The following situation arose during the final of the second Swedish
ECQ: Count Germaine (ADV) is bleeding me for 5 with a Legal
Manipulations (I have a bishop). I have a My Enemy's Enemy in my hand
and an untapped Idalia. I say "I decline to block". Count Germaine
plays no action modifiers. I announce that I want to bounce the bleed
to my grandpredator with the My Enemy's Enemy.
An argument arises about if it is possible to bounce the bleed after
blocks are declined and no action modifier is played. The judge rules
that it is not and I loose 5 pool. After the game I refer to The
Lasombra's FAQ, which isn't deemed clear or official enough.
So, can a bleed be bounced after blocks are declined if no action
modifiers is played by the bleeding vampire?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Indeed, a bleed can be bounce *only* after blocks are declined.
After the effect "I don't block" is applied, then the acting Meth gets first
chance to play the next effect. If she declines, the target may play an effect
(like bounce or bleed reduction).
On 11 Aug, 21:45, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Hyllan wrote:
>
> > So, can a bleed be bounced after blocks are declined if no action
> > modifiers is played by the bleeding vampire?
>> After the effect "I don't block" is applied, then the acting Meth gets first
> chance to play the next effect. If she declines, the target may play an effect
> (like bounce or bleed reduction).
Thank you for the quick answer.
//Caroline
[ quoted text not captured ]
Name: My Enemy's Enemy
[Sabbat:R, SW:R, Anarchs:PAG, LoB:PO2, Third:U]
Cardtype: Reaction
Discipline: Auspex
[aus] +1 intercept.
[AUS] Only usable when a minion controlled by your predator is
bleeding you, -{after blocks are declined}-. Tap this reacting
vampire. The acting minion is now bleeding your predator's predator.
Artist: Dave Seeley
Card text file has the after blocks are declined clarification.
Lost in Translation actually states you can only play the bounce card
after blocks are declined.
> An argument arises about if it is possible to bounce the bleed after
> blocks are declined and no action modifier is played. The judge rules
> that it is not and I loose 5 pool. After the game I refer to The
> Lasombra's FAQ, which isn't deemed clear or official enough.
Who on earth was the judge?!?! I hope they have quit their position,
or gone and studied the rules very carefully.
They don't believe it is possible to play a reaction card if someone
has not played an action modifier?!?!
So if someone bleeds me with Govern, I can't play Telepathic Counter
to reduce it to 1? But can if they play conditioning?! What a pile of
complete and utter crap.
Lasombra's FAQ is good and all, but what about this little bit in the
rulebook that says: (6.2)
Action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time during
an action (unless otherwise noted on card text)
Huh?! Man, judges getting really obscure rulings wrong in a tournament
makes me really mad, but that is just ridiculous. If the rulebook
wasn't so small, I would advise you to bash this judge over the head
with it. What on earth was the justification for it by the way? Where
does it say you can only play reactions if somebody plays an action
modifier?
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't believe the judge's ruling was based on a 'if no action
modifiers were played, then no reactions can be played.'
It seems to me that the Predator had played all their cards, and the
OP's decline to block was seen as a pass on playing cards. Since the
predator played no further cards, the judge then deemed there was no
opportunity to play cards on the OP's part. The mistake made was in
deeming the decline to block as also declining to play reaction cards,
which is simply not the case. In fact, this is often a tactic used in
games. A player bleeds, and their prey says "No block" ... the acting
player has to gamble on whether the prey is holding bounce or other
reactions, and whether it is worthwhile playing further action
modifiers, since the prey specifically did not say "I play no reaction
cards".
As others have stated, you can only bounce a bleed after you fail or
decline to block. If you decide to bounce a bleed immediately, you
have implicitly declined to block. If that bounce is cancelled, you
can't then decide to attempt to block (of course, if the bleed is
bounced back, that opens a new blocking window).
Even if you've declined/failed to block, you can still request of the
acting player if there are any further action modifiers they wish to
play before deciding on reacting with a bounce card or not. Setting
the game state is not the same as passing on opportunities to play
cards.
