I just finished a game and was ousted by my prey which I could
have killed much earlier in the game. I played Kine Dominance on him and
waited to see if he would block with his intercepts. He declined to
block, so I pulled out Conditioning which would have bleed him enough to
oust him.
He then played his Spirit's touch on me saying that it was a
reaction to my modifier. This blocked my bleed and led to him ousting his
prey and my predetor (4 player game) before finally ousting me.
The question:- Is this legal? I thought you couldn't block any
bleeds once you have declined to block it, unless you have Anneke and/or
Eagle's sight. Please help us with this problem.
CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. This is not legal. Once a Meth. passes her opportunity to block, she
cannot block. Play reaction cards, yes - but these cards will not lead to
a block.
Order :
M1: My vampire V1 takes action A1.
(directed?) -> Target declares any block attempts.
(undirected) -> First Prey, then Predator announces any Block attempts.
After the routine attempts (above) have failed, been declined, then
each Methuselah, starting with M1's Prey and proceeding clockwise
to M1's Predator and skipping the Methuselah(s) who already had an
opportunity to block, gets the opp to use Eagle's Sight (or other card?)
to be granted the priviledge of blocking.
After the Eagle's Sight-like blocks have all been declined or have failed,
then the Methuselah controlling Anneke declares whether ot not Anneke
will attempt to block.
After all of this, you may play an action modifier. This modifier will
not grant any Methuselah a new chance to block. It can be reacted
to (with Deflection, for example), and the reaction card may grant
a new opportunity to block (as Deflection does).
But in general - after you decline to block, you can not block. Period.
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:: > He then played his Spirit's touch on me saying that it was a: >reaction to my modifier. This blocked my bleed and led to him ousting his
: >prey and my predetor (4 player game) before finally ousting me.
: > The question:- Is this legal?: No. This is not legal. Once a Meth. passes her opportunity to block, she: cannot block. Play reaction cards, yes - but these cards will not lead to
: a block.: Order :
[bobbitt - description of blocking sequence]
: After all of this, you may play an action modifier. This modifier will: not grant any Methuselah a new chance to block. It can be reacted
: to (with Deflection, for example), and the reaction card may grant
: a new opportunity to block (as Deflection does).
Just an addendum to this point - there is nothing stopping the acting
vampire from playing an Action Modifier _before_ the target (or anyone
else) declares their block.
This might be useful, for example, if you want to throw on that +bleed
card to ensure the action gets blocked because you have some nasty combat
surprises waiting for the blocker...
Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort
sht...@duke.usask.ca | when he has forgotten his aim.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Santayana
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950317...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>waited to see if he would block with his intercepts. He declined to
>block, so I pulled out Conditioning which would have bleed him enough to
>oust him.
This is probably just me, but I think that anytime you use a modifier
like Conditioning then they should have another chance to block.
Around here we play that you must play modifiers when you declare
the action, excepting things like Cryptic Rider, etc., that depend
on a successful action anyway, because a conditioning bleed is MUCH
different than a normal bleed, and the above tactic is considered
bad play [degenerate] and is *not* accepted...anyone else play this
way also or do you let people steamroll over you like that, forcing
one to block every bleed because you cant be sure they dont have
conditioning, threats, bonding, etc. etc.
And while I'm here, if I perform an action, and my prey
Wakes one of his vampires to block it, can I subsequently play
a stealth card so that his Wake is burned uselessly (if he has
no intercept)? I argued that I could, he argued that he got his
Wake back, I let him since I was winning anyway...what's the right
argument.
Also, could Golconda be played on a vampire in the uncontrolled
region, said friend argued that the card didnt specifically sayL
"ready" vampire, just vampire, but I said that uncontrolled
vamps were considered out of the game except in cases like Betrayer.
What's the verdict?
-Geo
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950317...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
> I just finished a game and was ousted by my prey which I could
>have killed much earlier in the game. I played Kine Dominance on him and
>waited to see if he would block with his intercepts. He declined to
>block, so I pulled out Conditioning which would have bleed him enough to
>oust him.
> He then played his Spirit's touch on me saying that it was a
>reaction to my modifier. This blocked my bleed and led to him ousting his
>prey and my predetor (4 player game) before finally ousting me.
This is illegal. Intercept cards are played at the commencement of/
during a blocking attempt (playbale only if he has more stealth
than you currently have intercept). Once he has declined to
block, he cannot go back and attempt to block (and play
Spirit's Touch). Other reactions (such as Telepathic
Counter or Telepathic Misdirection) can be played.
> The question:- Is this legal? I thought you couldn't block any
>bleeds once you have declined to block it, unless you have Anneke and/or
>Eagle's sight. Please help us with this problem.
