I occasionally see this happen;
plr A: "done, your turn"
plr B: "before end of your turn, I tap x to...."
Is that legal? It is in shadowfist due to declarations being effects
in themself that can be responded to by other effects, but is it legal
in vtes? I would think all such declarations are instantaneous, the
only difference being the delay in strike decl/resolution, master play,
etc.
G
[ quoted text not captured ]
You cannot rush through a phase and not give someone an opportunity to
do something that is perfectly legal for them to do 'before the end of
your turn'. This isn't Slapjack or Speed or some other reactive card
game. You'd get stupid shit like 'I know my prey wants to use that
Heidelberg on my turn so I'll just untap, discard quickly and say
"done, your turn".'
In message <1142986577.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> writes:
>talonz wrote:>> plr A: "done, your turn"
>> plr B: "before end of your turn, I tap x to...."
>>
>> Is that legal? It is in shadowfist due to declarations being effects
>> in themself that can be responded to by other effects, but is it legal
>> in vtes? I would think all such declarations are instantaneous, the
>> only difference being the delay in strike decl/resolution, master play,
>> etc.>>You cannot rush through a phase and not give someone an opportunity to
>do something that is perfectly legal for them to do 'before the end of
>your turn'.
If you wanted to get legalistic about it, because player A can't know if
anyone else wants to play any effects (such as tapping a Barrens, or
whatever), "done, your turn" is simply local language for "I'm finished
with my turn" and doesn't actually start the next Methuselah's turn
anyway. Similarly, Methuselah B (or any other Methuselah) could be
thinking about throwing down a Not to Be, and you couldn't rush that by
saying "Fall of the Camarilla, done, your turn" either.
But yes, in general, you just can't skip through a timing area. If you
were to say something like "Done. Anything else? <pause for a few
seconds, to allow all players to intervene> Okay, your turn." things
would be fine. Usually that isn't necessary, though, as you can back up
painlessly.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Robert Scythe wrote:
> talonz wrote:
> > plr A: "done, your turn"
> > plr B: "before end of your turn, I tap x to...."
> >
> > Is that legal? It is in shadowfist due to declarations being effects
> > in themself that can be responded to by other effects, but is it legal
> > in vtes? I would think all such declarations are instantaneous, the
> > only difference being the delay in strike decl/resolution, master play,
> > etc.
>> You cannot rush through a phase and not give someone an opportunity to
> do something that is perfectly legal for them to do 'before the end of
> your turn'.
Correct. [1.6.1.5]
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:37:12 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
The most frequent timing question in my experience is the window to block.
I've had the following scenario happen:
Announce bleed. Prey attempts to block. Play +1 stealth. Prey declines to
block with the minion. Ask prey: "any other block attempts?" Prey replies,
"no". Ask table: "anybody else attempting to block?" Silence. Bleed
modifier, and an immediate Eagle's Sight from the grandprey, claiming
it's not a "speed game". ;)
So I guess, in the end, it's not generally enough to pause to see whether
anyone will want to play some effects; if something depends on the timing,
people will try to take advantage of being able to claim that they
couldn't react because they were rushed. In the majority of other cases
though it is less important (and the general practice where I play to
speed up the game is to remind the person before the end of whose turn
you want to use an effect to notify you when he is about to end his turn).
--
Bye,
Daneel
However in the bleed scenario you described, you asked for anyone else
attempting to block. Silence, even for 5 seconds, is them stating no
block.
I'm sure LSJ has answered the situation before, however you are
implicitly asking if anyone is going to eagle's sight or use Anneke's
special with that question. If no one responds then they're saying no
to the question.
Of course you can get extremely pendantic and say something like ...
anybody else attempting to block - I want an answer from everyone now
please.
D
In message <1143180054.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> writes:
>However in the bleed scenario you described, you asked for anyone else
>attempting to block. Silence, even for 5 seconds, is them stating no
>block.
A reasonable period of silence would be no block, but each player will
differ in what they think is reasonable. Even with players who aren't
being asshats about this, 5 seconds may not be a subjectively reasonable
amount of time for a player who is going through his hand and trying to
decide if he thinks he can both block you *and* survive combat (or
torporise you, or whatever it is he/she wants to do when they've blocked
you). When you're trying to work out that, 5 seconds can just
disappear.
Of course, this is one of the situations where a player - to be helpful
- might say, "Hang on a sec... No, go." Much the same as some players
will do the same with master cards (whether they have a Sudden Reversal
to hand or not).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daneel wrote:
> Announce bleed. Prey attempts to block. Play +1 stealth. Prey declines to
> block with the minion. Ask prey: "any other block attempts?" Prey replies,
> "no". Ask table: "anybody else attempting to block?" Silence. Bleed
> modifier, and an immediate Eagle's Sight from the grandprey, claiming
> it's not a "speed game". ;)
In this scenario, the acting meth has changed the game condition after
asking for block attempts. Once the bleed modifier is played, another
opprotunity to respond to it must be offered. The grandprey might not
want to Eagle's Sight block a bleed for 1, but determine that a bleed
for three merits a block attempt.
After playing the modifier, the request for block attempts would need
to be re-issued. The timing is the same for all reaction cards - just
like the prey can not block the bleed, and then bounce it after the
bleed modifer is played.
In message <1143304782.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> writes:
> In this scenario, the acting meth has changed the game condition after
>asking for block attempts. Once the bleed modifier is played, another
>opprotunity to respond to it must be offered. The grandprey might not
>want to Eagle's Sight block a bleed for 1, but determine that a bleed
>for three merits a block attempt.
>
> After playing the modifier, the request for block attempts would need
>to be re-issued. The timing is the same for all reaction cards - just
>like the prey can not block the bleed, and then bounce it after the
>bleed modifer is played.
You're very wrong, I'm afraid. He can bounce it, but he can't block it.
At some point during the action, the acting Methuselah asks for blocks.
Once people have declined to block, they don't get another opportunity
to block it just because they don't like the fact that you played a
bleed modifier.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>>Wookie813 wrote:> > After playing the modifier, the request for block attempts would need
> >to be re-issued. The timing is the same for all reaction cards - just
> >like the prey can not block the bleed, and then bounce it after the
> >bleed modifer is played.
>
> You're very wrong, I'm afraid. He can bounce it, but he can't block it.
>
> At some point during the action, the acting Methuselah asks for blocks.
> Once people have declined to block, they don't get another opportunity
> to block it just because they don't like the fact that you played a
> bleed modifier.
Quite so - and our meta doesn't play the way I described. The way I
described it, a minion could block a political action after it went to
referendum if they didn't like your Bewitching Oration, which is just
silly. Our meta does not play in the manner I described, either. Not
sure where I came up with up that. I somehow convinced myself that any
reaction could be played/declared in response to the modifier - which I
know isn't the case.