (thus allowing you
>> an attempt to block also), you could both block. (But without these>
>
>This is not true. I can block because I control Anneke (by cardtext on
>Anneke). Derek cannot block with Enzo unless he tried to BEFORE
>letting the opportunity pass to LSJ.
Untrue. [LSJ 20020113]
The instance of others blocking is not handled in the rulesbook because
it is generated by card text. Defer to [LSJ 20020113] because that is
the official ruling on how to handle such a situation - which explicitly
states that it is prey, then predator, then others.
>> card texts, you wouldn't have the opportunity.) You would then have to
>> go first based on who was clockwise from the actor - in this instance,
>> Derek would get the third opportunity to block, then you could have the
>> fourth.
>> Also see Madness Network, which allows multiple different blockers
>>than
>> usual. These are handled in the manner given by LSJ - target (if (D)),
>> prey then predator (if not directed), followed by the other starting
>> clockwise from the actor.
>>>Madness Network doesn't add one single blocker.
I would suggest you should go and read the card before continue to spout
such utter nonsense.
>It only allows you to
>
>potentially use minion-actions during another Meth's influence phase
>rather than during your own Minion Phase.
This is true. However, it also adds blockers to another action it
allows.
Please go and read the card text.
>It very simply comes down to one thing,
That [LSJ 20020113] is an official ruling, and yours is not.
>1.6.1.6 is very explicit about
>
>in which order players may react to any undirected effect.
Reacting is very different to blocking.
[1.6.1.6] addresses one area, which [6.2.2.1] can also be regarded as
addressing for some areas - though it refers to blocking.
[LSJ 20020113] addresses the card text generated situations for blockers
who aren't normally allowed, and explicitly tells you that your
interpretation is incorrect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3C44159E...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
>>>> What you are aiming for and what the current rules allow are
>>>different
>>>things.
>>> Under current rules, you can play Eagle's Sight in the timing given.
>>>
>>>>>In that case current ruling is incorrect
>>>
> By virtue of it being the official rules of the game, it is correct.
>
> It may be questionably derived, but it is correct. It also goes back to
> 1996, under TOM, which provides it with a certain amount more 'this is
> what was intended' authenticity, though not exclusively so.
>
>
I'd say it's outright horrible.
As a result we have a situation where all reactions are reactions
except blocks which are blocks except that they are still reactions.
Another consequence is that with the current ruling, if I wait until
after the predator declines to block then I'm not allowed to play
a wake-card and then play Eagles Sight. Actually, in order to comply
with 1.6.1.6 then I'm only allowed to play an Eagles Sight - final.
It'll be strictly illegal to play intercept or whatever if for example
the predator did play a wake-card, or a card that reduced the acting
minions stealth because after that 1.6.1.6 kicks in and punishes those
who didn't play their non-block reaction-effects before that, just
because the predator decided to play a non-blocking effect before
declining to block.
I actually think that the cardtext on Eagles Sight works
wonderfully, the Errata is fine apart from the part between
parantheses that says "i.e., Prey - Predator - Prey w/ Eagle's sight",
which is something that totally lacks support anywhere in the rules.
I'd even go so far as to say, that if (and I haven't played long enough
to know) the standard rules have been changed since 1996 from
explicitly stating that the normal blocking order is Prey - Predator -
Prey with Eagles sight, to todays total ommitance of such a wording
within a set scope of rules that still are perfectly clear about
handling reaction-sequenzing, then that part of the errata refers to
a "normality" that is no longer there, but the errata still requires
Eagles Sight to follow the normal sequence, which with total clarity
in the on-line rules states how to handle who blocks when. And thus
it would follow that Eagles Sight has had a changed function, something
that apparently has happened to several other cards during the years
of this game.
Sten During
In message <3C4450B2...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>> By virtue of it being the official rules of the game, it is correct.
>> It may be questionably derived, but it is correct. It also goes
>>back to
>> 1996, under TOM, which provides it with a certain amount more 'this is
>> what was intended' authenticity, though not exclusively so.
>>>
>I'd say it's outright horrible.
What you would say, and what is correct, are two entirely separate
things.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3C44151F...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
Some responses and some arguing in order to point at several other
problems with the current ruling.
Observe that I'm trying to state that the current ruling creates
a lot more problems that is solves and that it would be better
off changed.
Nowhere do I assume that the current ruling would be illegal, as
it wouldn't be the current one in that case. I do, however, believe
it to be - frankly, bad.
