Rules Question - Deflection

This is quick question for all those in the know. If a minion is declaring an action, I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I attempt to block it with another minion who has higher intercept. The second question is if I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I then play deflection either with the minion that attempted to block or another minion. Thanks in advance.

Jack Lo (pi...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote: : This is quick question for all those in the know. If a minion is declaring : an action, I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I attempt to block : it with another minion who has higher intercept. Yes. You may continue to (attempt to) block as long as you have minions who can get enough intercept. Example: Ozmo trying to bleed you. Camille attempts to block. Ozmo slaps down +1 stealth. It is now perfectly legal to slap +1 intercept on Anneke and use her to try and block Ozmo. : The second question is if I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I : then play deflection either with the minion that attempted to block or : another minion. Thanks in advance. Certainly. Anytime before the bleed actually resolves (i.e. you take the damage from the bleed) you may play additional modifiers including bouncing it to someone else. Because the first minion failed to block, he/she is not tapped, and thus may play other Reaction cards. 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

I'm sure there will be several other posts explaining exactly what the case is in each of these questions but just in case no gets around to it: The answer is Yes in both occurances. -- -Eric Wohlstadter

Jack Lo <pi...@leland.stanford.edu> writes: >This is quick question for all those in the know. If a minion is declaring >an action, I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I attempt to block >it with another minion who has higher intercept. Most definately >The second question is if I attempt to block and he stealths it, can I >then play deflection either with the minion that attempted to block or >another minion. Thanks in advance. This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go. currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming. So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth. The Deflection can be played at any time. In fact attempting to block and then failing because of increased stealth, and THEN deflecting is an excellent strategy because then the stealth has already been added to the action going to your prey (usually) Hope this Helps Stu -- Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html GE/T/S d++(--) H(-) s++:- g+(-) p2 au++ a- w+++(--) v++ C++ U N++ W---() M+ V-- po+++(---) t--- 5+++ G+++ B--- e++ u++ f+ r++ n--- y*

Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go. >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming. >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth. I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker has at least +1 intercept. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <47lbfp$j...@acmey.gatech.edu> dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming. >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth. I don't think that is the case. You cannot play stealth unless someone is actually trying to block you. If no one is attempting to block you, visualize it as minus infinity intercept. So you can't play stealth. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Hi Thomas, On 7 Nov 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: > >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go. > >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and > >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before > >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed > >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules > >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming. > >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth. > > I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't > be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action > if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the > rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker > has at least +1 intercept. > I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you can add +1 (or more, if from one card) stealth as long as your would be blocker has intercept equal to your stealth, thus 0 stealth and 0 intercept means you can add stealth. Correct? Algustas *****I didn't kill him! I swear I didn't!***** The kid, X #1 *****I know. I did.***** X, X #1

In article <DHpGD...@freenet.carleton.ca>, bh...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Pat Gilliland) wrote: : Not so, noble net rep! You can go +1 stealth if the blocker has 0 : intercept, preventing the action from being blocked. If the blocker then goes : to +1 intercept, the action will be blocked, so you can go to +2 stealth : your opponent can _then_ go to +2 and so forth. What the rule prevents : you from doing is jumping from +1 stealth vs +1 intercept to +3 vs +1 : (unless the card can _only_ give you +2). The example you cite, would : allow you to go to +2 to beat the advantage the blocker has. Basically : you can increase your stealth/intercept only enough to ensure the action : is unblocked/blocked. Well, actually I do not think you are restricted from playing Lost In Crowds at the superior, if you only need +1 stealth to get past the intercept.. You are restricted from playing an additional stealth card if you don't need it. The rules is set up to make sure you cannot burn cards taht are not needed, not to restrict you from using the superior aspect of a card. So in summary of this topic as I see it, you cannot play more stealth (or intercept for that matter) CARDS than you need to match (for intercept) or beat (for stealth) the current rating. So if you are performing a 0 stealth action and no one moves to block it, you cannot increase the stealth. If someone does move to block, you can increase the stealth by as much as you can with a single stealth card, but must wait until more intercept is played before playing another stealth card. The one possible exception I can think of is if you were bleeding and wanted to play Bonding at the superior (+1 bleed +1 stealth) You could then use the superior form even if you didn't need the stealth. (But as you could play the card for the +1 bleed anyway I really don't think that it falls under the ruling above as you weren't prevented from playing the card) I hope this helps stephen beaulieu hi...@mail.utexas.edu

Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: >On 7 Nov 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: >>Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: >>>and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed >>>that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules >>be,but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action > if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the >>rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker > has at least +1 intercept. > I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you >can add +1 (or more, if from one card) stealth as long as your would be >blocker has intercept equal to your stealth, thus 0 stealth and 0 >intercept means you can add stealth. Correct? My point was that if an intercept of 0 exists as a block to an action with 0 stealth. Then you may add 1 stealth Basically the rules becomes a zero stealth ation may use one card (or item) to add stealth to it. (even as it is announced) This allows you to play the Faceless night (sup) right as you declare the action so you make the statement If you risk trying to block this minion and fail you minion will still be tapped and won't be able to block the next bleed I'm coming with. So we play with One card played for any 0 stealth action and no more. If this card grants you +2 stealth so be it. Otherwise you get to burn one and only card for any 0 stealth action I'd really like an official interpritation of the rules from the netrep so we can play correctly on this one. Situation Untapped Agrippina declares anaction of Computer Hacking She would also like to play an action modifier of Faceless Night In order to increase her stealth to 1 and let her prey's Meth know that this action if unblocked will still tap the vamps who try and stop her. Kind of a bluff since her Meth doesn't have any other Stealth Cards in her hand. Is the playing of the Added Stealth before block declaration legal? Does the Meth have to wait until there is a block at 0 int before raising stealth beyond 0? Thanks Stu -- Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html ld.so.1: /acme3/39/dsadmga/b5quote/quote: fatal: relocation error: symbol not found: srandom: referenced in /acme3/39/dsadmga/b5quote/quote

In article <47ocqo$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: > >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go. > >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and > >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before > >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed > >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules > >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming. > >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth. > > I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't > be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action > if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the > rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker > has at least +1 intercept. What about the card (I can't remember what it is) that gives +1 bleed and +1 stealth in superior version--how does this rule affect it? J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Stephen Beaulieu <hi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: >: Not so, noble net rep! You can go +1 stealth if the blocker has 0 >: intercept, preventing the action from being blocked. If the blocker [has] >: to +1 intercept, the action will be blocked, so you can go to +2 stealth >: your opponent can _then_ go to +2 and so forth. What the rule prevents >: you from doing is jumping from +1 stealth vs +1 intercept to +3 vs +1 >: (unless the card can _only_ give you +2). The example you cite, would >: allow you to go to +2 to beat the advantage the blocker has. Basically >: you can increase your stealth/intercept only enough to ensure the action >: is unblocked/blocked. Sigh... I think my basic math center is breaking down. >Well, actually I do not think you are restricted from playing Lost In >Crowds at the superior, if you only need +1 stealth to get past the >intercept.. You are restricted from playing an additional stealth card if >you don't need it. The rules is set up to make sure you cannot burn cards >taht are not needed, not to restrict you from using the superior aspect of >a card. This is correct. You may increase your stealth if the other minion's intercept equals or exceeds yours, but you can overkill the increase. >The one possible exception I can think of is if you were bleeding and >wanted to play Bonding at the superior (+1 bleed +1 stealth) You could >then use the superior form even if you didn't need the stealth. (But as >you could play the card for the +1 bleed anyway I really don't think that >it falls under the ruling above as you weren't prevented from playing the >card) You wouldn't be able to use the superior form if you didn't need the stealth, but in that case you would use the inferior form, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: >Untapped Agrippina declares anaction of Computer Hacking >She would also like to play an action modifier of Faceless Night >In order to increase her stealth to 1 and let her prey's Meth know that >this action if unblocked will still tap the vamps who try and stop her. >Kind of a bluff since her Meth doesn't have any other Stealth Cards >in her hand. > >Is the playing of the Added Stealth before block declaration legal? No. There isn't a minion trying to block her, so she doesn't know that she needs increased stealth. >Does the Meth have to wait until there is a block at 0 int before >raising stealth beyond 0? The player has to wait for a would-be blocker of intercept 0+, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article 100000@gladstone, Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: > Hi Thomas, > > On 7 Nov 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > > > > Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: > > >This is a point of contention here on the net as far as HOUSE rules go. > > >currently at least. The Rules specify exactly that Action Modifiers and > > >Reactions may be played at any time during the action resolution, before > > >and after Blocks have been declared. Such as Adding +1 Stealth to a bleed > > >that is not going to be blocked. It is my interpritation of the rules > > >that up to one more stealth can exist than the current intercept coming. > > >So 1 stealth IMHO may be added to all actions that are at zero stealth. > > > > I've lost track of what the house rules think the rules should or shouldn't > > be, but the rulebook says that you can only increase the stealth of an action > > if you have to overcome intercept (that might actually be errata to the > > rulebook, I forget), so you can only go to +1 stealth if the would-be blocker > > has at least +1 intercept. > > > I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you > can add +1 (or more, if from one card) stealth as long as your would be > blocker has intercept equal to your stealth, thus 0 stealth and 0 > intercept means you can add stealth. Correct? > > Algustas > *****I didn't kill him! I swear I didn't!***** The kid, X #1 > > *****I know. I did.***** X, X #1 > The Jyhad rules state "A player can not increase stealth or incecept beyond what is needed to counter directly another player's increase of stealth or intercept The first point of intercept is not needed to counter a blocker if there is no blocker. So it would seem you can't play it. However in the same text there is an example where Tiberius plays one stealth as he announces his bleed. I don't know what the official rule is. I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to crippled compared to combat or vote decks. Steve

Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: : Example: Ozmo (with superior dom) bleeds. Ramiel Dupre blocks. Ozmo : pumps the stealth 1. Ramiel can't get the intercept. The bleed will go : through, so Ozmo uses Bonding to increase the bleed by 1. He wants to use : superior to have the stealth in case the bleed is bounced. : Ramile pulls the Deflection, taps and bounces the bleed. Camille (or : Raven) with a Raven Spy awaits poor Ozmo to send him to torporville. Is : Ozmo forced to try and pull more stealth from the deck because at the time : he didn't need that one stealth from the superior Bonding he was entitled : to play? This is a rules question from someone who is trying to learn. In the above example, I would have thought that Bonding couldn't be played in this situation because stealth was already greater than available intercept. Am I wrong? -James

In article <47qhnr$i...@acmez.gatech.edu> dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >Situation > >Untapped Agrippina declares anaction of Computer Hacking >She would also like to play an action modifier of Faceless Night >In order to increase her stealth to 1 and let her prey's Meth know that >this action if unblocked will still tap the vamps who try and stop her. >Kind of a bluff since her Meth doesn't have any other Stealth Cards >in her hand. > >Is the playing of the Added Stealth before block declaration legal? >Does the Meth have to wait until there is a block at 0 int before >raising stealth beyond 0? > It is illegal. You can't play stealth if no one has yet declared blocking. As a house rule, I don't think it is a good rule, either. It gives stealth deck an advantage, in cycling extra stealth cards which would otherwise jam their hands. Don't players in your group like to play super-stealth (> 40% stealth cards) decks? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1995Nov9.1...@schbbs.mot.com> sba...@cso.geg.mot.com writes: >I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other >weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand >became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had >more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game >plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the >only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to >crippled compared to combat or vote decks. That `rule variant' is actually the official rule. Combat decks are easier to cause jamming by prey than stealth decks, even without using S:CE. An unlucky combat deck would simply jam itself. Combat decks typically contain a lower percentage of `get into combat' cards than stealth cards or Dominate bleeders in an S&B deck. Vote decks don't jam becasue of vote pushing; if you're going to use a house rule, fix /that/, instead of making S&B more powerful. This is about the first time we hear here that S&B (under official rules) is too powerful, isn't it? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Your right it is the official interpetation (for now) but you must admit that there is no way to divine that from the rule book. My rule book says: " If you want to block, you indicate which minion is the blocker. That minion must have an intercept at least as great as the acting minion's stealth; reaction cards and cards in play can be used to increase the intercept. Before the block is successful the blocked player has the opportunity to play action modifiers or use cards in play to increase the acting minion's stealth. ... Play continues with players alternatly increasing intercept and stealth. A player cannot increase stealth or intercept beyond that needed to counter directly another player's increase of stealth or intercept.... Example: Your predator declares that his vampire Tiberius is bleeding you, and plays a card that increases Tiberius's stealth to 1." The rules don't really say anything about what the acting minion can play before the block is announced. The example clearly says you can play the first stealth card. So it may not be a 'rule variant' to you but it is in the rule book, and rather unarguable stated. Steve

In article 2...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: > In article <1995Nov9.1...@schbbs.mot.com> sba...@cso.geg.mot.com writes: > > >I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other > >weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand > >became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had > >more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game > >plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the > >only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to > >crippled compared to combat or vote decks. > > That `rule variant' is actually the official rule. > > Combat decks are easier to cause jamming by prey than stealth decks, > even without using S:CE. An unlucky combat deck would simply jam > itself. Combat decks typically contain a lower percentage of `get into > combat' cards than stealth cards or Dominate bleeders in an S&B deck. > True a combat deck can still jam, however there is a fix, put more get into combat cards in your hand. There is no may to stop a player from playing a bum's rush. The very fact that a S&B has so much stealth in his hand makes it so cripples when he has no way of getting ride of it. > Vote decks don't jam becasue of vote pushing; if you're going to use > a house rule, fix /that/, instead of making S&B more powerful. > I use the one vote per meth per vote. You still get to use one vote card per vote. > This is about the first time we hear here that S&B (under official > rules) is too powerful, isn't it? > > -- > "Live Life with Heart." > > Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu I have never felt malkavians are to powerful. Under tournament rules yes, but under official rules no. All other deck designs allow for a way to cycle cards. (with the possible exception of prevent damage decks (altough combined with immortal grapple it will do fine) Under the "official" rules you can not play stealth cards unless your opponent lets you and this to me seems contrary to the mechanics of the rest of the game. Steve

