Dick Johnson wrote:
>
> Our group is in disagreement as to the following, and
> we would like a ruling from Tom.
>
> 1. Player A declares a bleed against player B.
> 2. Player B says he "takes the bleed".
> 3. Player A plays an action modifier to increase his bleed.
>
> At this point can Player B:
> A. Block this action
> B. Deflect the bleed to another
> C. other.
I believe at this point.... his only options are to reduce the bleed,
misdirect or deflect it, or use Archon Investigation if it's for more than
3...
> Thanks,
> Dick
WyldStar
Our group is in disagreement as to the following, and
we would like a ruling from Tom.
1. Player A declares a bleed against player B.
2. Player B says he "takes the bleed".
3. Player A plays an action modifier to increase his bleed.
At this point can Player B:
A. Block this action
B. Deflect the bleed to another
C. other.
Thanks,
Dick
On 4 Jun 1996, Dick Johnson wrote:
> Our group is in disagreement as to the following, and
> we would like a ruling from Tom.
I'm not Tom, but this is a common enough question that I'll answer it.
> 1. Player A declares a bleed against player B.
> 2. Player B says he "takes the bleed".
> 3. Player A plays an action modifier to increase his bleed.> At this point can Player B:
[Snip]
Play a reaction card.
Once declining to block, you cannot change your mind, but that does not
stop you from playing reaction cards.
On 4 Jun 1996, David Hyatt wrote:
> Suppose that one player attempts to bleed another player.
> The victim has two vampires, A and B. He decides to
> block with A.
> The player attempting the bleed pumps his stealth and
> gets by vampire A.> Now I understand that no other vampire can attempt to
> block, but can another vampire play REACTION cards?
Actually your understanding is wrong. You _CAN_ try to have another
vampire block, and anyone with Eagle's Sight or Anneke can attempt to
block after your failing (though whether or not they can block (D)-actions
aimed at other people I can't remember). In addition, you can still play
reaction cards.
> Can Vampire B play Deflection or Telepathic Misdirection?
As can Vampire A (unless tapped by Faceless Night in the process of
blocking).
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) z*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
In article <4p1c6g$a...@tilde.csc.ti.com>,
Dick Johnson <d...@dlep1.itg.ti.com> wrote:
>Our group is in disagreement as to the following, and
>we would like a ruling from Tom.
>>1. Player A declares a bleed against player B.
>2. Player B says he "takes the bleed".
>3. Player A plays an action modifier to increase his bleed.
>
>At this point can Player B:> A. Block this action
> B. Deflect the bleed to another
> C. other.
If 2. means that B declines to block (which it should mean), then
A. is not an option. The decision not to block is final.
B. is always an option. If the bleed is subsequently bounced back
to the original target (B), B can once again choose to block (thanks
to the card text on the Bleed bouncers).
C. Other reaction cards (like Tele. Counter) or applicable Master: Out-of
Turn cards (like Brujah Frenzy or Archon Investigation) can be played.
In article <4p1c6g$a...@tilde.csc.ti.com>, d...@dlep1.itg.ti.com (Dick
Johnson) wrote:
> Our group is in disagreement as to the following, and
> we would like a ruling from Tom.
>
> 1. Player A declares a bleed against player B.
> 2. Player B says he "takes the bleed".
> 3. Player A plays an action modifier to increase his bleed.
>
> At this point can Player B:
> A. Block this action
> B. Deflect the bleed to another
> C. other.> Thanks,
> Dick
To reformulate Dick's question:
We ruled that once a Player A declares an action to bleed Player B and B
declines to block, B can play an action card (Deflection, Reduction,
Misdirection, etc.) Now, if A pumps up the bleed, then we said that B can
react again but not with the same card as before. So if a Reduction was
first, now Deflection is possible.
Why did we say this? Because Player B refused to react until A would
declare that he was pumping up the bleed. And, Player A would refuse to
pump until he found out what B was going to do.
Comments?
---
___....-----'---`-----....___
=========================================
___`---..._______...---'___ Michael W. Jones
(___) _|_|_|_ (___) mer...@ix.netcom.com
\\____.-'_.---._`-.____//
~~~~`.__`---'__.'~~~~
~~~~~
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Merlisk wrote:
> We ruled that once a Player A declares an action to bleed Player B and B> declines to block, B can play an [re]action card (Deflection, Reduction,> Misdirection, etc.) Now, if A pumps up the bleed, then we said that B can
> react again but not with the same card as before. So if a Reduction was
> first, now Deflection is possible.
