Telepathic Counter and Blocking

I bled my prey, and he had one of his minions react and play a telepathic counter, thus reducing my puny bleed to zero. Then he decided that once he had reduced the bleed, he also wanted to block and torpor my vampire (arrrrrg, Tremere/Ventrue thaumaturgy/fortitude ... arrrrrrrrg). Can he do this? I didn't think Telepathic Counter was meant that way. I agree that it reduces the bleed, but doesn't that imply that you have let the bleed through? I understand that a De-evolutionized Gangrel with a zero bleed can be blocked (mine was not a Gangrel, btw), but can you block after a Telepathic Counter? It sucked. My vampire got toasted. Normally my deck works really well, until you get it into a game where it is the only non-combat deck. Sigh. But it clued me into the fact that Burst of Sunlight/Skin of Steel is a pretty nifty combo. So. Anyone got some insight? Tom? Judy -- "We have no statement to issue, we have no schedule, we have no bananas." an aide to Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, on an answering machine message recorded the day his boss was indicted on corruption charges. *** jcoo...@eng.umd.edu ***

[ quoted text not captured ] Hi Judy, If he used telepathic counter to reduce the bleed then the action (bleeding) was unblocked, therefore no combat. If he had blocked you instead of playing telepathic counter there still would have been no bleed (the action was blocked) and he could have his way with your vampire. Algustas *****The force will be with you, always.***** Obi wan Kenobi

Judith Cookson Grunberger (jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote: : I bled my prey, and he had one of his minions react and play a telepathic : counter, thus reducing my puny bleed to zero. Then he decided that once : he had reduced the bleed, he also wanted to block and torpor my vampire : (arrrrrg, Tremere/Ventrue thaumaturgy/fortitude ... arrrrrrrrg). : Can he do this? I didn't think Telepathic Counter was meant that way. I The rules are very clear: Reaction cards may be played before and after deciding to block. If he didn't say "I decline to block" before playing TC, he can block you afterwards. Frankly, I don't see any imbalance here. -- Meow!

Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: : On 29 May 1995, Judith Cookson Grunberger wrote: : > : > I bled my prey, and he had one of his minions react and play a telepathic : > counter, thus reducing my puny bleed to zero. Then he decided that once : > he had reduced the bleed, he also wanted to block and torpor my vampire : > (arrrrrg, Tremere/Ventrue thaumaturgy/fortitude ... arrrrrrrrg). : > : > Can he do this? I didn't think Telepathic Counter was meant that way. I : > agree that it reduces the bleed, but doesn't that imply that you have let : > the bleed through? I understand that a De-evolutionized Gangrel with a : > zero bleed can be blocked (mine was not a Gangrel, btw), but can you : > block after a Telepathic Counter? : > : > It sucked. My vampire got toasted. Normally my deck works really well, : > until you get it into a game where it is the only non-combat deck. Sigh. : > But it clued me into the fact that Burst of Sunlight/Skin of Steel is a : > pretty nifty combo. : > : > So. Anyone got some insight? Tom? : > He could not get into the combat if he played the TC. It's not a bleed until the vamp deals the damage to the player and thus could not be reduced. Vamps ATTEMPT to bleed. A bleed can only be reduced once someone IS bled, which means that the action was unblocked. Sounds like your partner drew a good card and wanted to hose someone after playing the TC. Alas....He loses the argument.

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: >: On 29 May 1995, Judith Cookson Grunberger wrote: >: > >: > I bled my prey, and he had one of his minions react and play a telepathic >: > counter, thus reducing my puny bleed to zero. Then he decided that once >: > he had reduced the bleed, he also wanted to block and torpor my vampire >: > >: > Can he do this? I didn't think Telepathic Counter was meant that way. I >He could not get into the combat if he played the TC. It's not a bleed until >the vamp deals the damage to the player and thus could not be reduced. >Vamps ATTEMPT to bleed. A bleed can only be reduced once someone IS bled, >which means that the action was unblocked. Sounds like your partner drew a good >card and wanted to hose someone after playing the TC. Alas....He loses the >argument. Sorry - you can change the amount of a bleed before or after any/all attempts to block. You can raise it with Conditioning or lower it with TC. After someone plays TC, you could still raise it with Conditioning, and they could still block (if you weren't careful to ask first): A: I bleed you B: I reduce the bleed by one with TC. A: Do you block? B: No. A: I Bleed at +3 with conditioning: 1 + 3 - 1 = 3! Reacting is separate from blocking. He wins the argument. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. | are subject to card text.