In article <1995Nov10.1...@schbbs.mot.com>, sba...@cso.geg.mot.com wrote: > In article 6...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > > > > Stephen Beaulieu <hi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > > > You are restricted from playing an additional stealth card if > > >you don't need it. The rules is set up to make sure you cannot burn cards > > >taht are not needed, not to restrict you from using the superior aspect of > > >a card. > > > > This is correct. You may increase your stealth if the other minion's > > intercept equals or exceeds yours, but you can overkill the increase. > > > > >The one possible exception I can think of is if you were bleeding and > > >wanted to play Bonding at the superior (+1 bleed +1 stealth) You could > > >then use the superior form even if you didn't need the stealth. (But as > > >you could play the card for the +1 bleed anyway I really don't think that > > >it falls under the ruling above as you weren't prevented from playing the > > >card) > > > So in the case: I bleed my oppenent doesn't block, > I play bonding, for +1 bleed. > Know my opponent blocks and I am out the stealth. > Not fair > Not exactly how it works. Once a Methuselah has _declined_ to block, though they may still play reaction cards (a la Deflection/Counter), they may _not_ block. Perfectly fair, you still get your bonding. If it is deflected, you don't get the advantage that bonding would have afforded to you. "Say La Vee" (My French is awful :) > How about Kine Dominance, can you (a) not play it till a blocker is announced > (b) play it but only get the +1 bleed or (c) break the rule and add stealth > you don't need. > Kine Dominance is an action. You must play it as the action is announced. "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^)

sba...@cso.geg.mot.com (Steven Bauer) wrote: >I use to play you could play the first point of stealth without a blocker. The other >weekend I tried a game the other way and the malk at the table got hosed after his hand >became hopelessly jamed with stealth card because nobody blocked him knowing he had >more than enough stealth. I found it an interesting rule varient but think the game >plays better if you can use the fist point opf stealth. Otherwise it becomes the >only strategy where your prey can prevent you from playing cards and would be to >crippled compared to combat or vote decks. Peace Steve, Causing your pred/prey's hand to jam by NOT performing some action is a completely valid tactic. There is a good reason why you can't just throw stealth cards away like that (it would allow you to nearly totally avoid hand jams). Believe it or not, combat decks do jam (it has happened to me). By following the more balanced "one vote per Meth per vote", vote decks can definitely jam. Building a deck that doesn't jam (or rarely jams) takes quite a bit of skill. Jamming is a Good Thing (TM). Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

jam...@gw.digibd.com (James Puzzo) wrote: >Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: Example: Ozmo (with superior dom) bleeds. Ramiel Dupre blocks. Ozmo >: pumps the stealth 1. Ramiel can't get the intercept. The bleed will go through, so Ozmo uses Bonding to increase the bleed by 1. He wants to use >: superior to have the stealth in case the bleed is bounced. >: Ramile pulls the Deflection, taps and bounces the bleed. Camille (or >: Raven) with a Raven Spy awaits poor Ozmo to send him to torporville. Is Ozmo forced to try and pull more stealth from the deck because at the time >: he didn't need that one stealth from the superior Bonding he was entitled to play? > In the above example, I would have thought that Bonding couldn't be played in this situationbecause stealth was already greater t= han available intercept. Am >I wrong? I think you are wrong in the sense that Bonding has two versions, the inferior one and the superior one. The inferior one just says +1 bleed while the superior one reads +1 bleed and +1 stealth. So Ozmo, having sup Dom, could choose to use either version. In the situation that Stephen Beaulieu describes I think the answer is : yes, he should use another card because he was not allowed to use the sup version of Bonding since there was no intercept to be used against. So torporville is waitng for Ozmo.. :) -- Luca "Democritus" Consoli Web page: http://imoax1.unimo.it/~consoli/ |-------------------------------------------| |" S'i fossi foco arderei lo mondo..." | |{ Were I Fire, I would burn the world..." |------------| | (Cecco Angiolieri, Italian poet)| |--------------------------------------------------------|