<snip>
>>>Actually 6.2.2.1 is only specifying 1.6.1.6 in the normal
>>case where an undirected action is concerned and people want to
>>block. 6.2.2.1 is a subset of 1.6.1.6, nothing else.
>>>
> Untrue. [1.6.1.6] does not cover who may or may not block. This is
> entirely separate to the concept of Sequencing.
>
This simply cannot be true. All my minions are untapped. You, crosstable
have one of your minions take an undirected action at 1 stealth. By
now we have generated a situation covered by 1.6.1.6. In order to be
allowed to play WWEF I must comply with 1.6.1.6, after, and only after
that will I be allowed (of course after allowing the controller of the
acting minion to respond to my playing a wake-card) to play any other
reaction-cards, some of which might be played in order to attempt to
block, but at this time I have neither decided to block, nor have I
declined.
Now, assume that predator declines to block (having played wakes,
intercept, stealthreducers etc), then I, in accordance to the current
ruling, plays Eagles Sight, and this will be the one single card that
I'm allowed to play because 1.6.1.6 will outlaw any reactioneffect
not covered by 6.2.2.1 by this time, if for no other reason then because
predator did play reactioneffects not covered by 6.2.2.1 which then
has to be covered by 1.6.1.6.
<more snip>
> [1.6.1.6] is concerned with sequencing.
>
> It is also notable that [TOM 19960106] does explicitly allow the playing
> of Eagle's Sight post-Predator decline, thus making it allowable.
Actually [TOM 19960106] forces the playing of Eagles Sight within the
normal handling of blockers. It then refers to this normality, pretty
much like several other cards do (Abomination naming most but not all
Garou you can convert), and this specified normality is nowhere to be
found in the online-rules, which ought to define all normality in the
game.
>
> However, if you want a situation that fits under [1.6.1.6] then this is
> also possible.
>
> Following the decline of the Predator to block, there is a phase of
> other cards allowable (though not, of course, mandatory).
>
> For instance, if I bleed you with Govern the Unaligned, I can then give
> you the opportunity to block. You decline. At this point, other
> effects are playable by me - for instance, a copy of Threats. If I
> decline to play anything here (as I may) then everyone else still has
> the opportunity to react. The target (or prey, then predator) have both
> given up the opportunity to block - which is binding for the rest of the
> action under most instances - but card text can still allow others to
> sequence their blocks at this point, as per [1.6.1.6]
>
<snip>
>>not the subset. The rulesbook
>>is perfectly, mathematically clear here. Prey, Predator blocking order
>>falls under 1.6.1.6 and is therefore a subset.
>>>
> Not true, since it over-rides part of [1.6.1.6] and works differently.
> Your intense desire to make it a subset such that your suggestion works
> is a separate issue.
>> Message-ID: <3C4171D9...@white-wolf.com>> [LSJ 20020113]
>
> makes this crystal clear. (In this thread.)
>
> If you are going to tell the Official Rules Authority that he is not
> official anymore, that is fine. However, this is the official
> interpretation of the rule.
>
<even more snip>
>>>
> Untrue. [LSJ 20020113]
>
> The instance of others blocking is not handled in the rulesbook because
> it is generated by card text. Defer to [LSJ 20020113] because that is
> the official ruling on how to handle such a situation - which explicitly
> states that it is prey, then predator, then others.
>
>
>
LSJ is the official interpretor of rules. That is not the same as a
solid protest that actually makes good sense could eventually make
LSJ officially interpret the rules differently.
I assume that you mean LSJ:s posts in this very thread when you refer
to [LSJ 20020113]. If not below is going to make very little sense :)
In [LSJ 20020113] it follows that Eagles Sight is handled differently
from Falcons Eye because of specific wording in an Errata. This specific
wording happens to be: "Must be played during the 'choose blockers'
stage. It may not be used after the action Methuselah asks for "all
other blocking attempts". It may be used after your normal position on
the choose blocker list (i.e., Prey - Predator - Prey w/ Eagle's sight).
[TOM 19960106]"
Now, LSJ points out that this errata specifically allows a prey with
Eagles Sight to block with Eagles Sight after declining to block, which
also is the only way for prey to play it 'out of normal blocking order'.
There being no such wording for Falcons Eye then prey with that card
doesn't get the opportunity to use it after declining to block when
normally allowed to.
Now, if we go back to the errata as it is actually worded, then
Prey - Predator Prey with Eagles Sight is the 'normal' blocking
order, something LSJ apparently didn't rule normal at all.
