Block questions & more...

1. Can i block another player Bum's Rush directed to a minion controlled by my predator? 2. And can i block a bleed directed to my predator? 3. Can i block a PA called by a minion controlled by a player that is not my predator nor my prey? 4. If a minion controlled by a player that is not my predator nor my prey is trying to burn an Haven Uncovered on him, can "i" try to block it? 5. Can i play a Sudden Reversal to forbid another Master-out-of-turn played by another player? And can a third player play another Sudden Reversal to forbid mine? Thanx! .- Luis....@ip.pt

Luis P. Duarte wrote: > 1. Can i block another player Bum's Rush directed to a minion controlled > by my predator? > > 2. And can i block a bleed directed to my predator? > > 3. Can i block a PA called by a minion controlled by a player that is not > my predator nor my prey? With Eagle's Sight or Anneke you can. Otherwise, no. > 4. If a minion controlled by a player that is not my predator nor my prey > is trying to burn an Haven Uncovered on him, can "i" try to block it? Burning a Haven Uncovered is a (D) action. It doesn't matter if you're the predator or prey....only if you're the player who played it. Again, Eage's Sight overcomes that hindrance. > 5. Can i play a Sudden Reversal to forbid another Master-out-of-turn > played by another player? And can a third player play another Sudden > Reversal to forbid mine? Absolutely...as long it's not the current turn of the above three platyers. I've seen it happen. Noal McDonald The Great Googily Moogily of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Luis P. Duarte wrote: > > 1. Can i block another player Bum's Rush directed to a minion controlled > > by my predator? > > > > 2. And can i block a bleed directed to my predator? > > > > 3. Can i block a PA called by a minion controlled by a player that is not > > my predator nor my prey? > > With Eagle's Sight or Anneke you can. Otherwise, no. Well, Enzo Giovanni also has card text regarding the latter case, but right: barring explicit card text, only ready untapped minions controlled by the target of a directed action can attempt to block that action. And only ready untapped minions controlled by the predator or prey of the acting minion's controller can attempt to block an undirected action (and all PAs are undirected actions). [6.2.2.1] > > 4. If a minion controlled by a player that is not my predator nor my prey > > is trying to burn an Haven Uncovered on him, can "i" try to block it? > > Burning a Haven Uncovered is a (D) action. It doesn't matter if you're > the predator or prey....only if you're the player who played it. Again, > Eage's Sight overcomes that hindrance. Right. Burning Haven is directed because Haven is still controlled by the Methuselah who played it (it is a Master card), and any action which targets another Methuselah's card(s) is directed (at that Methuselah). > > > 5. Can i play a Sudden Reversal to forbid another Master-out-of-turn > > played by another player? And can a third player play another Sudden > > Reversal to forbid mine? > > Absolutely...as long it's not the current turn of the above three platyers. > I've seen it happen. Right. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

> 1. Can i block another player Bum's Rush directed to a minion controlled > by my predator? Yes, but only if you use Eagle's Sight or Anneke. > 2. And can i block a bleed directed to my predator? Yes, as above. > 3. Can i block a PA called by a minion controlled by a player that is not > my predator nor my prey? Yes, as above. > 4. If a minion controlled by a player that is not my predator nor my prey > is trying to burn an Haven Uncovered on him, can "i" try to block it? Yes, as above. > 5. Can i play a Sudden Reversal to forbid another Master-out-of-turn > played by another player? And can a third player play another Sudden > Reversal to forbid mine? Yes. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Luis P. Duarte wrote: > A tournment situation i saw: > Player A has a Weenie-Bleed deck and 7 ready vampires. > Player B (NOT prey or predator of Player A) decides to > play an Anarchist Uprising, that will not affect his own > predator and prey. The only affected player is A. How so? Do you mean that only player A has minions on the table? I presume you mean that all Methuselahs were affected, but player A disproportionately so because of the nature of his deck. > Is this legal? (Not by card rules but by tournment "behavior") It is legal. What is not legal is collusion. Thus, his behavior is a problem only to the extent that it constitutes evidence of collusion. For a great number of reasons, it seems very unlikely that the situation you describe is real evidence of collusion. Far more likely is that he designed a weenie-hosing deck in the hope that such decks would be his opposition, and got stuck with a non-weenie predator and prey. Now he is simply trying to play the deck he is stuck with. > (The judge didn't saw this situation but several other players > said this wasn't a good conduct and player B *couldn't* play > it because he had no reason to do it) Maybe he just needed to burn the card. Or maybe he has a Dramatic Upheaval coming up and plans to switch positions whenever player A's pool gets low. Maybe he fears that player A will sweep the table and wants to eliminate him to give himself a chance. Or maybe he's just playing badly. Unless there is a real reason to suspect that he is hurting player A as part of a plan to help a 3rd party win (ie.,that he is not in it for himself), then he can play as he chooses. There is no reason to limit his options. > Anyway, the second time player B tried to play another AU, > player A plays a Delaying Tactics. > What if player A didn't have a DT? Even if player A *was* his prey: What if player A had no intercept? In either case, the vote will be decided by a referendum. > By the rules you described, player A couldn't try to block the PA, > although he's the target! Right (though he is not really the target, technically). This sort of thin often happens. In a recent JOL game I was "targetted" with conservative agitation from accross the table to gain vote support from my prey. There was nothing I could do about it, (except torporize my Prey's prince on a subsequent round). Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