In article <3qfnk7$t...@NNTP.MsState.Edu>, Charles Richard Robb <cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote: >I think that Tom and/or DTR would disagree with you..... You quoted the whole text of three posts to add this line? Nice. Well, *I* think that Tom and/or DTR would agree with me. (Glad we got that settled :-). Tom has already made posts using the same logic I mimicked here. As for the DT, the closest match is: Subject: Revised Jyhad FAQ: 4/18/95 version Date: 18 Apr 1995 23:01:44 GMT Message-ID: <3n1gco$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Q: Can you play a Reaction after your opponent plays an Action Modifier, or only directly after they play the Action? (Specific situation: Rob bleeds Roy. Roy declines to block, but plays the reaction Telepathic Counter. Rob plays the action modifier Conditioning. Roy plays the reaction Telepathic Misdirection. Rob claims that this is illegal, that Roy passed his chance to play additional Reactions and so can't play one now.) A: It is legal to play reaction cards both before and after action modifiers. ----- Note that the example spells out explicitly that Roy declined to block before playing TC - so it doesn't help this arguemnet one way or the other. My reasoning is: the opportunity to block is not affected by Reaction Cards that modify the bleed any more than it is affected by Action Modifiers that modify the bleed. Your reasoning is...? -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: : >Algustas (cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: : >: On 29 May 1995, Judith Cookson Grunberger wrote: : >: > : >: > I bled my prey, and he had one of his minions react and play a telepathic : >: > counter, thus reducing my puny bleed to zero. Then he decided that once : >: > he had reduced the bleed, he also wanted to block and torpor my vampire : >: > : >: > Can he do this? I didn't think Telepathic Counter was meant that way. I : >He could not get into the combat if he played the TC. It's not a bleed until : >the vamp deals the damage to the player and thus could not be reduced. : >Vamps ATTEMPT to bleed. A bleed can only be reduced once someone IS bled, : >which means that the action was unblocked. Sounds like your partner drew a good : >card and wanted to hose someone after playing the TC. Alas....He loses the : >argument. : Sorry - you can change the amount of a bleed before or after any/all : attempts to block. You can raise it with Conditioning or lower it with : TC. After someone plays TC, you could still raise it with Conditioning, : and they could still block (if you weren't careful to ask first): : A: I bleed you : B: I reduce the bleed by one with TC. : A: Do you block? : B: No. : A: I Bleed at +3 with conditioning: 1 + 3 - 1 = 3! I think that Tom and/or DTR would disagree with you.....

[ quoted text not captured ] > Reacting is separate from blocking. He wins the argument. > -- > L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and > Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. | are subject to card text. > > Hi L. Scott, I just looked at the rules and the card. I belive you are right, I stand corrected. Algustas *****To make an Omelet you have to break some eggs.***** Lenin (Not the dead Beatle.)

L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: : Subject: Revised Jyhad FAQ: 4/18/95 version : Date: 18 Apr 1995 23:01:44 GMT : Message-ID: <3n1gco$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> : Q: Can you play a Reaction after your opponent plays an : Action Modifier, or only directly after they play the : Action? (Specific situation: Rob bleeds Roy. Roy : declines to block, but plays the reaction Telepathic : Counter. Rob plays the action modifier Conditioning. Roy : plays the reaction Telepathic Misdirection. Rob claims : that this is illegal, that Roy passed his chance to play : additional Reactions and so can't play one now.) : A: It is legal to play reaction cards both before and after action : modifiers. : ----- : Note that the example spells out explicitly that Roy declined : to block before playing TC - so it doesn't help this arguemnet one : way or the other. : My reasoning is: the opportunity to block is not affected : by Reaction Cards that modify the bleed any more than it is : affected by Action Modifiers that modify the bleed. : Your reasoning is...? My reasoning is that there is only an attempt to bleed and that there is no actual bleed that can be reduced until it is a bleed which means that there is no block.

