Actions, action modifiers and reactions - legality

Is it true you can play reaction and action modifiers at any time during an action? ie. A. Bleed R. Block AM. +1 stealth R. Telepathic Counter AM. Conditioning R. Telepathic Counter It's quite important I get an official and accurate answer to this question as it makes huge differences to the way decks might be constructed. Clarendon.

Before I could do anything to stop it, Clarendon wrote: > Is it true you can play reaction and action modifiers at any time during > an action? Your minions can use Reaction cards during an action when it is not your turn. You minions can use action modifier cards during their actions when it is your turn. This is why Steath enhancers are modifiers and intercept enhancers are reactions. You don't have to wait for an "official" ruling on this. Just review your rules. Note that many reactions and modifiers contain discipline symbols and text that further limit what actions they can be used with or against. -- "It's at the end of his arm," thought Frito, nervously | Brian shaking it, "it's got to be a hand." | Wilson

bwi...@news.gate.net (Brian Wilson) wrote: > > Before I could do anything to stop it, Clarendon wrote: > > > Is it true you can play reaction and action modifiers at any time during > > an action? > > Your minions can use Reaction cards during an action when it is not your > turn. You minions can use action modifier cards during their actions when > it is your turn. This is why Steath enhancers are modifiers and intercept > enhancers are reactions. > > You don't have to wait for an "official" ruling on this. Just review your > rules. Note that many reactions and modifiers contain discipline symbols > and text that further limit what actions they can be used with or against. > Oh my God , thankyou so much, I didn't realise! After playing for over a year I find out that action and action modifier cards are played by your own minions on your own turn and reaction cards by someone elses minions. How silly of me, I will immediately go out and hang myself from the nearest tree whilst whipping myself with a stout birch twig as punishment for my own stupidity. But wait... After reading my original question I see that something is not quite right here. Indeed, after closer inspection of the full text (not just what's shown above), I note that the above response to my question, is, in fact, bollocks! Now, I don't mind people taking the piss or even being sarcastic (in fact sarcasm can be great fun), but what I do hate are people who are patronising. (especially when they don't read the sodding question properly). However, just so you don't think I am ungracious, I will re-phrase the first part of the question from "Is it true you can play" to "Is it true reaction cards etc can be played". There... I hope that helps. For the full rest of the question you'll have to go back and follow the thread. ************************************************************* Baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby - The Cult. Ceremony

Clarendon (clar...@crom.demon.co.uk) wrote: : Is it true you can play reaction and action modifiers at any time during : an action? : ie. A. Bleed : R. Block : AM. +1 stealth : R. Telepathic Counter : AM. Conditioning : R. Telepathic Counter : It's quite important I get an official and accurate answer to this : question as it makes huge differences to the way decks might be : constructed. Well, Tom is off for a bit (as he posted) so 'official' answers might have to wait a bit. In the meantime, let me take a stab at it. It is perfectly legal to play a reaction card in response to either an action or an action modifier, and it is also equally legal to play an action modifier in response to any reaction card: thus I would say that either can be played at any time. Case in point: A: Legal Manipulations (total 3 bleed) B: blocks A: Lost in Crowds (inferior) B: Spirit's Touch A: Faceless Night B: none - B lets Bleed through - A: B: Telepathic Counter (reduced to 2) B: Telepathic Counter (just drawn, different minion, reduced to 1) A: B: Deflection (just drawn) A: (damn) C: (Grins) Block (Sports Bike, Raven Spy, shotgun) A: eeep! Cloak the Gathering C: Cat's Guidance (superior) A: Bonding (superior) C: :-( A: phew... All perfectly legal. Answer your question? Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Before I could do anything to stop it, Clarendon wrote: > Now, I don't mind people taking the piss or even being sarcastic > (in fact sarcasm can be great fun), but what I do hate are people > who are patronising. (especially when they don't read the > sodding question properly). My intent was not to be patronizing, and if I misread your question I apologize. You have overreacted. > However, just so you don't think I am ungracious, I will re-phrase > the first part of the question from "Is it true you can play" to > "Is it true reaction cards etc can be played". There... I hope > that helps. For the full rest of the question you'll have to go > back and follow the thread. You are indeed ungracious. Sounded to me like a question a new player would ask, so I answered appropriately. However, you are apparently an expert, so certainly you should be able to answer this one yourself. Why did you bother to ask? The answer is still a no-brainer and still in the rules. What sort of rules-lawyering are you doing that this is an issue? [ quoted text not captured ]