The Errata VERY specifically forbids you to play Eagles Sight when
Annekes special kicks in.
All I'm suggesting is that todays rulebook in a very distinct
way defines the 'normal' blocking order to be Prey - N/A - N/A
- Predator at a five player table, and that both Eagles Sight
as well as Falcons Eye allows me to replace N/A with Grandprey
and Grandpredator in addition to cardcycling (playing it when
I would normally have been allowed to block anyway).
<snip>
>>>
>>>>>Madness Network doesn't add one single blocker.
>>>
> I would suggest you should go and read the card before continue to spout
> such utter nonsense.
>
>
I stand corrected.
<snip>
Sten During
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:3C4450B2...@netg.se...
>
> James Coupe wrote:
>
> >>In that case current ruling is incorrect
> >>
> >
> > By virtue of it being the official rules of the game, it is correct.
> >
> > It may be questionably derived, but it is correct. It also goes back to
> > 1996, under TOM, which provides it with a certain amount more 'this is
> > what was intended' authenticity, though not exclusively so.
> >
Heh... any ruling made by TOM is a little bit suspect, James.
> As a result we have a situation where all reactions are reactions
> except blocks which are blocks except that they are still reactions.
>
Blocks are not reactions. Why would you think that? Blocks are done in
response to an action, but that doesn't make them reactions, just as voting
in a referendum is not a reaction *or* an action modifier (and is thus
allowable by tapped vampires).
> Another consequence is that with the current ruling, if I wait until
> after the predator declines to block then I'm not allowed to play
> a wake-card and then play Eagles Sight. Actually, in order to comply
> with 1.6.1.6 then I'm only allowed to play an Eagles Sight - final.
> It'll be strictly illegal to play intercept or whatever if for example
> the predator did play a wake-card, or a card that reduced the acting
> minions stealth because after that 1.6.1.6 kicks in and punishes those
> who didn't play their non-block reaction-effects before that, just
> because the predator decided to play a non-blocking effect before
> declining to block.
> I actually think that the cardtext on Eagles Sight works
> wonderfully, the Errata is fine apart from the part between
> parantheses that says "i.e., Prey - Predator - Prey w/ Eagle's sight",
> which is something that totally lacks support anywhere in the rules.
>
What kind of gibberish is this? During any block attempt, you can
technically go clockwise around the table to see if anyone wants to play
reaction cards. It's just that no one ever does, so if you need to play a
reaction in the middle of someone else's block you can.
It's this sequencing that allows one to play Eagle's Sight, as you can play
it when it's someone else's opportunity to block (although they will
generally get the first chance to choose to block of play an effect). The
impetus for the "current" ruling is that you can play a reaction at any
time, and when you do so, you attempt to block. The card doesn't say that
it can't interrupt the normal blocking sequence. On the other hand, the
impetus for what will probably be the new ruling is that the card also
doesn't say it *can* interrupt the normal blocking sequence, and cards
cannot override general restrictions unless they specifically say that they
override those restrictions. e.g. Bum's Rush (in old incarnations) says to
enter combat with any vampire, but it doesn't specifically allow you to
enter combat with your own vampire.
In conclusion, blocks are not reactions. ;)
In message <3C445D1E...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>This simply cannot be true. All my minions are untapped. You,
>crosstable
>have one of your minions take an undirected action at 1 stealth. By
>now we have generated a situation covered by 1.6.1.6.
1.6.1.6 covers the generation of effects, not the blocking order.
No amount of foot stamping will change this.
The rules-book and LSJ's rulings cover the order in which blocks are
handled.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>In message <3C445D1E...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
>writes:
>>>This simply cannot be true. All my minions are untapped. You,
>>crosstable
>>have one of your minions take an undirected action at 1 stealth. By
>>now we have generated a situation covered by 1.6.1.6.
>>>
>1.6.1.6 covers the generation of effects, not the blocking order.
>
>No amount of foot stamping will change this.
>
>The rules-book and LSJ's rulings cover the order in which blocks are
>handled.
>
And I'm trying to state that attempting to block is playing an effect.
I have dug up a rulesbooklet from a VTES starter. I do not know exactly
when they were
released, nor do I know if any printed rules were released with the
Sabbat expansion, but
I do know that inside the Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts display
boxes there is no
booklet with rules. I assume, maybe wrongly, that the first set of
printed and distributed
rules after the VTES set is the booklet distributed with Sabbat Wars.
