[LSJ] Stupid qualifying questions

These questions seem covered by the rules, but before I utilise them, I wanted to seek 'clarification'. Torn Signpost The way it is written in it's latest incarnations, it seems to give you a strength boost, but doesn't in any way count as a strike. So making Strength based Hand damage strikes, or even some weapon strikes, seem to benefit. Is that how it's interpreted? (and if so, does that mean, for example, that the Vampire superglues his Meat Cleaver to his torn signpost before he whacks with it, or does it mean the Vampire has so much civil pride, that seeing a torn signpost turns him into a raving psychopath?) 'Blocking' Window The apparent assertion at our group is that there is a blocking window (opportunity to block), that can be missed. An example, as has happened on many an occasion. P1 - I bleed with Vampire X. Do you block? P2 - Nope. P1 - In that case, Conditioning. P2 - Ouch. *removes 4+ pool* But the way the rules imply, this isn't the case. Once an Action Modifier or Reaction is played, everyone who is able, can then respond with further cards. In other words, an action is only completed when both players pass consecutively? Morgan Vening

"Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:0tk8b0h6o0hkg8osh...@4ax.com... > These questions seem covered by the rules, but before I utilise them, > I wanted to seek 'clarification'. > > Torn Signpost > The way it is written in it's latest incarnations, it seems to give > you a strength boost, but doesn't in any way count as a strike. So > making Strength based Hand damage strikes, or even some weapon > strikes, seem to benefit. Is that how it's interpreted? (and if so, > does that mean, for example, that the Vampire superglues his Meat > Cleaver to his torn signpost before he whacks with it, or does it mean > the Vampire has so much civil pride, that seeing a torn signpost turns > him into a raving psychopath?) At superior potence, Torn signpost gives you Strength 3. Meat cleaver strikes for strength+1. Total damage from strike: 3+1 = 4. > 'Blocking' Window > The apparent assertion at our group is that there is a blocking window > (opportunity to block), that can be missed. An example, as has > happened on many an occasion. > P1 - I bleed with Vampire X. Do you block? > P2 - Nope. > P1 - In that case, Conditioning. > P2 - Ouch. *removes 4+ pool* That is correct. P2 can still play deflection, telepathic counter, etc. Anything (including wakes with evenings freshness but not Rat's warning) that does not require blocking. > But the way the rules imply, this isn't the case. Once an Action > Modifier or Reaction is played, everyone who is able, can then respond > with further cards. In other words, an action is only completed when > both players pass consecutively? Once a player has declared that they are not blocking, they cannot revise that decision unless the bleed is directed back to them. The decision to block does not prevent the playing of further cards, but those cards do not alter the choice not to block. -JTP

> Torn Signpost > The way it is written in it's latest incarnations, it seems to give > you a strength boost, but doesn't in any way count as a strike. So > making Strength based Hand damage strikes, or even some weapon > strikes, seem to benefit. Is that how it's interpreted? (and if so, > does that mean, for example, that the Vampire superglues his Meat > Cleaver to his torn signpost before he whacks with it, or does it mean > the The Torn Signpost represents the vampires fury. He's so angry/strong (or both), that he has torn a signpost apart on his way to the opposing minion. So yes, it stacks with melee weapons and the like. It's a temporary strength bonus. >Vampire has so much civil pride, that seeing a torn signpost turns > him into a raving psychopath?) No, he's such a raving psychopath that he has torn a signpost apart as warm-up. > 'Blocking' Window > The apparent assertion at our group is that there is a blocking window > (opportunity to block), that can be missed. An example, as has > happened on many an occasion. > P1 - I bleed with Vampire X. Do you block? > P2 - Nope. > P1 - In that case, Conditioning. > P2 - Ouch. *removes 4+ pool* The above is correct. You can attempt to block or decline to block. If you decline, you can no longer attempt to block the action, even if it's modefied by, for example, a conditioning. > But the way the rules imply, this isn't the case. Once an Action > Modifier or Reaction is played, everyone who is able, can then respond > with further cards. In other words, an action is only completed when > both players pass consecutively? No. Blocking attempts are not affected by modifiers or reaction cards. That's the whole point of action modfiers. You either block, or you don't. You get one shot at deciding that. All this gets kinda icky when cards like Eagle's Sight kick in. Once a Methusalah declines to block, he's no longer eligable to block, unless the target of the action changes (by, for example, a card like Deflection). And now that there's a thread about blocking anyway, let me just ask this to the knowlegdable crowd: Often, this is seen: Meth 1: I bleed with vampire X. Block? Meth 2: Nope. Meth 1: Conditioning Meth 3: Wait up, Eagle's Sight and I block Meth 1: Hey, we were already past blocking... *argument starts and a judge is needed* Or this: Meth 1: I bleed with vampire X. Block? Meth 2: Nope. Meth 1: Anyone ELSE wants to block? Other Meths: you can't ask that to us. We're by default not eligable to block this action, so of course we're not blocking Meth 1: very well, Conditioning Meth 3: Hold up, Eagle's Sight and block attempt *huge argument starts about who already declined to block etc etc* I'd say that both can be argued for as correct play, but the former is fair play from the acting Meth, while the latter is kind of a loophole that shouldn't be there. Preventing Eagle blocks by asking if anyone else wants to block is, IMO, not fair and also not entirely correct. You can't ask a player if he wants to play a Deflection either, so that he "already declined" before you play the modifier. My take on it is this: The only ones having to decide whether to block or not are the ones that CAN block the action in the first place. No need to ask your predator if he wants to block a bleed, or ask you grandprey if he wants to block an equip action. If they want to, they can play their Eagle's Sight whenever they want to, making them a legit blocker and only THEN the whole block/decline to block thing starts. Am I correct?