bwi...@news.gate.net (Brian Wilson) wrote: > > Before I could do anything to stop it, Clarendon wrote: > > > Now, I don't mind people taking the piss or even being sarcastic > > (in fact sarcasm can be great fun), but what I do hate are people > > who are patronising. (especially when they don't read the > > sodding question properly). > > My intent was not to be patronizing, and if I misread your question I > apologize. You have overreacted. > The first paragraph was fine, as if you did misread the question, it was a fair answer. The second one about, go back and review the rules was the irritating one. > > However, just so you don't think I am ungracious, I will re-phrase > > the first part of the question from "Is it true you can play" to > > "Is it true reaction cards etc can be played". There... I hope > > that helps. For the full rest of the question you'll have to go > > back and follow the thread. > > You are indeed ungracious. Sounded to me like a question a new player > would ask, so I answered appropriately. However, you are apparently an > expert, so certainly you should be able to answer this one yourself. Why > did you bother to ask? The answer is still a no-brainer and still in the > rules. What sort of rules-lawyering are you doing that this is an issue? > Ooh noo... I never said I was an expert ;-) Next thing, you'll be saying I'm a Net-personality or something :-) I don't post questions for people to tell me to look it up in the rules. The reason I post questions is because either: 1. I can't find the answer in the rules. 2. I don't understand the ruling in the rules. 3. I don't find the answer in the rules to my satisfaction . 4. My pet giraffe has eaten my rulebook. In this case, it might be number 1 but is probably number 3. The only relevant references I can find to Actions, Modifiers and Reactions are two very vague paragraphs on pages 15 and 26 which say something about reaction cards being used in response to a minion's action. Unfortunately this is not a full enough explanation for the purposes of answering something that cropped up in a game recently. Don't take it personally, I'd had a bad day at work:-) Clarendon.

dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) wrote: > > On an entirely new and as yet unflamed thread > The concept of playing reactions to an action after not blocking it > has never actually sunk in on my group > I.E. After Governing and Conditioning, then play Tele Misd. I might be wrong of course, but that is how I read it (I think it was an "official" ruling) I have to say that I really don't like the idea of you being able to sit there, not blocking or reacting until the extra bleeds have been put on and then suddenly producing a Deflection or suchlike. Just doesn't seem quite right. > > We always kinda assumed that you had to block or react then > Needless to say the Pulsed/Governing/Conditioning bleed that I forced to > 3 stealth before Tele Misd on my prey for the oust was fun. I don't like that either, for several reasons. For one, it makes Malkavian an even more powerful clan (Thank God for Malkavian Dementias). The second one being that I think if you declare to block then blocking should be yourreaction. I think it is unbalancing that you can attempt to block, then when you can no longer match the stealth with your intercepts, you can just pass it on to your prey. Lets face it, the bleed is probably quite bigby now (if your predator has been pushing it that much) and it's got more stealth than even you can intercept, so pity your prey. It seems more sensible (and fair) to declare the Deflection or Telepathic Misdirection immediately on your refusal to block. This is my opinion; I would like to hear other's. Maybe someone can persuade me to the contrary. Clarendon.

Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> wrote: > dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) wrote: > > > > On an entirely new and as yet unflamed thread > > The concept of playing reactions to an action after not blocking it > > has never actually sunk in on my group > > I.E. After Governing and Conditioning, then play Tele Misd. > I have to say that I really don't like the idea of you being able to > sit there, not blocking or reacting until the extra bleeds have been > put on and then suddenly producing a Deflection or suchlike. Just doesn't > seem quite right. So it seems right to you that the offensive player is the only one who can modify the action after the block is declined? Conditioning / Spying Mission / Mask of 1000 Faces are all okay, but for some reason Deflection and Telepathic Misdirection are bogus? Do you let people Telepathic Counter after declining to block? How about after a Conditioning? Do you allow Deflection / T. Misdirection after extra stealth is applied to a bleed? > > > > We always kinda assumed that you had to block or react then > > Needless to say the Pulsed/Governing/Conditioning bleed that I forced to > > 3 stealth before Tele Misd on my prey for the oust was fun. > I don't like that either, for several reasons. For one, it makes > Malkavian an even more powerful clan (Thank God for Malkavian Dementias). > The second one being that I think if you declare to block then blocking > should be yourreaction. I think it is unbalancing that you can attempt > to block, then when you can no longer match the stealth with your > intercepts, you can just pass it on to your prey. Lets face it, the > bleed is probably quite bigby now (if your predator has been pushing it > that much) and it's got more stealth than even you can intercept, so > pity your prey. No, you've got this backwards. The way you play makes Malkavian a more powerful clan. In your scheme, if a predator has _any_ Malkavians then the prey had better not fail to block or Deflect / Misdirect _anybody_ because once anyone gets through then the (possibly Pulsed) Malkavian will come in with Mask of 1000 Faces and Condition the bleed and there is nothing the prey can do. Whereas in normal play, the prey could decline to block a small bleed and Deflect / Misdirect it should it become a large bleed. You are correct that Malkavian is one of the clans that can employ this defence, but so can Toreador, Tremere, and (to a lesser extent due to no Auspex) Ventrue. Whereas the only clan to benefit from having no reactions to bleed mods is Malkavian, since you need both Dominate and Obfuscate. Perhaps you should try the "standard rules" on this one; it might make Malkavian Dementia less crucial for your group. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >> >> Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> > >> >I have to say that I really don't like the idea of you being able to sit >> >there, not blocking or reacting until the extra bleeds have been put on >> >and then suddenly producing a Deflection or suchlike. Just doesn't seem >> >quite right. > >> It's quite definitely legal. There are no restrictions on playing >> reaction cards that require you to attempt to block, nor does >> Bonding/Conditioning/Threats or suchlike have any text "reaction cards may >> not be played after this card". >I'm not saying it's not legal, what I'm saying is that it just doesn't >seem... well, fair (for want of a better word). > >> If you played that way, how could you use Dread Gaze? >I'll get back to you on that one :-) However, voting does seem to be >an unusual case. (but then I haven't thought that through properly yet) The point is that there are quite a few reaction cards that don't make any sense if you must block to play them. > >> >I don't like that either, for several reasons. For one, it >> >makes Malkavian an even more powerful clan (Thank God for Malkavian >> >Dementias). > >> The opposite, actually. It means you can fry a Malk predator without >> having to have 1/3 to 1/2 intercept cards. It's the only good Ventrue >> defense to S&B, and often the Toreador's best bet. >Does it "fry" your predator or does it just stuff your prey?!! Both, often. Your predator can't hurt his prey (you); your prey gets ousted pronto. A skilled predator will refrain from large bleeds to save your prey, and that will usually leave him spinning his wheels uselessly. >I said it made Malkies (and Tremere) more powerful for the reason that >they both have Dominate and Auspex, so they can intercept to raise the >level of stealth used against them and then pass it on with Deflection >and remain untapped, whereas at least with Toreador, Telepathic >Misdirection taps them. Yes, Malks and Tremere do the best bleed bounce, and that's good for them, but at the same time widely available bounce makes bleeding much less of a dominant strategy, and that's hardest on the Malks. >Until then, however, what do you actually think about the way it works >presently. ie. Setting aside the official rulings, do you think it's >sensible and logical? Sure. In a game of intrigue, you should be able to influence an action wihtout trying to stop it. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

