Action Mod. Declaration Question

Picture if you will... Methuselah A (taps Vampire): "Bleed for 2." Methuselah B: "No block." Methuselah A: "Bleed of 2." Methuselah B: "I take it." (Reaches for pool). Methuselah A (plays action modifier): "Bleed for 4" Legal? By repeating the amount of bleed after the "no-block" declaration has A effectively declined to play more action modifiers? Or should B get some additional confirmation that A is done playing modifiers before declaring that he will be taking the bleed? -Ben Swainbank

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111425142....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Picture if you will... > > Methuselah A (taps Vampire): "Bleed for 2." And then A passes. > Methuselah B: "No block." > Methuselah A: "Bleed of 2." meaning "A passes". > Methuselah B: "I take it." (Reaches for pool). meaning "B passes". > Methuselah A (plays action modifier): "Bleed for 4" > > Legal? > > By repeating the amount of bleed after the "no-block" declaration has A > effectively declined to play more action modifiers? Yes. Assuming that's what A meant. It usually is. > Or should B get some additional confirmation that A is done playing > modifiers before declaring that he will be taking the bleed? He must receive a pass before he can "I take it". Usually the confirmation comes implicitly, as in your example above. If a group has a problem with the implicits, the group should try it explicitly for a while to see how the rhythm goes. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Preston" <preston...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111435769.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Once I won a game by declaring no block, picking up my pool and holding > it in my hand and saying, "How much am I losing here?" > > They played an action modifier and declared a higher number and then I > deflected it. That's legal, right. Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

> meaning "A passes". > > > Methuselah B: "I take it." (Reaches for pool). > > meaning "B passes". > > > Methuselah A (plays action modifier): "Bleed for 4" > > > > Legal? > > > > By repeating the amount of bleed after the "no-block" declaration has A > > effectively declined to play more action modifiers? > > Yes. Assuming that's what A meant. It usually is. > (rereading, scratching head, filling in blanks) No, that is not legal. Yes, A passed.

[ quoted text not captured ] B still has the option to play all sorts of reactive cards at this time. Deflection and Archon Investigation readily come to mind. You wouldn't want them to lose their window to do this now would you? :) Jeff

Ben S.: > > Methuselah B: "I take it." (Reaches for pool). LSJ: > meaning "B passes". > > > Methuselah A (plays action modifier): "Bleed for 4" > > Legal? > > > By repeating the amount of bleed after the "no-block" > > declaration has A effectively declined to play more > > action modifiers? > > Yes. Assuming that's what A meant. It usually is. Uh, it seems I'm not the only one who got a little confused here. Was that a "Yes" to "Legal?" or a "Yes" to "has A effectively declined to play more action modifiers?" I was always under the impression that once all players have passed (with no intervening effects played), there is no opportunity for the acting player (or any other) to play more effects. However, I couldn't find that explicitly spelled out in the rulebook. To rephrase the original hypothetical: 1 - A announces bleed 2 - B declines to block 3 - A passes 4 - B passes 5 - (all other players pass) May any player now play a bleed-modifying effect? What about a redirecting effect?

[ quoted text not captured ] Normally, modifiers and reactions may no longer be played after all players have passed. There are certain cards that are played after the bleed is successful, like Spying Mission and Major Boon (see rulings on those cards specifically if you need to). These typically *must* wait until all players have passed and the action is being resolved (successfully). John

But remember - no matter what else happens, the very last thing that happens is Spying Mission. It's window is right before the pool is actually lost, but after EVERYTHING else. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

On 21 Mar 2005 16:47:19 -0800, vol...@yahoo.com scrawled: >But remember - no matter what else happens, the very last thing that >happens is Spying Mission. It's window is right before the pool is >actually lost, but after EVERYTHING else. except freak drive? salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

prescott wrote: > > > To rephrase the original hypothetical: > 1 - A announces bleed > 2 - B declines to block > 3 - A passes > 4 - B passes > 5 - (all other players pass) > > May any player now play a bleed-modifying effect? > What about a redirecting effect? No and no. Once A has passed and B has passed (and then everyone else) we're done, as expected. The original question was really just about the semantics of passing. Does a statement of the words "Bleed of 2." after a decline to block, mean that the acting M. has passed? Or can he claim he had not yet passed, B was jumping the gun by agreeing to take the bleed. Only if A has not yet officially passed can he play an action mod (to which B can respond etc...). The answer, as read LSJ's response, is that if A meant he was passing, then he passed, and if he meant something else, he didn't. And that is up to the "group" (or, presumably, the Judge)to determine. -Ben Swainbank

"prescott" <pres...@theworld.com> wrote in message news:1111445075.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Ben S.: > LSJ: > > > Methuselah A (plays action modifier): "Bleed for 4" > > > Legal? > > > > > By repeating the amount of bleed after the "no-block" > > > declaration has A effectively declined to play more > > > action modifiers? > > > > Yes. Assuming that's what A meant. It usually is. > > Uh, it seems I'm not the only one who got a little confused here. > Was that a "Yes" to "Legal?" or a "Yes" to "has A effectively declined > to play more action modifiers?" It was a response to the question that immediately proceeded the answer. The latter, that is. > I was always under the impression that once all players have passed > (with no intervening effects played), there is no opportunity for the > acting player (or any other) to play more effects. However, I couldn't > find that explicitly spelled out in the rulebook. See 1.6.1.5 > To rephrase the original hypothetical: > 1 - A announces bleed > 2 - B declines to block > 3 - A passes > 4 - B passes > 5 - (all other players pass) > > May any player now play a bleed-modifying effect? If they all declined to play mode modifiers, then you move on to resolution. > What about a redirecting effect? If they all declined to play mode modifiers, then you move on to resolution. [ quoted text not captured ]