Now, if the OP declared that they were not playing any reaction cards,
and the acting player played no further action modifiers, then the
judge would have been correct.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
Thrall of Arika wrote:
> Now, if the OP declared that they were not playing any reaction cards,
> and the acting player played no further action modifiers, then the
> judge would have been correct.
Not quite. The declaration "I don't block" is itself an effect. After that
effect, all previous "pass" declarations are discarded (as they always are after
any effect is applied), and the sequence of who-plays-the-next-effect goes back
to the acting player. When he passes, the target Methuselah gets the next
opportunity to play.
So:
A: VampireX bleeds you.
B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards. I don't block."
A: No modifiers (typically stated as "OK. It's a bleed of 1" or whatever).
B: Bounce.
Is perfectly fine.
On Aug 12, 9:54 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> A: VampireX bleeds you.
> B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards. I don't block."
> A: No modifiers (typically stated as "OK. It's a bleed of 1" or whatever).
> B: Bounce.
>
> Is perfectly fine.
Not merely perfectly fine - it's the correct way to play. Mistakes
and problems often arise because players skip steps or miscommunicate
about which step they are in.
Ira
On Aug 12, 6:54 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Not quite. The declaration "I don't block" is itself an effect. After that
> effect, all previous "pass" declarations are discarded (as they always are after
> any effect is applied), and the sequence of who-plays-the-next-effect goes back
> to the acting player. When he passes, the target Methuselah gets the next
> opportunity to play.
>
> So:
>
> A: VampireX bleeds you.
> B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards. I don't block."
> A: No modifiers (typically stated as "OK. It's a bleed of 1" or whatever).
> B: Bounce.
>
> Is perfectly fine.
How about this one:
A: VampX bleeds you.
B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards. I don't block."
A: Command of the Beast.
B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards."
A: No modifiers
Would it be legal for B to bounce after the last "no modifier"
statement from A?
And in a bigger question: Is action modifiers/reactions handled the
same way as combat cards, back and forth until acting and reacting
methusalehs has said they're done (with acting being the first player
to do so)?
Or is actions more freely when it comes to declining to play certain
card types/effects?
In message <453c3198-87cd-4bdb...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroup
s.com>, sg3kmb6...@gmail.com writes:
>A: VampX bleeds you.
>B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards. I don't block."
>A: Command of the Beast.
>B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards."
>A: No modifiers
>
>Would it be legal for B to bounce after the last "no modifier"
>statement from A?
A would say "No modifiers" before B gets the chance to say "No
reactions". At that point, both players have passed, so neither has an
opportunity to play another card in this timing slot.
>And in a bigger question: Is action modifiers/reactions handled the
>same way as combat cards, back and forth until acting and reacting
>methusalehs has said they're done (with acting being the first player
>to do so)?
Combat cards aren't handled "back and forth" exactly. It doesn't go "A
gets a chance to play, then B gets a chance, then A gets a chance, then
B gets a chance, ..."
The acting Methuselah has the first chance to play a card in any given
slot. The "impulse" is with him. After any effect from any Methuselah,
the "impulse" for the same timing slot returns to the acting Methuselah.
When the acting Methuselah is done with the impulse, it goes to other
players (in combat, the defending Methuselah, and then others round the
table, clockwise). Any time any Methuselah with the impulse plays a
card or uses an effect, the impulse returns to the acting Methuselah.
If all Methuselahs pass the impulse, you move on to the next timing
slot. So, for example, when all Methuselahs have passed on the right to
play pre-range cards, you move on to Set Range. In practice, you only
address the relevant Methuselahs, and a player playing a card
unexpectedly ("Hey, I'm your cross-table ally, I'll totally hit his
vampire with Nosferatu Putrescence!") isn't routinely handled in
conversation.
So, for example, the acting Methuselah's vampire has several pre-range
cards to play - Carrion Crows, Torn Signpost, and Trap. The defending
Methuselah wants to play Increased Strength. If the acting Methuselah
just wants to play all his stuff, it goes like this:
A: Carrion Crows. (Impulse returns to A.)
A: Torn Signpost. (Impulse returns to A.)
A: Trap. (Impulse returns to A.)
