LSJ: Telepathic Counter and bleeds at or below 0

Ok, we had a heated discussion in our last session, and the turn order rules summary isn't 100% clear (about 90%, I think:). Situation: Antonio Delgado bleeds with Scouting Mission for 2 bleed. Dr. Jest reduces bleed to 0. Does Dr. Jest's player have to decide to block now or not? Can they wait for an action modifier? Or is it like any other action where the acting Methuselah can ask for blockers and the reacting Methuselah must then decide? We are not in disagreement that you can always play a reaction card after an action modifier (ie deflect or reduce). How I interpret the rules: Target Methuselah decide to block or decline. Since 0 bleed, he declines. Antonio Delgado uses Threats to increase the bleed back to 2. All the target Methuselah can do is play reaction cards (but still can't block) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP "Sell crazy somewhere else; we're all stocked up here." -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Situation: > Antonio Delgado bleeds with Scouting Mission for 2 bleed. > Dr. Jest reduces bleed to 0. > > Does Dr. Jest's player have to decide to block now or not? Can they > wait for an action modifier? Or is it like any other action where the > acting Methuselah can ask for blockers and the reacting Methuselah must > then decide? We are not in disagreement that you can always play a > reaction card after an action modifier (ie deflect or reduce). Antonio's controller can choose to play a modifier. Or he can decline and wait for the "no block" declaration. After the "no block" declaration, Antonio's controller can choose to play a modifier (as can the other Methuselah's), as usual. > How I interpret the rules: > Target Methuselah decide to block or decline. Since 0 bleed, he declines. > Antonio Delgado uses Threats to increase the bleed back to 2. > All the target Methuselah can do is play reaction cards (but still can't > block) You are correct. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

In the situation below, once the bleed has been reduced to 0, can I declare the a zero bleed is a unsuccesfull action, and as thus I do not have to commit to blocking? In article <6pndv8$o4k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

Al...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > Situation: > > > Antonio Delgado bleeds with Scouting Mission for 2 bleed. > > > Dr. Jest reduces bleed to 0. > > In the situation [above], once the bleed has been reduced to 0, can I declare > the a zero bleed is a unsuccesfull action, and as thus I do not have to > commit to blocking? No. You may declare the rule "if this bleed resolves for 0 or less, it will be an unsuccessful bleed", but that doesn't change the fact that the rule only applies to the final bleed amount. You will have to declare "I do not block" before the action can be resolved. If you do so, the acting player again has the option to play modifiers and you have the option to play reactions. Once all parties have declined to play any further effects, the action (being unblocked) is successful and resolves. If the bleed resolves at zero or less, the bleed is unsuccessful. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Al...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > Situation: > > > > Antonio Delgado bleeds with Scouting Mission for 2 bleed. > > > > Dr. Jest reduces bleed to 0. > > > > In the situation [above], once the bleed has been reduced to 0, can I declare > > the a zero bleed is a unsuccesfull action, and as thus I do not have to > > commit to blocking? > > No. You may declare the rule "if this bleed resolves for 0 or less, it will > be an unsuccessful bleed", but that doesn't change the fact that the rule > only applies to the final bleed amount. > > You will have to declare "I do not block" before the action can be resolved. > > If you do so, the acting player again has the option to play modifiers and > you have the option to play reactions. > > Once all parties have declined to play any further effects, the action (being > unblocked) is successful and resolves. > > If the bleed resolves at zero or less, the bleed is unsuccessful. But who has to go first? Now that the bleed is 0, is it up to Dr. Jest's controller to decide whether or not to block, or can that Meth wait to see if more modifiers are going to be played before deciding whether or not to block?

[ quoted text not captured ] Antonio's controller goes first, but can wait until the "no block" declaration if she chooses. Full explanation: The acting player always gets the next opportunity to "do something". Now that the bleed is zero, it is up to Antonio's controller to choose whether to "do something" (modify the action) before the next block attempt or declaration of "no block". If she chooses not to "do something", then it is up to Dr. Jest's controller to "do something" (react) before the next block attempt or declaration of "no block". If she chooses to do nothing, then it is up to the rest of the players, clockwise from Antonio's controller, to choose. If they all choose to do nothing, then it falls to Dr. Jest's controller to decide whether to make a block attempt or not. If she chooses "no block", then Antonio's controller has the first opportunity to "do something" after that declaration. And so on. Note that any time anyone decides to "do something", the opportunity to do the next thing starts again with Antonio's controller. [ quoted text not captured ]