When the errata that we both refer to was written there didn't exist any
1.6.1.6. Actually
it lacked any kind of sequencehandling apart from what is said in the
part for The
Advanced Game, which states that in difference from the The Basic Game
blocking of
undirected actions is allowed. Only two players may attempt to block -
Prey and Predator,
with Prey getting to decide first.
Sequencing (in written booklets) is introduced with the Sabbat Wars
expansion.
Some cards from the early expansions 'break the rules', and again - The
Golden Rule for
Cards is introduced with the Sabbat Wars expansion, but for this thread
that is of minor
importance.
The errata is obviously written to handle a card that breaks the rule of
who may block
an action at a time predating sequenceruling. No general rule about in
which order
players get to play Master OOT etc etc, to lean back against, but at
least there is
a defined order about who gets to block undirected actions first, and
Eagles Sight
breaks this rule. So errata defines that card has to be played during
the normal
timeframe when blockers are chosen, and places Eagles Sight after
Predator. No
problem at that time.
With the introduction of sequencing (4 years later?) we have a
welldefined order
in which reacting players may play effects. When the action is
undirected the
order is strictly clockwise.
With the current ruling about blocking we'd theoretically be forced to
allow one
player to say "I'm not playing any (reaction) effects at the moment, but
when it's
my turn again I want to be asked again", and watch that player do it
again and
again..., or we can incorporate blocking into the welldefined handling
of sequencing
and say that when all players including predator has declined to play
reaction
effects then the acting minions controller asks "Any other blockers?",
at which
time (as of today) the player controlling Anneke gets an additional
option to
attempt to block (cardtext doesn't explicitly say "all others", just
"others"), but
without the help of any reaction-effects (for example intercept-modifiers).
Why bother? Well, with todays ruling, me being the acting vampires
grandpredator,
when do I play Draba? Before or after Predator decides wether to block
or not?
As blocking is currently not handled by 1.6.1.6 I'm unable to answer
that question,
and I shouldn't have to resort to reading newsgroups in order to answer what
seemingly apparent is welldefined within the rules I buy with every
newly printed
starterdeck I buy today - just to find out that the obvious was
obviously wrong.
And, most important, James, I have the uttmost respect for your
interpretation
of the rules. I'm merely trying to put an errata into the historical
context where
it belongs - and we definitely seem to love this game equally much, or we
wouldn't put this much time into debating rules ;)
Sten During
In message <3C44A31F...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>>1.6.1.6 covers the generation of effects, not the blocking order.
>>
>>No amount of foot stamping will change this.
>>
>>The rules-book and LSJ's rulings cover the order in which blocks are
>>handled.
>>>
>And I'm trying to state that attempting to block is playing an effect.
You're wrong.
Attempting to block is governed by 6.2.2.1 and LSJ's rulings, not by
1.6.1.6
There are no two ways about this. You are wrong.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Berger wrote:
> Blocks are not reactions. Why would you think that? Blocks are done in
> response to an action, but that doesn't make them reactions, just as voting
> in a referendum is not a reaction *or* an action modifier (and is thus
> allowable by tapped vampires).
>
Er, I just thought that was obvious - which definitely isn't the same
as my being right (that blocking is playing a reaction effect, based
on the reasoning that if there are two default minionactions, bleed
and hunt, then blocking is the one single default minionreaction).
>>>Another consequence is that with the current ruling, if I wait until
>>after the predator declines to block then I'm not allowed to play
>>a wake-card and then play Eagles Sight. Actually, in order to comply
>>with 1.6.1.6 then I'm only allowed to play an Eagles Sight - final.
>>It'll be strictly illegal to play intercept or whatever if for example
>>the predator did play a wake-card, or a card that reduced the acting
>>minions stealth because after that 1.6.1.6 kicks in and punishes those
>>who didn't play their non-block reaction-effects before that, just
>>because the predator decided to play a non-blocking effect before
>>declining to block.
>>I actually think that the cardtext on Eagles Sight works
>>wonderfully, the Errata is fine apart from the part between
>>parantheses that says "i.e., Prey - Predator - Prey w/ Eagle's sight",
>>which is something that totally lacks support anywhere in the rules.
>>
>>> What kind of gibberish is this? During any block attempt, you can
> technically go clockwise around the table to see if anyone wants to play
> reaction cards. It's just that no one ever does, so if you need to play a
> reaction in the middle of someone else's block you can.
I see where my reasoning here faults. Clockwise is not the same as going
clockwise once and only once.
