The following occurred during a game.
Player A bleeds.
Player B blocks.
Stealth 1.
Intercept 1.
Stealth 2.
I tap London Evening Star Tabloid Newspaper for another intercept.
Player B protests as he wants to play Telepathic Misdirection in order
to
bounce the bleed to me.
Questions:
Did he have the right to refuse the extra intercept as he's the prey and
thus
gets to react before me?
If not, did he get the extra intercept because I tapped before he
announced
Telepathic Misdirection?
If not, did he get the extra intercept because all tapping is
'immediate'?
If not, did he get the extra intercept because I'm allowed to forcefully
prolong the process to determine wether the blocking attempt is
succesful or not, no matter if he had announced his bounce before I
tapped, ie anything prolonging the process to check if a block is
succesful will always be playable until that process is finally
resolved.
Sten During
--
NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
In message <3BDD43AA...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
writes:
>The following occurred during a game.
>Player A bleeds.
>Player B blocks.
>Stealth 1.
>Intercept 1.
>Stealth 2.
>I tap London Evening Star Tabloid Newspaper for another intercept.
>Player B protests as he wants to play Telepathic Misdirection in order
>to
>bounce the bleed to me.
>>Did he have the right to refuse the extra intercept as he's the prey and
>thus
>gets to react before me?
Yes. [1.6.1.6]
"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 card or effect is
used by any Methuselah, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity
to play the next effect."
>If not, did he get the extra intercept because I tapped before he
>announced
>Telepathic Misdirection?
If you had said "Do you want me to give you the intercept?" (or
similar), and they'd said "Yes", thus yielding their right to play at
that time, it would have gone first, yes.
>If not, did he get the extra intercept because all tapping is
>'immediate'?
All tapping is immediate, yes. But it doesn't just happen entirely
randomly.
>If not, did he get the extra intercept because I'm allowed to forcefully
>prolong the process to determine wether the blocking attempt is
>succesful or not
No. Each player has the right to play an effect in sequence.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F
'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6
So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
> Yes. [1.6.1.6]
>
> "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 card or effect is
> used by any Methuselah, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity
> to play the next effect."
>
>
<SNIP>
>
>
> No. Each player has the right to play an effect in sequence.
>
Hmm, even though I realise what I'm suggesting below is not the case, then
what you state above would prevent me (being neither acting nor defending
Metuselah) from playing Direct Intervention on an action-modifier as long
as the acting Metuselah states that he/she still have more modifiers to play.
Also, is there no 'phase-handling' that eventually overrides the sequencing-
rules. For example, a hypothetical card that allows you to make a minion
you don't control maneouver in combat. If such a card doesn't state that
the minion can choose to accept such a maneouver or not (similar to the
intercept given by tapping London Evening Star - card doesn't give the
receiving minion any opportunity NOT to gain extra intercept), then
both combatants would still be locked in the determine range part of
the combat - albeit unvillingly.
The reason for this added question is that stealth/intercept -resolution
for blocking is described pretty much the same way as maneouver/
countermaneouver.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sten During wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > Yes. [1.6.1.6]
> >
> > "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 card or effect is
> > used by any Methuselah, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity
> > to play the next effect."
> <SNIP>
> > No. Each player has the right to play an effect in sequence.
>
> Hmm, even though I realise what I'm suggesting below is not the case, then
> what you state above would prevent me (being neither acting nor defending
> Metuselah) from playing Direct Intervention on an action-modifier as long
> as the acting Metuselah states that he/she still have more modifiers to play.
But card-canceling effects are played when another card (the card to be
canceled) is played. See more below.
> Also, is there no 'phase-handling' that eventually overrides the sequencing-
> rules.
Yes. You cannot rush through/past a phase to keep others from using effects in
that phase. So you can't (above) rush past the "card played" step to avoid
getting DI'ed.
> For example, a hypothetical card that allows you to make a minion
> you don't control maneouver in combat. If such a card doesn't state that
> the minion can choose to accept such a maneouver or not (similar to the
> intercept given by tapping London Evening Star - card doesn't give the
> receiving minion any opportunity NOT to gain extra intercept), then
> both combatants would still be locked in the determine range part of
> the combat - albeit unvillingly.
I don't understand the problem with that example.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
> Sten During wrote:
> > Also, is there no 'phase-handling' that eventually overrides the sequencing-
> > rules.
>
> Yes.
That's "no", actually. (missed the negative question, sorry).
The explanation that followed is correct, however:
> You cannot rush through/past a phase to keep others from using effects in
> that phase. So you can't (above) rush past the "card played" step to avoid
> getting DI'ed.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Sten During wrote:
> > > Also, is there no 'phase-handling' that eventually overrides the sequencing-
> > > rules.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> That's "no", actually. (missed the negative question, sorry).
> The explanation that followed is correct, however:
>
> > You cannot rush through/past a phase to keep others from using effects in
> > that phase. So you can't (above) rush past the "card played" step to avoid
> > getting DI'ed.
Sorry, I was unclear.
Does the stealth/intercept -'combat' define such a phase. Ie, is the acting
an reacting minion locked in a 'resolve blocking attempt' until any
stealth or intercept resource needed is voided by ANYONE allowed
to add such?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sten During wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Sten During wrote:
> > > > Also, is there no 'phase-handling' that eventually overrides the sequencing-
> > > > rules.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > That's "no", actually. (missed the negative question, sorry).
> > The explanation that followed is correct, however:
> >
> > > You cannot rush through/past a phase to keep others from using effects in
> > > that phase. So you can't (above) rush past the "card played" step to avoid
> > > getting DI'ed.
>
> Sorry, I was unclear.
>
> Does the stealth/intercept -'combat' define such a phase. Ie, is the acting
> an reacting minion locked in a 'resolve blocking attempt' until any
> stealth or intercept resource needed is voided by ANYONE allowed
> to add such?