pe...@homer.ucsf.edu.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > > Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) wrote: > > > > > > On an entirely new and as yet unflamed thread > > > The concept of playing reactions to an action after not blocking it > > > has never actually sunk in on my group > > > I.E. After Governing and Conditioning, then play Tele Misd. > > > I have to say that I really don't like the idea of you being able to > > sit there, not blocking or reacting until the extra bleeds have been > > put on and then suddenly producing a Deflection or suchlike. Just doesn't > > seem quite right. > > So it seems right to you that the offensive player is the only one who > can modify the action after the block is declined? Conditioning / Spying > Mission / Mask of 1000 Faces are all okay, but for some reason Deflection > and Telepathic Misdirection are bogus? Do you let people Telepathic > Counter after declining to block? How about after a Conditioning? Do > you allow Deflection / T. Misdirection after extra stealth is applied to > a bleed? Blimey! that's a lot of questions and semi-assumptions. Let me try and answer them. Yes,no, no, yes, yes, yes, no (or was it yes?) Oh I give up, forget it! :-) Actually, I suppose it really depends on how you interpret what the action, modifiers and reactions actually are. I think there is also a big difference between choosing to Telepathically Counter an action as an immediate reaction, and not reacting at all until extra bleeds (and possible stealth with Bonding) has been added on. You are not so much declining to block with T.C as deciding to take a different immediate reaction. I think that is the risk the prey must take, whether to reduce the bleed with certainty with one or several T.C's or take the risk to block and hope to out intercept the predator, therefore stopping the bleed altogether and initiating combat. Having both options makes Auspex and Auspex/Dominate decks overly powerful. > > > > > > > We always kinda assumed that you had to block or react then > > > Needless to say the Pulsed/Governing/Conditioning bleed that I forced to > > > 3 stealth before Tele Misd on my prey for the oust was fun. > > > I don't like that either, for several reasons. For one, it makes > > Malkavian an even more powerful clan (Thank God for Malkavian Dementias). > > The second one being that I think if you declare to block then blocking > > should be yourreaction. I think it is unbalancing that you can attempt > > to block, then when you can no longer match the stealth with your > > intercepts, you can just pass it on to your prey. Lets face it, the > > bleed is probably quite bigby now (if your predator has been pushing it > > that much) and it's got more stealth than even you can intercept, so > > pity your prey. > > No, you've got this backwards. The way you play makes Malkavian a more > powerful clan. In your scheme, if a predator has _any_ Malkavians then > the prey had better not fail to block or Deflect / Misdirect _anybody_ > because once anyone gets through then the (possibly Pulsed) Malkavian will > come in with Mask of 1000 Faces and Condition the bleed and there is > nothing the prey can do. Whereas in normal play, the prey could decline > to block a small bleed and Deflect / Misdirect it should it become a large > bleed. Therefore never getting a big bleed and totally negating any big bleeders?! (and possibly passing on big stealthed bleeds to his prey) As I said, it depends upon how you look at it. It's a tricky one and I think the only way I will be convinced one way or the other is to play a few games the "official" way. We've been playing for quite a while now the other way and have found the clans with their particular disciplines and cards fairly balanced, some being harder work than others though :-) > > You are correct that Malkavian is one of the clans that can employ this > defence, but so can Toreador, Tremere, and (to a lesser extent due to no > Auspex) Ventrue. Whereas the only clan to benefit from having no reactions > to bleed mods is Malkavian, since you need both Dominate and Obfuscate. Sorry, is this a typo, or am I just not reading it correctly? > Perhaps you should try the "standard rules" on this one; it might make > Malkavian Dementia less crucial for your group. You make it sound as though my deck is bristling with Malkavian Dementias, whereas in reality it is not. Of all of the anti-clan cards M.D is the most useful in that it doesn't matter who has a Malkie in play as you can still use it against your prey or predator. Obviously it's better if your prey or predator does have Malkies in play but not essential. Taking my single M.D out will hardly alter the way my deck is played don't you think? :-) BTW - What "Standard Rules" are you referring to? Clarendon.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > > Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> writes: > > >Curt Adams writes: > > > >> The point is that there are quite a few reaction cards that don't make > any > >> sense if you must block to play them. > > >Yes, I quite agree, but I believe the the meaning of the term "block" > >is a bit ambiguous anyway. > >It would be better if everything done by the defender was classed > >as a reaction. This would make the general terminology simpler. > >i.e. "My reaction is to block" or "My reaction is to Telepathically > Counter > >2 bleed" or "My reaction is to let you through" or "My reaction is to > >say - Oh! That disguised flame thrower" :-) > > Yes, but then you have to introduce a rule like "you only get one chance > to react" which currently applies only to blocking. Also, logically, you > should be able to react to a modifier as well - the argument would then > allow an attempt to block after a Dominate bleed modifier (which many have > argued for in the past). > Well, in a way, you can react to modifiers I suppose. After all what are Intercepts if not reaction cards and reaction modifiers all rolled into one? :-) I don't have any problem with several reaction cards being used against an action and action modifiers if the reaction cards all work along the same lines (such as intercepts), and as long as the reaction is performed immediately after the initial action. It very much comes down to what we perceive the cards are actually doing when we play them in certain situations. I know it's not role playing but I believe we all tend to get a little into that way of thinking when we are laying the cards down. The pictures and title on the cards can influence our perception of what the card can do, more so if you've played VtMasquerade (ie. The Rotschreck argument). It's a shame that no-one else who has joined in on this thread has played the game the "wrong way" as it would have been interesting to also hear their opinion. As I said before though, in the long run, it doesn't really matter as lon as everyone's happy. Clarendon.

Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> wrote: -> pe...@homer.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: --> --> Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> wrote: ---> I have to say that I really don't like the idea of you being able ---> to sit there, not blocking or reacting until the extra bleeds have ---> been put on and then suddenly producing a Deflection or suchlike. ---> Just doesn't seem quite right. --> --> So it seems right to you that the offensive player is the only one --> who can modify the action after the block is declined? Conditioning --> / Spying Mission / Mask of 1000 Faces are all okay, but for some reason --> Deflection and Telepathic Misdirection are bogus? Do you let people --> Telepathic Counter after declining to block? How about after a --> Conditioning? Do you allow Deflection / T. Misdirection after extra --> stealth is applied to a bleed? -> Blimey! that's a lot of questions and semi-assumptions. Let me try and -> answer them. Yes,no, no, yes, yes, yes, no (or was it yes?) Oh I give -> up, forget it! :-) Well, the important question was the first one, which you answered yes: you do feel that it's right that only the offensive player can modify the action after the block is declined. I see no reason for this to be the case, so naturally our opinions on this topic differ. ----> We always kinda assumed that you had to block or react then Needless ----> to say the Pulsed/Governing/Conditioning bleed that I forced to ----> 3 stealth before Tele Misd on my prey for the oust was fun. --> ---> I don't like that either, for several reasons. For one, it makes ---> Malkavian an even more powerful clan (Thank God for Malkavian ---> Dementias). The second one being that I think if you declare to ---> block then blocking should be yourreaction. I think it is unbalancing ---> that you can attempt to block, then when you can no longer match ---> the stealth with your intercepts, you can just pass it on to your ---> prey. Lets face it, the bleed is probably quite bigby now (if your ---> predator has been pushing it that much) and it's got more stealth ---> than even you can intercept, so pity your prey. --> --> No, you've got this backwards. The way you play makes Malkavian a --> more powerful clan. In your scheme, if a predator has _any_ Malkavians --> then the prey had better not fail to block or Deflect / Misdirect --> _anybody_ because once anyone gets through then the (possibly Pulsed) --> Malkavian will come in with Mask of 1000 Faces and Condition the bleed --> and there is nothing the prey can do. Whereas in normal play, the --> prey could decline to block a small bleed and Deflect / Misdirect it --> should it become a large bleed. -> Therefore never getting a big bleed and totally negating any big bleeders?! -> (and possibly passing on big stealthed bleeds to his prey) As I said, -> it depends upon how you look at it. I was responding to your assertion that allowing reactions after declining to block makes Malkavians an even more powerful clan. I was saying you had it backwards. I think you're agreeing with me here. -> It's a tricky one and I think the only way I will be convinced one way -> or the other is to play a few games the "official" way. We've been -> playing for quite a while now the other way and have found the clans -> with their particular disciplines and cards fairly balanced, some being -> harder work than others though :-) Yeah, if I squint I can see playing it your way, though I prefer the "official" way. You see, forcing the defender to play the Deflection / T. Misdirection immediately means that the defender must have a lot of them in his hand, since he doesn't have the option of waiting to see if the bleed gets modified and must instead Deflect / T. Misdirect everything. So he needs a lot of those cards (and possibly Wakes too, if using T. Misdirection). Conversely, the offensive player needn't have so many post-block modifiers, since every one he/she uses will hit home. Playing it the "official" way, it is a risk for the offensive player to play post-block modifiers; he/she must decide if it is a good risk or not. --> You are correct that Malkavian is one of the clans that can employ --> this defence, but so can Toreador, Tremere, and (to a lesser extent --> due to no Auspex) Ventrue. Whereas the only clan to benefit from --> having no reactions to bleed mods is Malkavian, since you need both --> Dominate and Obfuscate. -> Sorry, is this a typo, or am I just not reading it correctly? Malkavian is the only clan that can make best use of post-block bleed modifiers since they need Dominate for the modifiers and Obfuscate to get past the block. -> --> Perhaps you should try the "standard rules" on this one; it might make --> Malkavian Dementia less crucial for your group. -> You make it sound as though my deck is bristling with Malkavian Dementias, -> whereas in reality it is not. Of all of the anti-clan cards M.D is the -> most useful in that it doesn't matter who has a Malkie in play as you -> can still use it against your prey or predator. Obviously it's better -> if your prey or predator does have Malkies in play but not essential. -> Taking my single M.D out will hardly alter the way my deck is played -> don't you think? :-) Malkavian Dementias are quite nice in most cases. It just sounded particularly so for your group when you said "Thank God for Malkavian Dementias". -> BTW - What "Standard Rules" are you referring to? Nothing standard. :-) I was trying to refer to the "official way" of playing Deflections / T. Misdirections that we were discussing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8141455...@crom.demon.co.uk>, clar...@crom.demon.co.uk says... > >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >> >> Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> >> >dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) wrote: >> > >> >> On an entirely new and as yet unflamed thread >> >> The concept of playing reactions to an action after not blocking it >> >> has never actually sunk in on my group >> >> I.E. After Governing and Conditioning, then play Tele Misd. >> >> >I might be wrong of course, but that is how I read it (I think it was >> >an "official" ruling) >> >> >I have to say that I really don't like the idea of you being able to sit >> >there, not blocking or reacting until the extra bleeds have been put on >> >and then suddenly producing a Deflection or suchlike. Just doesn't seem >> >quite right. >> It's quite definitely legal. There are no restrictions on playing >> reaction cards that require you to attempt to block, nor does >> Bonding/Conditioning/Threats or suchlike have any text "reaction cards may >> not be played after this card". > >I'm not saying it's not legal, what I'm saying is that it just doesn't >seem... well, fair (for want of a better word). > >> >> If you played that way, how could you use Dread Gaze? > >I'll get back to you on that one :-) However, voting does seem to be >an unusual case. (but then I haven't thought that through properly yet) > >> >> >I don't like that either, for several reasons. For one, it >> >makes Malkavian an even more powerful clan (Thank God for Malkavian >> >Dementias). >> >> The opposite, actually. It means you can fry a Malk predator without >> having to have 1/3 to 1/2 intercept cards. It's the only good Ventrue >> defense to S&B, and often the Toreador's best bet. > > >Does it "fry" your predator or does it just stuff your prey?!! > >I said it made Malkies (and Tremere) more powerful for the reason that >they both have Dominate and Auspex, so they can intercept to raise the >level of stealth used against them and then pass it on with Deflection >and remain untapped, whereas at least with Toreador, Telepathic Misdirection >taps them. I'd tend to agree. In a recent tournament game where I was playing Malk, my predator bled with Natash Volfchek with a laptop and Govern the Unaligned. I accepted it and they then stuck a Bonding on. I Deflection'ed it to my prey and the +1 stealth on the Bonding wiped em out. I wasn't sure at the time whether it was very fair but I checked with the ref and they said it was OK. I does seem a bit odd though - accepting a bleed and then reacting after a mod has been played. -- Richard --- "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces..." ric...@onechip.co.uk

