Situation 1:
Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
(or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
guess yes and yes.)
Situation 2:
Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.
Appolonius.
Appolonius kirjoitti:
> Situation 1:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
> (or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
> Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
> specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
> so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
> guess yes and yes.)
>
As Meth A can ask wheter or not Meth B blocks, he also declines to play
further action mods to that action at that point (that is, before B
decides if he blocks). Then, B must decide wheter or not he blocks A.
Wheter B answers yes or no, A may play action modifier (stealth, bleed
enhancer etc.) and then B may play reaction modifier (Telepathic
Misdirection at superior etc. or another Telepathic Counter if B has
other minion who is able to play the card in question).
> Situation 2:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
> to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
> Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
> was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
> been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
>
When a Meth declines to block an action, that Meth cannot attempt to
block during that action. So no.
> Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.
>
> Appolonius.
Regards
- jussi
Appolonius wrote:
> Situation 1:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
> (or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
> Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
> specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
> so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
> guess yes and yes.)
If Meth B declines to block, the Meth declines to block. Onces Meth B
declines to block, it's set in stone unless it gets bounced to him
again. So you are correct.
At least in mu opinion...
> Situation 2:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
> to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
> Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
> was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
> been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
Your right again, Meth B does not get a new chance to block.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jussi wrote:
> Appolonius kirjoitti:
> > Situation 1:
> > Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
> > (or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
> > Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
> > specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
> > so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
> > guess yes and yes.)
>
> As Meth A can ask wheter or not Meth B blocks, he also declines to play
> further action mods to that action at that point (that is, before B
> decides if he blocks). Then, B must decide wheter or not he blocks A.
>
> Wheter B answers yes or no, A may play action modifier (stealth, bleed
> enhancer etc.) and then B may play reaction modifier (Telepathic
> Misdirection at superior etc. or another Telepathic Counter if B has
> other minion who is able to play the card in question).
Correct.
> > Situation 2:
> > Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
> > to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
> > Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
> > was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
> > been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
Correct.
> When a Meth declines to block an action, that Meth cannot attempt to
> block during that action. So no.
Correct enough here. But note that if the bleed is successfully
Deflected away and then Deflected back to the original Methuselah, that
Methuselah would get another chance to block.