> All this gets kinda icky when cards like Eagle's Sight kick in. Once a > Methusalah declines to block, he's no longer eligable to block, unless > the target of the action changes (by, for example, a card like > Deflection). And now that there's a thread about blocking anyway, let me > just ask this to the knowlegdable crowd: > > Often, this is seen: > > Meth 1: I bleed with vampire X. Block? > Meth 2: Nope. > Meth 1: Conditioning > Meth 3: Wait up, Eagle's Sight and I block > Meth 1: Hey, we were already past blocking... > *argument starts and a judge is needed* > This is normal play, but technically poor. > Or this: > > Meth 1: I bleed with vampire X. Block? > Meth 2: Nope. > Meth 1: Anyone ELSE wants to block? This is correct. > Other Meths: you can't ask that to us. We're by default not eligable to > block this action, so of course we're not blocking The other methuselahs are lying. Technically, he HAS to ask that if they have AUS or SPI, because this is the window in which they attempt to block. > Meth 1: very well, Conditioning > Meth 3: Hold up, Eagle's Sight and block attempt > *huge argument starts about who already declined to block etc etc* > He already declined to block. Go look up the threads on Anneke's special.

John P. wrote: > That is correct. P2 can still play deflection, telepathic counter, etc. > Anything (including wakes with evenings freshness but not > Rat's warning) that does not require blocking. Nit: Rats' Warning is legal. It doesn't require that you attempt to block. Second Tradition, OTOH, would not be legal. --Colin McGuigan

Izaak wrote: > All this gets kinda icky when cards like Eagle's Sight kick in. Once a > Methusalah declines to block, he's no longer eligable to block, unless > the target of the action changes (by, for example, a card like > Deflection). And now that there's a thread about blocking anyway, let me > just ask this to the knowlegdable crowd: > > Often, this is seen: > > Meth 1: I bleed with vampire X. Block? > Meth 2: Nope. > Meth 1: Conditioning > Meth 3: Wait up, Eagle's Sight and I block > Meth 1: Hey, we were already past blocking... > *argument starts and a judge is needed* Meth 3 never declined to block, so can do so. > Meth 1: I bleed with vampire X. Block? > Meth 2: Nope. > Meth 1: Anyone ELSE wants to block? > Other Meths: you can't ask that to us. We're by default not eligable to > block this action, so of course we're not blocking > Meth 1: very well, Conditioning > Meth 3: Hold up, Eagle's Sight and block attempt > *huge argument starts about who already declined to block etc etc* You can certainly ask if there are any other blocks. And if the Other Meths say no, then Meth3 can't Eagle Sight because the block has already been declined. > Preventing Eagle blocks by asking if anyone > else wants to block is, IMO, not fair and also not entirely correct. How so? If the acting Meth asks, "Any other blocks?" and you say "no", you've declined. Eagle sight allows you to block things you normally couldn't; it doesn't let you, eg, block only if the acting Meth plays Conditioning. > You > can't ask a player if he wants to play a Deflection either, so that he > "already declined" before you play the modifier. Playing a reaction card != blocking. > My take on it is this: > The only ones having to decide whether to block or not are the ones that > CAN block the action in the first place. No need to ask your predator if > he wants to block a bleed, or ask you grandprey if he wants to block an > equip action. If they want to, they can play their Eagle's Sight > whenever they want to, making them a legit blocker and only THEN the > whole block/decline to block thing starts. > > Am I correct? You are sadly mistaken. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:ovednfY1EcN...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Whoops. Thanks. I was thinking of RW's bleed restriction and got confused. -JTP

John P. wrote: > "Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:0tk8b0h6o0hkg8osh...@4ax.com... >>Torn Signpost >>The way it is written in it's latest incarnations, it seems to give >>you a strength boost, but doesn't in any way count as a strike. So >>making Strength based Hand damage strikes, or even some weapon >>strikes, seem to benefit. Is that how it's interpreted? (and if so, >>does that mean, for example, that the Vampire superglues his Meat >>Cleaver to his torn signpost before he whacks with it, or does it mean >>the Vampire has so much civil pride, that seeing a torn signpost turns >>him into a raving psychopath?) > > At superior potence, Torn signpost gives you Strength 3. > Meat cleaver strikes for strength+1. > Total damage from strike: 3+1 = 4. Correct. >>'Blocking' Window >>The apparent assertion at our group is that there is a blocking window >>(opportunity to block), that can be missed. An example, as has >>happened on many an occasion. >>P1 - I bleed with Vampire X. Do you block? >>P2 - Nope. >>P1 - In that case, Conditioning. >>P2 - Ouch. *removes 4+ pool* > > That is correct. P2 can still play deflection, telepathic counter, etc. > Anything (including wakes with evenings freshness but not > Rat's warning) that does not require blocking. Correct. >>But the way the rules imply, this isn't the case. Once an Action >>Modifier or Reaction is played, everyone who is able, can then respond >>with further cards. In other words, an action is only completed when >>both players pass consecutively? > > Once a player has declared that they are not blocking, > they cannot revise that decision unless the bleed is directed > back to them. The decision to block does not prevent ... or to anyone else (and they choose to play Eagle's Sight or somesuch). > the playing of further cards, but those cards do not alter the > choice not to block. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/