Anneke and/or Eagle's Sight allows you to attempt to block
after others have failed/declined. However, the acting minion
can choose to play his action modifiers after Anneke/anybody
with Eagle's Sight has declined/failed to block, hence
preventing Anneke/someone with Eagle's Sight from blocking
his action `after seeing the action modifier'.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Geoff Coovert (CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote:
: Around here we play that you must play modifiers when you declare
Thanks for clarifying that this was a house rule so that newbies don't
get confused. Too many people forget to do that...
: And while I'm here, if I perform an action, and my prey: Wakes one of his vampires to block it, can I subsequently play
: a stealth card so that his Wake is burned uselessly (if he has
: no intercept)?
Once the Wake is played, it goes to the ash heap. The vampire that it
was played on now has the ability to block and play reaction cards as though
they were untapped. If they do not manage to block, then the WWEF stays
in the ash heap. A card layed is a card played.
: Also, could Golconda be played on a vampire in the uncontrolled: region, said friend argued that the card didnt specifically sayL
: "ready" vampire, just vampire, but I said that uncontrolled
: vamps were considered out of the game except in cases like Betrayer.
: What's the verdict?
Although I cannot find a specific ruling to back it up at the moment, you
are correct and your friend is a rules-weenie. :-) Cards may only be
played on (or by) vampires/minions in the active region, UNLESS it
specifically says otherwise on the card. Betrayer and Brainwash are
examples of cards that may be played on vampires in the inactive region,
Movement of the Slow Body and Rapid healing may be played by vampires in
Torpor. All of these cards specifically say so. Other cards say 'any
ready vampire' which includes Torpor but does not include uncontrolled.
If he insists he is right, put a bunch of Cloak the Gathering in your
deck and have them 'played' by one of your face-down vampires in the
uncontrolled region. Never show him this vampire (he's not allowed to
look at them anyway) but insist that it has superior obfuscate... That
should change his tune pretty quick. :-)
Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who can't change his
sht...@duke.usask.ca | mind and won't change the subject.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Winston Churchill
sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:
>Geoff Coovert (CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote:
>: Around here we play that you must play modifiers when you declare>Thanks for clarifying that this was a house rule so that newbies don't
>get confused. Too many people forget to do that...>: And while I'm here, if I perform an action, and my prey
>: Wakes one of his vampires to block it, can I subsequently play
>: a stealth card so that his Wake is burned uselessly (if he has
>: no intercept)?>Once the Wake is played, it goes to the ash heap. The vampire that it
>was played on now has the ability to block and play reaction cards as though
>they were untapped. If they do not manage to block, then the WWEF stays
>in the ash heap. A card layed is a card played.>: Also, could Golconda be played on a vampire in the uncontrolled
>: region, said friend argued that the card didnt specifically sayL
>: "ready" vampire, just vampire, but I said that uncontrolled
>: vamps were considered out of the game except in cases like Betrayer.
>: What's the verdict?>Although I cannot find a specific ruling to back it up at the moment, you
>are correct and your friend is a rules-weenie. :-) Cards may only be
>played on (or by) vampires/minions in the active region, UNLESS it
>specifically says otherwise on the card.
While that is true for Action and Reaction Cards, all other cards (Masters
and Action Modifiers) may be played on (or by) vampires/minions in the
CONTROLLED region. (As per Tom and the DTR on: Minion Tap, Gird Minions,
Skill Cards, etc.)
>Betrayer and Brainwash are
>examples of cards that may be played on vampires in the inactive region,
>Movement of the Slow Body and Rapid healing may be played by vampires in
>Torpor. All of these cards specifically say so. Other cards say 'any
>ready vampire' which includes Torpor but does not include uncontrolled.
Any ready is Ready, not Controller, and would exclude the Torpor'ed vamps.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <17364EBF6S...@ukcc.uky.edu>,
Geoff Coovert <CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950317...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>>>waited to see if he would block with his intercepts. He declined to
>>block, so I pulled out Conditioning which would have bleed him enough to
>>oust him.>
> This is probably just me, but I think that anytime you use a modifier
>like Conditioning then they should have another chance to block.
> Around here we play that you must play modifiers when you declare
>the action, excepting things like Cryptic Rider, etc., that depend
>on a successful action anyway, because a conditioning bleed is MUCH
>different than a normal bleed, and the above tactic is considered
>bad play [degenerate] and is *not* accepted...anyone else play this
>way also or do you let people steamroll over you like that, forcing
>one to block every bleed because you cant be sure they dont have
>conditioning, threats, bonding, etc. etc.