As the rules work...
> Why did we say this? Because Player B refused to react until A would
> declare that he was pumping up the bleed. And, Player A would refuse to
> pump until he found out what B was going to do.
Perfectly valid.
Order of events: (ignoring other player's abilities to react, simply
append them from the left of the acting minion, clockwise around the
table, after the last batch of each)
1) Action
2) Acting minion may modify, as much as desired (and allowed)
3) Reacting minion may react
4) switch back and forth giving players the opportunity to react to the
last reaction/modifier. If two declines happen in a row, the
reacting/modifying is _done_.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <merlisk-0406...@dfw-tx18-06.ix.netcom.com> mer...@ix.netcom.com (Merlisk) writes:
>We ruled that once a Player A declares an action to bleed Player B and B>declines to block, B can play an action card (Deflection, Reduction,>Misdirection, etc.) Now, if A pumps up the bleed, then we said that B can
>react again but not with the same card as before. So if a Reduction was
>first, now Deflection is possible.
If B used deflection first then there would be no need to play another
REaction card. I vaguely understand what you are saying and it is something I
would never consider because it changes the rules for no reason.
>Why did we say this? Because Player B refused to react until A would
>declare that he was pumping up the bleed. And, Player A would refuse to
>pump until he found out what B was going to do.
If that is what happens, then B is simply bleed for one. The game is not
delayed in any way.
mer...@ix.netcom.com (Merlisk) wrote:
>In article <4p1c6g$a...@tilde.csc.ti.com>, d...@dlep1.itg.ti.com (Dick
>Johnson) wrote:>> Our group is in disagreement as to the following, and
>> we would like a ruling from Tom.
>>
>> 1. Player A declares a bleed against player B.
>> 2. Player B says he "takes the bleed".
>> 3. Player A plays an action modifier to increase his bleed.
>>
>> At this point can Player B:
>> A. Block this action
>> B. Deflect the bleed to another
>> C. other.
>> Thanks,
>> Dick>To reformulate Dick's question:>We ruled that once a Player A declares an action to bleed Player B and B>declines to block, B can play an action card (Deflection, Reduction,
>Misdirection, etc.) Now, if A pumps up the bleed, then we said that B can
>react again but not with the same card as before. So if a Reduction was
>first, now Deflection is possible.>Why did we say this? Because Player B refused to react until A would>declare that he was pumping up the bleed. And, Player A would refuse to
>pump until he found out what B was going to do.>Comments?
Yeah... sounds like something that non-MtG players would do. :)
(Which is, after all, a lot of our group.) The reason being, I've
seen many times where I've wanted my opponent to pump up his pump
knights before I'll bolt them in MtG.
In my mind, this is the way a bleed happens (and all you Rules-gurus
can flame me if I mess it up too badly). (And this is specific to the
above instance.)
Andy bleeds, and doesn't immediatly play an action modifier. Bill can
now block and/or play reaction cards. However, once the decision to
decline to block is made, Bill can never change his mind and decide to
block. After Bill declines to block, Andy can now play action
modifiers or say (by not playing somethiong) "I'm happy with the bleed
as it stands". If Bill does not react, the bleed goes through and
Andy can't pump it up (and Bill can't change his mind based on the
fact that Andy didn't pump it). If Bill does react, Andy can now play
an action modifier if he so chooses.
Charles
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
Merlisk <mer...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>We ruled that once a Player A declares an action to bleed Player B and B
>declines to block, B can play an action card (Deflection, Reduction,
>Misdirection, etc.) Now, if A pumps up the bleed, then we said that B can
>react again but not with the same card as before. So if a Reduction was
>first, now Deflection is possible.
That's fine if it works for you as a house rule, but...
>Why did we say this? Because Player B refused to react until A would
>declare that he was pumping up the bleed. And, Player A would refuse to
>pump until he found out what B was going to do.
In this case, it is A's responsibility to decide first what to do. If he
wants to wait to see what B does, then he has to run the risk of B doing
nothing, and therefore of A missing out on his chance to play or use cards.
If A doesn't like it, tough; A must decide first what, if anything, to do.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.