rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Blocking rules clarification questions (2) LSJ

3 messages from 3 participants · 25 May 2000 – 28 May 2000
original thread on Google Groups

isild...@my-deja.com

My appologies if this has already been covered before.. I'm still kinda new to the newsgroup, and I just tripped over this a while ago. My questions are on blocking an action.. "If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final. " (VtES online rules) When another vamp attempts to block does the whole stealth/intercept race start over again? i.e. I bleed, you attempt to block, I apply +2 stealth, your vamp can't utilize your interecpt cards so that block fails. You attempt to block again with a vamp that can use your int. cards, does the +2 stealth still apply to the acting vampire?? I would assume the stealth carries on (which would make successive blocking attempts harder and harder), thought I'd just like to clarify if I'm correct or not. Also, If stealth is maintained by the acting vampire during successive blocking attempts by one methuselah, is it still maintained when another methuselah attempts to block? thanks in advance for any clarifications.. Adam Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

LSJ

isild...@my-deja.com wrote: > My appologies if this has already been covered before.. I'm still > kinda new to the newsgroup, and I just tripped over this a while ago. > > My questions are on blocking an action.. > > "If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the > blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any > further attempts to block, that decision is final. " (online rules) > > When another vamp attempts to block does the whole stealth/intercept > race start over again? > > i.e. I bleed, you attempt to block, I apply +2 stealth, your vamp > can't utilize your interecpt cards so that block fails. You attempt > to block again with a vamp that can use your int. cards, does the +2 > stealth still apply to the acting vampire?? > > I would assume the stealth carries on (which would make successive > blocking attempts harder and harder), thought I'd just like to clarify > if I'm correct or not. Yes. Rulebook [6.2.2.2]: Note that all modifications made to a minion's stealth or intercept remain in effect for the duration of the action. Increased stealth and intercept return to normal after the action is resolved. > Also, > > If stealth is maintained by the acting vampire during successive > blocking attempts by one methuselah, is it still maintained when > another methuselah attempts to block? Yes. -- 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 ]

Michelle Strinja

yes the stealth stays isild...@my-deja.com wrote: > My appologies if this has already been covered before.. I'm still kinda > new to the newsgroup, and I just tripped over this a while ago. > > My questions are on blocking an action.. > > "If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the > blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any > further attempts to block, that decision is final. " (VtES online rules) > > When another vamp attempts to block does the whole stealth/intercept > race start over again? > > i.e. I bleed, you attempt to block, I apply +2 stealth, your vamp can't > utilize your interecpt cards so that block fails. You attempt to block > again with a vamp that can use your int. cards, does the +2 stealth > still apply to the acting vampire?? > > I would assume the stealth carries on (which would make successive > blocking attempts harder and harder), thought I'd just like to clarify > if I'm correct or not. > > Also, > > If stealth is maintained by the acting vampire during successive > blocking attempts by one methuselah, is it still maintained when > another methuselah attempts to block? > > thanks in advance for any clarifications.. > > Adam > [ quoted text not captured ]