A: Pass. (Impulse passes to B.)
B: Increased Strength. (Impulse returns to A.)
A: Pass. (Impulse passes to B.)
B: Pass. (Impulse passes to other players, but in practice
you've just finished pre-range.)
If someone else did play Nosferatu Putrescence or something, the impulse
would go back to A who could play his copy of Increased Strength too, if
he wanted, or something.
However, you might find that you don't want the Torn Signpost straight
away if you're A. So you can do the following.
A: Carrion Crows. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Trap. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Pass. (Impulse -> B.)
B: Increased Strength. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Oh bum, I don't like that. Torn Signpost. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Pass. (Impulse -> B.)
B: Pass. (Impulse to other players.)
Other players: Pass.
Move to set range. (Impulse -> A.)
(Note that the other players each get the impulse in turn, going
clockwise from the acting Methuselah. I'm just bunching it up here,
because it's less interesting.)
Now imagine B doesn't play Increased Strength in the above example.
A: Carrion Crows. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Trap. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Pass. (Impulse -> B.) (Same as before so far.)
B: Pass. (Impulse -> Others.)
Others: Pass.
Move to set range. (Impulse -> A.)
The impulse never returns to A again in the pre-range phase. Once he's
passed, he can't go back and play another card (or use an effect) in the
same timing slot unless someone else uses an effect/plays a card, and so
causes the impulse to pass back to him.
Some areas of combat can *look like* playing back and forth, because you
can't cancel your own effect (e.g. cancelling your own maneuver).
However, they pretty much all work as above. Damage prevention and
gaining additional strikes didn't work like that in the distant past,
but a RTR changed that. For example, these days you can:
Gain additional strikes phase:
A: Pass. (Impulse -> B.)
B: Blur. (Impulse -> A.)
A: Oh bum. I'll play Quickness.
A: Pass. (Impulse -> B.)
B: Nothing more from me. (Impulse -> Others.)
Others: Pass.
Phase ends, move on to handling additional strikes.
Oh, it's also worth pointing out that the "Pass" steps will often be
expressed in other ways - a verbal "I'm done", "Anything from you?" or
whatever. Or it might be body language - a nod, a hand gesture. Or it
might just be that the player has stopped playing cards and doesn't
appear to be considering his next one, so his opponent starts.
>Or is actions more freely when it comes to declining to play certain
>card types/effects?
Actions follow the same pattern as above. The acting player has to ask
for blocks as an effect, and the impulse passes to the other players.
Note that unlike combat, the other, notionally uninvolved players may
use their bit of the impulse more easily. The obvious examples are
Anneke and Eagle's Sight. So once you ask for blocks, you may want to
make sure that the other players on the table pass the impulse!
A player declining to block is an effect in itself, and passes the
impulse back to the acting player.
The main area of the game where the above pattern isn't followed is the
voting (polling) phase of referendums. People call out their votes
free-form.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Aug 13, 11:12 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <453c3198-87cd-4bdb-ab6e-626ad3720...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroup>
> s.com>, sg3kmb613sdf...@gmail.com writes:
> >A: VampX bleeds you.
> >B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards. I don't block."
> >A: Command of the Beast.
> >B: "I'm not playing any reaction cards."
> >A: No modifiers
>
> >Would it be legal for B to bounce after the last "no modifier"
> >statement from A?
>
> A would say "No modifiers" before B gets the chance to say "No
> reactions". At that point, both players have passed, so neither has an
> opportunity to play another card in this timing slot.
>
> >And in a bigger question: Is action modifiers/reactions handled the
> >same way as combat cards, back and forth until acting and reacting
> >methusalehs has said they're done (with acting being the first player
> >to do so)?
>
> Combat cards aren't handled "back and forth" exactly. It doesn't go "A
> gets a chance to play, then B gets a chance, then A gets a chance, then
> B gets a chance, ..."
[huge explanation snipped]
While I did know the exact routine for it, I appreciate the
explanation still. I just felt that "back and forth" was the quicker
way to write it (while still being more or less correct).
> >Or is actions more freely when it comes to declining to play certain
> >card types/effects?