I believe it is possible to use Telepathic Counter on a bleed before blocking that action (basically cycling a card), but have placed it on the design team list, for confirmation. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: : >L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: : >: My reasoning is: the opportunity to block is not affected : >: by Reaction Cards that modify the bleed any more than it is : >: affected by Action Modifiers that modify the bleed. : >My reasoning is that there is only an attempt to bleed and that there is no : >actual bleed that can be reduced until it is a bleed which means that there : >is no block. : There is no bleed in enhance with Conditioning, by your logic, so you : can't play conditioning before all blocks have been passed. : But the DT says you can play Conditioning before or after the block attempts. : How do you resolve this inconsistency? I would not be strategic, unless you play a combat deck, to play COnditioning before someone blocks because you would lose the advantage of the card.

[ quoted text not captured ] We're talking rules here, not strategy. How do you resolve the inconsistency? [ quoted text not captured ]

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: >: My reasoning is: the opportunity to block is not affected >: by Reaction Cards that modify the bleed any more than it is >: affected by Action Modifiers that modify the bleed. >My reasoning is that there is only an attempt to bleed and that there is no >actual bleed that can be reduced until it is a bleed which means that there >is no block. There is no bleed in enhance with Conditioning, by your logic, so you can't play conditioning before all blocks have been passed. But the DT says you can play Conditioning before or after the block attempts. How do you resolve this inconsistency? [ quoted text not captured ]

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) wrote: >: My reasoning is: the opportunity to block is not affected >: by Reaction Cards that modify the bleed any more than it is >: affected by Action Modifiers that modify the bleed. >My reasoning is that there is only an attempt to bleed and that there is no >actual bleed that can be reduced until it is a bleed which means that there >is no block. This actually has an analogy with Flesh of Marble. You can't prevent damage until it happens (which is why FoM + 1 point damage prevention is no good - you have to use the prevention first). Likewise one could argue that you can reduce bleeds til they happen either. + bleed would have no such restrictions. Naturally the case that WotC wasn't being that precise in their terminology is entirely plausible. It's not a common interpretation. I don't play it that way - actually never even thought about it until today. It actually would help Telepathic Counter a little as you can no longer boost a bleed after the TC's been played. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >My reasoning is that there is only an attempt to bleed and that there is no >actual bleed that can be reduced until it is a bleed which means that there >is no block. There is bleed that can be reduced even before there is an attempt to bleed. There is a Master card called gangrel De-evolution that says "Reduce Gangrel's bleed by one". It is played during your master phase, not after a bleed is declared. IMO that means that you can reduce the acting minion's bleed before an attempt to block. Of cource, the only advantage is that you can discard an additional card, and the acting minion can decide not to play stealth modifiers. ))marko -- I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >Sorry - you can change the amount of a bleed before or after any/all >attempts to block. You can raise it with Conditioning or lower it with >TC. After someone plays TC, you could still raise it with Conditioning, >and they could still block (if you weren't careful to ask first): >A: I bleed you >B: I reduce the bleed by one with TC. >A: Do you block? >B: No. >A: I Bleed at +3 with conditioning: 1 + 3 - 1 = 3! >Reacting is separate from blocking. He wins the argument. So basically what this is all about is that the person who plays TC can play it before she decides whether she wants to block or not. This was the hard part for me also because we usually play TC _after_ decision not to block. However, if the palyer says that the bleed goes through and then plays TC she cannot back out and block afterwards. This is because the rules say that after a player has passed the opportunity to block, she cannot block the same action anymore. She has an opportunity to block after TC has been played, but not after deciding not to block. [ quoted text not captured ]