>
> It's this sequencing that allows one to play Eagle's Sight, as you can play
> it when it's someone else's opportunity to block (although they will
> generally get the first chance to choose to block of play an effect). The
> impetus for the "current" ruling is that you can play a reaction at any
> time, and when you do so, you attempt to block. The card doesn't say that
> it can't interrupt the normal blocking sequence. On the other hand, the
> impetus for what will probably be the new ruling is that the card also
> doesn't say it *can* interrupt the normal blocking sequence, and cards
> cannot override general restrictions unless they specifically say that they
> override those restrictions. e.g. Bum's Rush (in old incarnations) says to
> enter combat with any vampire, but it doesn't specifically allow you to
> enter combat with your own vampire.
>
> In conclusion, blocks are not reactions. ;)
>
Ok, I may still not like it, but I must definitely play according to
the existing rules. However, with the actual rules as a background, the
following questions immediately comes up for me:
1) Which comes first, reaction or blocking? Reason for the question -
do I get to play Direct Intervention before or after predator attempts
to block.
2) If the answer is "simultaneously", am I correct in my assumption that
I can deny preadator from ever getting to play an interceptcard by
enforcing my right (as let's say grandpredator) to play stealthlowering
and interceptincreasing effects before acting Meth's predator may do
that?
3) When does the calling for "Any other blockers?" occur? Errata is
clear about that Eagles Sight has to be played during the regular
choose blocker phase.
4) Does Anneke indeed get the opportunity to decline to block during
the outside of normal blockers position (ie when Eagles Sight would
normally be played) in order to be able to attempt to block after
"Any other blockers?" has been called?
Sten During
In message <3C455ACF...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>1) Which comes first, reaction or blocking?
Reacting that occurs in a specific phase will come before blocking which
occurs in a later phase.
> Reason for the question -
>do I get to play Direct Intervention before or after predator attempts
>to block.
Direct Intervention is played during the "as the card is played" phase,
and so will beat pretty much everything else.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>>Reason for the question -
>>do I get to play Direct Intervention before or after predator attempts
>>to block.
>>>
> Direct Intervention is played during the "as the card is played" phase,
> and so will beat pretty much everything else.
>
>
Uh DOH! (Banging my head on the table) Sorry about that infinitely
bad example of card when asking my question :)
Ok, if I understood the sequencing correctly will the following be
correct play?
Acting:
Calling a political action.
Prey: Declining to block.
Me: Watching.
Predator: Blocking and playing Eanhanced Senses.
Me: Sorry, but I'm going to play Draba before you're allowed to increase
intercept. Playing Draba.
Acting: Adding stealth.
Me: Tapping London Evening, adding one intercept to predators blocking
minion.
etc, etc, etc.
If planned for, this seems like a very efficient way of denying an
intercept-wall based on transients from cycling cards, especially
if I myself don't play to take any actions with more than zero
stealth.
Sten During
In message <3C45AE13...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
<snip - playing cards/effects in like with [1.6.1.6]>
>If planned for, this seems like a very efficient way of denying an
>intercept-wall based on transients from cycling cards, especially
>if I myself don't play to take any actions with more than zero
>stealth.
It also seems like a spectacularly good way to end up spending pool,
blood and cards to no effect if no-one is playing an intercept wall....
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <3C45AE13...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes:
> <snip - playing cards/effects in like with [1.6.1.6]>
>>>If planned for, this seems like a very efficient way of denying an
>>intercept-wall based on transients from cycling cards, especially
>>if I myself don't play to take any actions with more than zero
>>stealth.
>>>
> It also seems like a spectacularly good way to end up spending pool,
> blood and cards to no effect if no-one is playing an intercept wall....
>
>
*grin* You should see our local arena... I would call this a, let's
put it mildly, low-risk deal :)
Threadwise off topic: The generic denial tactics just popped up
again, never intercept a stealther and the opposite. The idea of
forcefully shoveling intercept down the throat of a Tzimisce
just never occured to me before, and with BL I expect to see
a disgusting amount of decks with FOR/AUS as well.
Sten During
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:3C45BF63...@netg.se...
> Threadwise off topic: The generic denial tactics just popped up
> again, never intercept a stealther and the opposite. The idea of
> forcefully shoveling intercept down the throat of a Tzimisce
> just never occured to me before, and with BL I expect to see
> a disgusting amount of decks with FOR/AUS as well.
Yeah, this is vastly fun, I have to admit. There was a while around here
where every other deck was Tzimisce, so I switched to playing a lot of
0-stealth decks. Amusing. :)
It's always a good choice to hit them where they ain't.
Xian