>
> Actions follow the same pattern as above. The acting player has to ask
> for blocks as an effect, and the impulse passes to the other players.
> Note that unlike combat, the other, notionally uninvolved players may
> use their bit of the impulse more easily.
Nosferatu Putrescence!
:P
But yeah, I can't really remember that one being played since some
time back in 96...
> A player declining to block is an effect in itself, and passes the
> impulse back to the acting player.
>
> The main area of the game where the above pattern isn't followed is the
> voting (polling) phase of referendums. People call out their votes
> free-form.
Sweet. Since the rulebook is a bit loose on the subject I wasn't sure
if modifying/reacting was as strict as combat (also given the
multitude of windows being opened and closed during an action).
Section 6.2.* says that the decision not to attempt more blocks is
final, but it's not that clear for the other parts imo. Tbh even the
combat section isn't as clear as I thought it was :p
Anyways, thanks for the clarification.
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nosferatu Putrescence!
> :P
> But yeah, I can't really remember that one being played since some
> time back in 96...
Don't forget Frenzy!!!
OK, maybe you can forget it. I mean, i have 1 in 1 deck. Tremere blocky
2nd round stuff. But, really, i'd be better off with _anything_
else...well, almost anything. None of my vamps have [ser] to play
Mummify, anyway. I think some might have [nec] for Eyes of the Dead....
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
On Aug 13, 2:22 pm, as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Who was judge in this final? Sten? Alex? Seems very weird any judge
> making this mistake.
Yeah. I mean sure, as a tournament judge I've been known to botch up
more than a few times, this game has a ton of really obscure angles
and rulings and especially in the middle of tournament hassle you
always get the odd brain fart now and then. But that bleed - no block
- bounce thing is so basic, it's *the* way that base sequence if
almost always played. Weird.
Oh well, we all have our off days :}
//Petri
In message <2f3c1115-d4f8-4561...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroup
s.com>, sg3kmb6...@gmail.com writes:
>Sweet. Since the rulebook is a bit loose on the subject I wasn't sure
>if modifying/reacting was as strict as combat (also given the
>multitude of windows being opened and closed during an action).
>Section 6.2.* says that the decision not to attempt more blocks is
>final, but it's not that clear for the other parts imo. Tbh even the
>combat section isn't as clear as I thought it was :p
You're looking in the wrong section. This is all described in 1.6.1.5:
Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect,
the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player
always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after
playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is
finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the
cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the
Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that
if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again
gets the opportunity to play the next effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Aug 13, 1:22 pm, as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Who was judge in this final? Sten? Alex? Seems very weird any judge
> making this mistake.
I see no reason to specify the identity of the judge other than that I
believe it was a player returning to the game after a few years of
absence. I qualified anyway, which was most important to me, and I can
conclude that I was right. The decision was made and the damage was
done and I'm willing to drop the issue and hope that it won't happen
again.
On Aug 13, 7:42 am, Hyllan <caroline_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 1:22 pm, as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Who was judge in this final? Sten? Alex? Seems very weird any judge
> > making this mistake.
>
> I see no reason to specify the identity of the judge other than that I
> believe it was a player returning to the game after a few years of
> absence.
Cruxify Him! Cruxify Him! Release Barabbus! Release Barabbus!
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
On Aug 13, 3:16 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <2f3c1115-d4f8-4561-9a97-06e0085c4...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroup>
> sg3kmb613sdf...@gmail.com writes:
> >Sweet. Since the rulebook is a bit loose on the subject I wasn't sure
> >if modifying/reacting was as strict as combat (also given the
> >multitude of windows being opened and closed during an action).
> >Section 6.2.* says that the decision not to attempt more blocks is
> >final, but it's not that clear for the other parts imo. Tbh even the
> >combat section isn't as clear as I thought it was :p
>
> You're looking in the wrong section. This is all described in 1.6.1.5:
>
> Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect,
> the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player
> always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after
> playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is
> finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the
> cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the
> Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah. Note that
> if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again
> gets the opportunity to play the next effect.
Ah.. Of course. Thanks for that info as well.