>
>
Ackpft, ANYONE should read EVERYONE.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sten During wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Sten During wrote:
> > > > Also, is there no 'phase-handling' that eventually overrides the sequencing-
> > > > rules.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > That's "no", actually. (missed the negative question, sorry).
> > The explanation that followed is correct, however:
> >
> > > You cannot rush through/past a phase to keep others from using effects in
> > > that phase. So you can't (above) rush past the "card played" step to avoid
> > > getting DI'ed.
>
> Sorry, I was unclear.
>
> Does the stealth/intercept -'combat' define such a phase. Ie, is the acting
> an reacting minion locked in a 'resolve blocking attempt' until any
> stealth or intercept resource needed is voided by ANYONE allowed
> to add such?
Yeah - the block cannot succeed or fail until all the effects are in (unless
one of the effects makes the would-be blocker inelligible to block, of course,
which is where the Telepathic Misdirection play can come in - chaning the
target of the bleed will make the would-be blocker controlled by the former
target inelligible to block).
Incidentally:
There's a slight gray area at the moment of successful blocking.
I'll put that on the RT list for closer inspection to see if we can't resolve
the procedure to a finer level.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:<3BDD43AA...@netg.se>...
> The following occurred during a game.
>
> Player A bleeds.
>
> Player B blocks.
>
> Stealth 1.
>
> Intercept 1.
>
> Stealth 2.
>
> I tap London Evening Star Tabloid Newspaper for another intercept.
>
> Player B protests as he wants to play Telepathic Misdirection in order
> to
> bounce the bleed to me.
>
> Questions:
>
> Did he have the right to refuse the extra intercept as he's the prey and
> thus
> gets to react before me?
Technically I believe you should have waited until he was done playing
cards and then actually asked you for help.
>
> If not, did he get the extra intercept because I tapped before he
> announced
> Telepathic Misdirection?
He still got the Intercept, but he does not have to block now. He can
still play that TM and you will be without you Newspaper
>
> If not, did he get the extra intercept because all tapping is
> 'immediate'?
The timing doesn't really matter in this case. You tapped the card
and he got the Intercept. That doesn't preclude or stop the playing
of any other cards (other than further intercept cards).
>
> If not, did he get the extra intercept because I'm allowed to forcefully
>
> prolong the process to determine wether the blocking attempt is
> succesful or not, no matter if he had announced his bounce before I
> tapped, ie anything prolonging the process to check if a block is
> succesful will always be playable until that process is finally
> resolved.
>
> Sten During
Whether the Intercept was enough or not, he can still play his bounce
card. He is truly under no obligation to actually block once it is
announced if he can get out of it (with a bounce).
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Ewu1nRDY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Doesn't this completely fucks Ben Peal's Responsible bleeding deck?
He bleeds Meth 1 (his prey) for 3 at +2 stealth and gets deflected.
Meth 2 doesn't have intercept. Ben taps one of his Media outlets and then
another one to allow on of Meth 2's minions to block so he can play Change
of Target.
Can Meth 2 deflect/misdirect between the tapping of the 2 Media outlets,
thereby making sure the +2 stealth is enough to get by his prey's minions?
Jeroen
Tobias Loehr wrote:
>
>
> Technically I believe you should have waited until he was done playing
> cards and then actually asked you for help.
>
In this case I chose to use a card where I can force a minion to gain
intercept without asking first.
>
> >
> > If not, did he get the extra intercept because I tapped before he
> > announced
> > Telepathic Misdirection?
>
> He still got the Intercept, but he does not have to block now. He can
> still play that TM and you will be without you Newspaper
I'm very uncertain about this. If I attempt to block and am succesful
I doubt that I'm allowed to bounce the bleed instead of entering
combat.
For example, I don't believe I'm allowed to play Second Tradition
Domain, realize I'm succesfully blocking and then forfeit that
block by deflecting that bleed (and as an added bonus remain
untapped afterwards).
>
>
> >
> > If not, did he get the extra intercept because all tapping is
> > 'immediate'?
>
> The timing doesn't really matter in this case. You tapped the card
> and he got the Intercept. That doesn't preclude or stop the playing
> of any other cards (other than further intercept cards).
Se above.
>
>
> >
> > If not, did he get the extra intercept because I'm allowed to forcefully
> >
> > prolong the process to determine wether the blocking attempt is
> > succesful or not, no matter if he had announced his bounce before I
> > tapped, ie anything prolonging the process to check if a block is
> > succesful will always be playable until that process is finally
> > resolved.
> >
> > Sten During
>
> Whether the Intercept was enough or not, he can still play his bounce
> card. He is truly under no obligation to actually block once it is
> announced if he can get out of it (with a bounce).
See above.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sten During wrote:
> I'm very uncertain about this. If I attempt to block and am succesful
> I doubt that I'm allowed to bounce the bleed instead of entering
> combat.
Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
jeroen rombouts wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes. [1.6.1.6]
> >
> > "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 card or effect is
> > used by any Methuselah, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity
> > to play the next effect."
> >
> >> Doesn't this completely fucks Ben Peal's Responsible bleeding deck?
>
> He bleeds Meth 1 (his prey) for 3 at +2 stealth and gets deflected.
> Meth 2 doesn't have intercept. Ben taps one of his Media outlets and then
> another one to allow on of Meth 2's minions to block so he can play Change
> of Target.
>
> Can Meth 2 deflect/misdirect between the tapping of the 2 Media outlets,
> thereby making sure the +2 stealth is enough to get by his prey's minions?
>
> Jeroen
With the argument given above - no.
He's the acting Metuselah, so he can force intercept onto any minion
announcing a block-attempt before they're allowed to create any effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]