In article <1995110215...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: >I'd tend to agree. In a recent tournament game where I was playing Malk, my >predator bled with Natash Volfchek with a laptop and Govern the Unaligned. I >accepted it and they then stuck a Bonding on. I Deflection'ed it to my prey >and the +1 stealth on the Bonding wiped em out. I wasn't sure at the time >whether it was very fair but I checked with the ref and they said it was OK. I >does seem a bit odd though - accepting a bleed and then reacting after a mod >has been played. > You haven't accepted it - you simply haven't blocked it. They (the bleeder) chose to boost the bleed before the bleed resolved (because after would be pointless :-), and you chose to bounce the bleed before it resolved. Which of these "before it resolves" things happens first is irrelevant. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <8156245...@crom.demon.co.uk>, Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> wrote: > lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > > > > In article <1995110215...@onechip.demon.co.uk>, > > Richard Mines <ric...@onechip.co.uk> wrote: > > >I'd tend to agree. In a recent tournament game where I was playing Malk, my > > >predator bled with Natash Volfchek with a laptop and Govern the Unaligned. I > > >accepted it and they then stuck a Bonding on. I Deflection'ed it to my prey > > >and the +1 stealth on the Bonding wiped em out. I wasn't sure at the time > > >whether it was very fair but I checked with the ref and they said it was OK. I > > >does seem a bit odd though - accepting a bleed and then reacting after a mod > > >has been played. > > > > > > > You haven't accepted it - you simply haven't blocked it. They (the bleeder) > > chose to boost the bleed before the bleed resolved (because after would be > > pointless :-), and you chose to bounce the bleed before it resolved. > > > > Which of these "before it resolves" things happens first is irrelevant. > > -- > > Just because it is irrelevant as far as the rules dictate, doesn't mean > that it's not entirely sensible. As I have said earlier somewhere in > the life of this posting/thread, allowing the defending player to play > a Deflection at any time during the bleed (plus modifiers) takes huge > amounts of risk out of that players game. Just stuff his deck with alot > of deflections and just pass any big bleeds on! I would be happy to let someone pack their deck with bleed bounce (even if playing bleed). All I have to do to jam their hand is not bleed. A Rush or Political deck would have a field day. Using a stereotypical Malk deck, I could concentrate on defending against my predator, and NOT bleed. Their hand will jam (and even if mine does, I can unjam whenever I want, they have to wait for me) and they will not accomplish anything. > It really depends on > if you prefer the danger of the decision to be with attacker or defender > during bleed resolution. I still maintain that if you set out on a specific > course of action, or rather reaction :-) then that is what you should do > and not change from an attempt to block into a Deflection, or a refusal > to block into a Deflection when a few more points of bleed have been > added. I know you (Scott) don't see a refusal to block the initial bleed as > being final, but I think it should be. You can't declare to block after > specific action mods (eg. Conditioning) have been played, so why should > you be allowed to react? How to handle votes then? I say I have no more votes yet. You say fine, and Bewitching Oration. I now cannot play dread gaze? _This_ doesn't seem right. > > There are several people now who have said they're not actually comfortable > or are not happy with the way this is at the moment; maybe it needs to > be aired to more people? (Make them think a bit) > > Clarendon. Another house rules addition perhaps, LSJ? If done, put me down for : Reactions can be played anytime before the action is resolved, unless said otherwise in card text or against legal rules (e.g. raising intercept too much). Poorly worded, I know. :/ "I can send and receive e-mail even over the internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>" # $ sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu -<insert name of those quoted here> @ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ GAT/CS/O/WS d-(---) h++ s: a--- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ P+ L E- W+>++ N++(+) o?> K+>++++ w--->? O? M++ V-->? PS+(-+) PE&++&- Y+>++ PGP(--) t 5->? X++&-- R+++&* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ DI D(+)&--- G+>+++ e+*>++++ h(+) r(+) y*+? /* Version 3.1 */ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ Spoutingly yours 8^)

