Anneke - blocking

On VTES-L, Haukur Valgeirsson wrote: > > Me and my fellow players have had problems with how to interpret anneke´s > blocking ability. it says "may attempt to block a vampire after others have > declined or failed to do so", if I remember correctly. Does this allow her > to attempt to block "any" vampire, like if you were using Eagles Eye or > does this only allow her to wait and see what happens when a vampire she > has an opportunity to block takes an action, and if others fail to block, > then she can trie? Her ability is like Eagle's Sight: she can attempt to block any action regardless of the target ot that action or her relationship (predator/prey/target) to the acting minion. She still cannot block actions that are unblockable or that remove her ability to block (Day Operation, Seduction, etc.) -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

On VTES-L, Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote: > Automatic digest processor wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:35:43 GMT > > From: LSJ <vte...@WIZARDS.COM> > > Subject: Re: Anneke - blocking > > > > > > Her ability is like Eagle's Sight: she can attempt to block any > > action regardless of the target ot that action or her relationship > > (predator/prey/target) to the acting minion. She still cannot block > > actions that are unblockable or that remove her ability to block > > (Day Operation, Seduction, etc.) > > Can she block directed actions directed at oneself (following new rulings that > make direct actions at oneself an undirected action that can be blocked by > pred/prey)? Ie, can she block a Rampage against oneself? Can she block > herself? No. She can't block her controller's other minion's actions (directed or not). She couldn't block herself in any event, since she has to be untapped to block, and she'd have tapped to attempt the action (and can't play a Wake on her own action). [ quoted text not captured ]

On VTES-L, Johnny Tullner wrote: > > LSJ divulged the following secret data: > > > >>> Her ability is like Eagle's Sight: she can attempt to block any > >>> action regardless of the target ot that action or her relationship > >>> (predator/prey/target) to the acting minion. She still cannot block > >>> actions that are unblockable or that remove her ability to block > >>> (Day Operation, Seduction, etc.) > >> > >> Can she block directed actions directed at oneself (following new rulings > >> that make direct actions at oneself an undirected action that can be > >> blocked by pred/prey)? Ie, can she block a Rampage against oneself? Can > >> she block herself? > > > > No. > > If you mean a "no" to all of these questions, then the following explanations > should probably be more complete, or left out. They are here to offer further information on the answer. Sometimes a "no" by itself is less clear than a "no" coupled with examples and explanation. > > She can't block her controller's other minion's actions (directed > > or not). > > > > She couldn't block herself in any event, since she has to be > > untapped to block, and she'd have tapped to attempt the action > > (and can't play a Wake on her own action). > > The explanations imply that if she could take an action and somehow be > untapped, she could block herself. You could fix it by just dropping > the "other", and the second paragraph becomes unnecessary. Both statements are correct. No "fix" is needed. The "in any event" serves to avoid implying that she could block herself if she could untap. > I only say this because (besides the fact that I'm bored and felt like being > picky :) someone will figure out how to be untapped during an action--if > not already, then a future card could pop up. Sure. It won't, but will be answered appropiately ("no", as above) if it does come up. > In poking around I found the following question: Can you target yourself > with Precognizant Mobility? (here's text since I can't imagine anyone > would remember it): > > Precognizant Mobility Action Set: DS > Req: Auspex, 1 blood Rarity: Uncommon > +1 stealth action > This acting minion may untap a younger vampire or an ally. > (S) As above, but the affected vampire can be the same age or older. Yes. You can target youself with the *superior*. (see how elaboration can help, even though "yes" was correct?) > Also, I can't find the your Rulesmonger page anymore LSJ. I hope it's > still around somewhere...if so shouldn't you get a link on the WotC page? There's no 's' in Rulemonger. http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/9876/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On VTES-L, ....salem.... wrote: > > >Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:58:15 GMT > >From: LSJ <vte...@WIZARDS.COM> > >Subject: Re: Anneke - blocking > > > >She couldn't block herself in any event, since she has to be > >untapped to block, and she'd have tapped to attempt the action > >(and can't play a Wake on her own action). > > what if...she had two protean skill cards, and two fortitude skill cards, > and when she took an action, it was blocked, and then in the combat she > played superior form of mist, and then after the combat, which is part of > the block or something, then it's time to play superior freak drive "as > above, but usable even if the action is blocked", or some such wording... > so at the end of combat, the action is continuing at +1 stealth, and she's > untapped from the freak drive..... She can't play superior Freak Drive on the continuing action, since the action is continuing as if unblocked. >so then, if the rule barring minions > controlled by the same controller blocking each other didn't exist, could > she block herself? Your question is, if I understand you: "If she was untapped and acting, could she block herself if the rules barring that didn't exist?" The question seems to include its own answer. If the rules that prohibit the activity don't exist, then the activity isn't prohibited. (But, that activity is prohibited, so...) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7hcntm$nqd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes >> Also, I can't find the your Rulesmonger page anymore LSJ. I hope it's >> still around somewhere...if so shouldn't you get a link on the WotC >page? > >There's no 's' in Rulemonger. > >http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/9876/ Any chance of taking out an easy.to/remember type thing for that? And how up to date, with regards to that site, is http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi ? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes: >LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: >>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/9876/ >Any chance of taking out an easy.to/remember type thing for that? I don't plan to. The site is linked from most search engines/web catalogues, as well as from most VTES sites. It had been available through the redirection URL http://Rulemonger.Home.ML.Org But the ML.Org stopped doing the free redirection stuff. And that caused headaches for people (and catalogues) that had linked that redirection URL. Getting another redirection URL (with no guarantee as to how long it will be around) doesn't seem worthwhile. >And how up to date, with regards to that site, is >http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi ? Not sure what you're asking. The geocities site just lists the currently active mirrors. The URL you are asking about is a dead link. The mirror at deckserver (as listed on the geocities site) is: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger As with all Rulemonger mirrors, the deckserver mirror lists its freshness in the upper-right corner of the homepage. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | We put up with being http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | surpassed more easily Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | than with being equaled.