Steven Bauer <sba...@cso.geg.mot.com> wrote: >So in the case: I bleed my oppenent doesn't block, > I play bonding, for +1 bleed. > Know my opponent blocks and I am out the stealth. > Not fair First, if you're worried about this, then just don't play Bonding before your opponent has decided whether to block. If you wait for any blocking attempt, you will know whether or not you need the stealth. Second, it's just as fair (or not) as an acting minion choosing its strike. It has to decide whether to use a strike card or not before finding out whether or not the blocking minion is going to dodge or end combat. >How about Kine Dominance, can you (a) not play it till a blocker is announced >(b) play it but only get the +1 bleed or (c) break the rule and add stealth >you don't need. The rule is about increasing the stealth of an action with cards or effects, not about the default stealth of an action. Actions such as hunting and calling a vote say they are at +1 stealth, so they are, even if no one tries to block them. [ quoted text not captured ]

Before I could do anything to stop it, Consoli Luca wrote: > I think you are wrong in the sense that Bonding has two versions, the inferior > one and the superior one. The inferior one just says +1 bleed while the > superior one reads +1 bleed and +1 stealth. So Ozmo, having sup Dom, could > choose to use either version. > In the situation that Stephen Beaulieu describes I think the answer is : yes, > he should use another card because he was not allowed to use the sup version of > Bonding since there was no intercept to be used against. So torporville is > waitng for Ozmo.. :) By this logic you would never be able to play a political card since each of these has an inherent stealth bonus. Night Moves would be unplayable because of it's built in +3 stealth. Bonding is a bleed enhancer, and the stealth at superior is a bonus, useable whether it's "needed" or not. Additional stealth cards cannot be "dumped" unless required, but stealth bonuses on other cards do not count as stealth cards. "It's at the end of his arm," thought Frito, nervously | Brian shaking it, "it's got to be a hand." | Wilson

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Steven Bauer <sba...@cso.geg.mot.com> wrote: : >So in the case: I bleed my oppenent doesn't block, : > I play bonding, for +1 bleed. : > Know my opponent blocks and I am out the stealth. : > Not fair : First, if you're worried about this, then just don't play Bonding before : your opponent has decided whether to block. If you wait for any blocking : attempt, you will know whether or not you need the stealth. Uhhh... Tom? Hate to tell you this, but not only is your Basic Math Centre breaking down - your Basic Literacy Centre isn't far behind. :-) He already sayd (above) that the opponent had declined to block _before_ he played the Bonding, and then changed his mind after he saw the action modifier. Proper Netrep response should have been something like: "Once an opponent has made the decision not to block a given action, they may not change their mind if additional action modifiers are played. The opponent may still play cards like Deflection, Telepathic Counter, Telepathic Misdirection, etc. as these may be played even after the blocking decision has been made." Or something along those lines, anyway... :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <47u2af$2...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >This is about the first time we hear here that S&B (under official >rules) is too powerful, isn't it? Oops, I meant "... is crippled", not "... is too powerful". Sorry. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1995Nov10....@schbbs.mot.com> sba...@cso.geg.mot.com writes: >In article 2...@gullveig.cs.cornell.edu, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >> Combat decks are easier to cause jamming by prey than stealth decks, >> even without using S:CE. An unlucky combat deck would simply jam >> itself. Combat decks typically contain a lower percentage of `get into >> combat' cards than stealth cards or Dominate bleeders in an S&B deck. >> >True a combat deck can still jam, however there is a fix, put more get into combat >cards in your hand. There is no may to stop a player from playing a bum's >rush. The very fact that a S&B has so much stealth in his hand makes it so >cripples when he has no way of getting ride of it. Well, using your idea of `fixing' (hurting a combat deck's efficiency by putting in too many Bum's Rushes), then you can `fix' the S&B deck by putting in more Dominate bleeders and less stealth. There is no way to stop a player from playing Dominate bleeders. >All other deck designs allow for a way to cycle cards. (with the possible exception >of prevent damage decks (altough combined with immortal grapple it will do fine) > >Under the "official" rules you can not play stealth cards unless your opponent lets >you and this to me seems contrary to the mechanics of the rest of the game. Well, sometimes a player can build a deck which takes 0 stealth actions all the time, and that jams the intercept deck. The general mechanics of the game is that, mostly, you can't just burn a card unless it does something useful (or unless you spend a sequence-of-play resource specifically designated for that kind of card, such as a strike). Letting a stealth card be burned freely seems to me contrary to the mechanics of the rest of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]