In article <8156245...@crom.demon.co.uk> Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> writes: >There are several people now who have said they're not actually comfortable >or are not happy with the way this is at the moment; maybe it needs to >be aired to more people? (Make them think a bit) Or maybe Bleed Bounce is simply too powerful? Anyway, I always /expect/ a +Bleed card to be played if the bleeder has Dominate. A good deck should have a way to stop Dominate bleeders, either by sending them to torpor before they bleed, sending them to torpor as they try to bleed, or with a plentiful of Bleed Bounce. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > In article <8156245...@crom.demon.co.uk> Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> writes: > > >There are several people now who have said they're not actually comfortable > >or are not happy with the way this is at the moment; maybe it needs to > >be aired to more people? (Make them think a bit) > > Or maybe Bleed Bounce is simply too powerful? Yes, well I actually think it is, the way it officially is allowed to work, which is why we aren't playing that way in our group. > > Anyway, I always /expect/ a +Bleed card to be played if the bleeder has > Dominate. A good deck should have a way to stop Dominate bleeders, > either by sending them to torpor before they bleed, sending them to > torpor as they try to bleed, or with a plentiful of Bleed Bounce. > Don't you think it's a bit dull though? All you have to do is put a lot of deflections in your deck and you're almost gauranteed never to get a big bleed. Just put a lot of blood dolls in too so you can top the deflecting vampires back up again and you certainly won't lose blood very quickly. You can then save all of your intercepts for stopping equip actions, hunting and voting etc. Just an opinion. :-) Clarendon. ***** It's a funny old world *****