We play it according to the rules. One of the risks of
declining to block is further modification. If the vampire has
Dominate, expect them to have a bleed enhancer in hand. It's consistent
with the idea that you can play Claws in combat after strike
declaration. If you choose not to block a vampire with Dominate, be
prepared to take the consequences. Forcing all modifiers to be
announced at the time you declare the action removes the advantage to
many of them. There are modifiers that explicitly say that they can be
used only as the action is declared. I'd hate to lose the ability to
surprise someone with a Dawn Op by being forced to show it before
blocking... :-)
>no intercept)? I argued that I could, he argued that he got his
>Wake back, I let him since I was winning anyway...what's the right
>argument.
Once the Wake is played, it's played. It goes to the ash heap.
It gives him the ability to try and block. If he doesn't actually
block, it doesn't matter. He got the chance to try, which is all WwEF
promises.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu (Geoff Coovert) wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950317...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
> CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>
> >waited to see if he would block with his intercepts. He declined to
> >block, so I pulled out Conditioning which would have bleed him enough to
> >oust him.
>
> This is probably just me, but I think that anytime you use a modifier
> like Conditioning then they should have another chance to block.
> Around here we play that you must play modifiers when you declare
> the action, excepting things like Cryptic Rider, etc., that depend
> on a successful action anyway, because a conditioning bleed is MUCH
> different than a normal bleed, and the above tactic is considered
> bad play [degenerate] and is *not* accepted...anyone else play this
> way also or do you let people steamroll over you like that, forcing
> one to block every bleed because you cant be sure they dont have
> conditioning, threats, bonding, etc. etc.
Having the ability to play a conditioning card after a person has
declined to block is part of the complexity of the game. A person has
to think through the possiblities before declining to block. This one part of
the game which makes it great.
A person has to ask himself a number of important and fairly easy
questions. Can I be ousted if he does play any modifiers? Does the acting
vampire have the superior or normal bonding trait? If the acting vamp
has no bonding capabilites, then by all means let that baby slide right in.\
If a person plays correctly then they can let little stuff slide while
saving all the good stuff for the possible death blow.
Not knowing whether the bleed will be modified is fun part
of the bluffing game.
In article <17364EBF6S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu (Geoff Coovert) says:
>
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950317...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>CYLee <cy...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>>>waited to see if he would block with his intercepts. He declined to
>>block, so I pulled out Conditioning which would have bleed him enough to
>>oust him.>
> This is probably just me, but I think that anytime you use a modifier
>like Conditioning then they should have another chance to block.
> Around here we play that you must play modifiers when you declare
>the action, excepting things like Cryptic Rider, etc., that depend
>on a successful action anyway, because a conditioning bleed is MUCH
>different than a normal bleed, and the above tactic is considered
>bad play [degenerate] and is *not* accepted...anyone else play this
>way also or do you let people steamroll over you like that, forcing
>one to block every bleed because you cant be sure they dont have
>conditioning, threats, bonding, etc. etc.
This makes no sense. This is akin to requiring that a Meth who is going to
play "Concealed Weapon" tell you so before you decide to block. Look at
the vampire attempting to bleed you. If it has Dominate that should
immediately put you into 'caution' mode. All this "house rule" really does
is keep you from getting burned by your sloppy, inatentive play. Part of
the risk you take when declining to block a bleed by a vampire with Dom.
is one of getting hit with a big bleed.
>
> And while I'm here, if I perform an action, and my prey
>Wakes one of his vampires to block it, can I subsequently play
>a stealth card so that his Wake is burned uselessly (if he has
>no intercept)? I argued that I could, he argued that he got his
>Wake back, I let him since I was winning anyway...what's the right
>argument.
Yes you can play stealth modifiers after he has played his WwEF.
No he does not get to take his WwEF back. But the vampire he WwEF can still
play reaction cards until the action your vampire is taking is complete.
i.e. you could attempt to bleed. He WwEF's. You out stealth him. His
WwEF'd Vamp can still play cards like Telepathic Misdirection or
Deflection.
> Also, could Golconda be played on a vampire in the uncontrolled
>region, said friend argued that the card didnt specifically sayL
>"ready" vampire, just vampire, but I said that uncontrolled
>vamps were considered out of the game except in cases like Betrayer.
>What's the verdict?
I don't recall the card text but if it does not specifically say "ready
vampire" then your friend is probably correct.
>-Geo
cca...@promus.com (Chris Carter) writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
A card must state that it can affect an Uncontrolled vamp, otherwise it
cannot. A card must state that it cannot be used on a vampire in torpor,
otherwise it can (Action cards and Reaction cards are exceptions).