LSJ wrote in message <72s4oj$rl7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >(...) And only >ready untapped minions controlled by the predator or prey of the acting >minion's controller can attempt to block an undirected action (and all PAs >are undirected actions). [6.2.2.1] A tournment situation i saw: Player A has a Weenie-Bleed deck and 7 ready vampires. Player B (NOT prey or predator of Player A) decides to play an Anarchist Uprising, that will not affect his own predator and prey. The only affected player is A. Is this legal? (Not by card rules but by tournment "behavior") (The judge didn't saw this situation but several other players said this wasn't a good conduct and player B *couldn't* play it because he had no reason to do it) Anyway, the second time player B tried to play another AU, player A plays a Delaying Tactics. What if player A didn't have a DT? By the rules you described, player A couldn't try to block the PA, although he's the target! Comments? Thanx! .- Luis....@ip.pt

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Luis P. Duarte wrote: > > > A tournment situation i saw: > > Player A has a Weenie-Bleed deck and 7 ready vampires. > > Player B (NOT prey or predator of Player A) decides to > > play an Anarchist Uprising, that will not affect his own > > predator and prey. The only affected player is A. > > How so? Do you mean that only player A has minions on the table? I > presume you mean that all Methuselahs were affected, but player A > disproportionately so because of the nature of his deck. > > > Is this legal? (Not by card rules but by tournment "behavior") > > It is legal. What is not legal is collusion. Thus, his behavior is a > problem only to the extent that it constitutes evidence of collusion. > > For a great number of reasons, it seems very unlikely that the situation > you describe is real evidence of collusion. Far more likely is that he > designed a weenie-hosing deck in the hope that such decks would be his > opposition, and got stuck with a non-weenie predator and prey. Now he is > simply trying to play the deck he is stuck with. > > > (The judge didn't saw this situation but several other players > > said this wasn't a good conduct and player B *couldn't* play > > it because he had no reason to do it) > > Maybe he just needed to burn the card. Or maybe he has a Dramatic > Upheaval coming up and plans to switch positions whenever player A's pool > gets low. Maybe he fears that player A will sweep the table and wants to > eliminate him to give himself a chance. Or maybe he's just playing badly. > > Unless there is a real reason to suspect that he is hurting player A as > part of a plan to help a 3rd party win (ie.,that he is not in it for > himself), then he can play as he chooses. There is no reason to limit his > options. > > > Anyway, the second time player B tried to play another AU, > > player A plays a Delaying Tactics. > > What if player A didn't have a DT? > > Even if player A *was* his prey: What if player A had no intercept? > > In either case, the vote will be decided by a referendum. > > > By the rules you described, player A couldn't try to block the PA, > > although he's the target! > > Right (though he is not really the target, technically). This sort of > thin often happens. In a recent JOL game I was "targetted" with > conservative agitation from accross the table to gain vote support from my > prey. There was nothing I could do about it, (except torporize my Prey's > prince on a subsequent round). Correct on all counts. Thanks for the typing, Lupus. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> A tournment situation i saw: > Player A has a Weenie-Bleed deck and 7 ready vampires. > Player B (NOT prey or predator of Player A) decides to > play an Anarchist Uprising, that will not affect his own > predator and prey. The only affected player is A. > > Is this legal? (Not by card rules but by tournment "behavior") Hell yes, this is legal. The day that tournament "behavior" becomes subject to ruling is the day I sell all my Jyhad cards. Part of the strength of voting decks is their ability to strike anywhere on the table that they want. If I want to strike cross-table with KRC or CA, that's my perogative. > (The judge didn't saw this situation but several other players > said this wasn't a good conduct and player B *couldn't* play > it because he had no reason to do it) That's complete bullshit. Nobody wants to over-run by a weenie horde. If a player bitches about something like this at a tournament that I run, I'm likely to eject him and tell him to go play Magic: the Crack Habit with all the rest of the little whining teenagers. (No...I actually wouldn't, but I can guarantee that I wouldn't be supportive of that kind of whining) > Anyway, the second time player B tried to play another AU, > player A plays a Delaying Tactics. > What if player A didn't have a DT? In a word, "Tough" I don't know what kind of people you play with, but the people who play Jyhad in this state are adults (average age is about 25 or so) and are very much aware of the risks of playing a weenie horde. Anarch Uprisings are one of the few ways to kill a weenie horde and I'm all for it. Take the good with the bad. Noal McDonald The Great Googily Moogily of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]