In article <8160468...@crom.demon.co.uk>, Clarendon <clar...@crom.demon.co.uk> wrote: > kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > Or maybe Bleed Bounce is simply too powerful? > > Yes, well I actually think it is, the way it officially is allowed to > work, which is why we aren't playing that way in our group. > > > > > Anyway, I always /expect/ a +Bleed card to be played if the bleeder has > > Dominate. A good deck should have a way to stop Dominate bleeders, > > either by sending them to torpor before they bleed, sending them to > > torpor as they try to bleed, or with a plentiful of Bleed Bounce. > > > > Don't you think it's a bit dull though? All you have to do is put a lot > of deflections in your deck and you're almost gauranteed never to get a > big bleed. Just put a lot of blood dolls in too so you can top the > deflecting vampires back up again and you certainly won't lose blood very > quickly. You can then save all of your intercepts for stopping equip > actions, hunting and voting etc. Just an opinion. :-) I guess I have to disagree about bleed bounce being too powerful. It is extremely easy to jam a bounce deck, and if a deck is so focused that all it can do offensively is bleed, it deserves to lose to the bouncer. Other decks have many viable options: rush them, intercept undirected actions, vote, etc... I guess I feel that bleed bounce isn't too powerful. I've _never_ played against one and thought, "That's out of line." It is dull though. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

As for this " I don't block." " Then I Condition you. " issue, we have always treated it as a sort of " raise/call" response like manuvering in combat. If someone comes to bleed me, I can try to block, then they can respond with a modifier, then I can respond and so on. Thus, if both players pass, the action is called and it occurs. If both players have declined to respond in order, the action may no longer be modified or reacted to. For example: Meth A: I'm coming to bleed you with Ozmo. ( action/raise ) Meth B: I block with Duck. ( reaction/raise ) Meth A: Lost in crowds. +2 stealth. ( reaction/raise ) Meth B: Ok, I'm bled. ( pass ) Meth A: Conditioning. +3 to bleed. ( reaction/raise ) Meth B: Ok then. Marty Deflects you over there. ( reaction/raise ) This works just fine. When Meth B accepted the bleed ( i.e. Passed ), Meth A could then raise again ( react with a modifier ) or call ( accept the smaller bleed, with no chance of being deflected. ). Once both players pass ( play no cards or react in any way ) the action can no longer be modified in any way. Thus, if Meth B accepts the bleed, and Meth A passes on modifying it, Meth B cannot then reply by Deflecting it, because he already passed, and nothing occured that he was allowed to react to. If you wait to Deflect someone, hoping to draw out their +bleed before you Deflect them, and they decide not to add that modifier after they saw you not deflect them, you cannot then Deflect them, as you already passed, then they called. This is also how manuvering works in combat. If I, the acting minion, neglect to manuver to long range ( hoping that you will ), and then you, the blocking minion, also don't manuver, it's too late for me to go and manuver to long range. Once both players pass, it's too late to react or play a card or do anything. I can play a card, give you a chance to respond, play another, let you respond again, and then play a third, but if at any time both players pass ( starting with the blocker ) that's it. The action occurs as it is. -Peter D Bakija

I think I missed a chunk of the above thread, so I suspect this was all beaten to death. Oh well. :-) I did not mean to compare bleeding to manuvering in game terms, as they are obviously very different, but in game mechanics terms. Manuvering works in a " Raise/Pass/Call " system, and this works very well for all other aspects of the game. Otherwise, alot of the game falls under the undefined area of " timing " problems, or it becomes a game of " I played it first. Ha! You loose! " , which is just silly. -Peter D Bakija

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > ...... > > Once both players pass, it's too late to react or play a card or do > anything. I can play a card, give you a chance to respond, play another, > let you respond again, and then play a third, but if at any time both > players pass ( starting with the blocker ) that's it. The action occurs > as it is. > Oh, I'm not going through it all again ;-) Do you not see any of the contrasting points in the previous dozen or so postings or does it definitely seem OK to you the way you describe it? (This is just a question, I'm not trying to be rude) BTW - I don't think bleeding can be likened to manoeuvering or any other action as it is a rather peculiar "virtual" event. Manoeuvering, combat and voting for instance are fairly simple and straightforward in comparison. Let's face it, manoeuvering is either getting closer or further away from your opponent whereas bleeding could mean really draining someone powerful in the employ of the opposing Meth' or affecting their resources or standing in some way. Anyway, I'm bored with this general discussion now anyway, so I might go away now and design a weeny vote pushing deck just to see if they are as unbalancing as people say they are. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]