Scenario: You are bleeding your prey. You have the ousting modifier in hand. Your prey declines block, and asks "How Much?". Your grand-prey, with superior Auspex, interjects "Hang on." You pause, waiting for him to think, probably about an Eagle's sight, since there's nothing else that can really affect the game state at this moment. After a few moments, he says "Okay, go."
You play your modifier, at which point he says "I block with eagle's sight."
His rationale is that the words "no block" never left his lips, though he did interject for thought. In addition, he insists that the modifier remain played, even though you had taken his "Okay go." as a pass of priority.
So. What's the protocol? Can he play the eagle's block? If he is able to, does the modifier remain played, or do you rewind to the point where you thought he was passing?
2 more hypotheticals: One where your opponent was honestly confused, and one where he makes it clear he was using verbal trickery to fake you out. Does that matter?
My advice is: always wait for the words "no block". And if your playgroup doesn't use this term (although rules are clear on this) and just grunts or nods for no block insist on that term. Every other solution is not clear enough in my eyes. If I were in your shoes I had have the same impression that he did not want to block by saying "okay, go". But otoh he is also right in saying he never declined the block. And yes, the modifier was played.
If you bring your playgroup to announce in the correct way you don't have to think about honesty or trickery.
Another little tip: When I act with a minion I always ask the players playing AUS or SPI if they'd like to block (after prey and pred declined). They have to decline or block at that moment. If they decline I can play my modifiers safely afterwards.
Baron of Frankfurt
Joscha: I'm well aware that you can safely play action modifiers after they decline. I was asking what the official rules/rulings are regarding ambiguity, either perceived or intentional. I've seen a similar misunderstanding at a tournament, but I wasn't directly involved, and didn't notice what the details of the ruling were.
Declining to block is not an effect that gives the impulse back to the acting player. The impulse is given back only when a player declares a block attempt, or when all players have passed.
> Rulebook wrote:
> Note that moving past the block attempts (when all Methuselahs have declined to block) is an effect and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects.
>
> Malcolm wrote:
> Scenario: You are bleeding your prey. You have the ousting modifier in hand. Your prey declines block, and asks "How Much?". Your grand-prey, with superior Auspex, interjects "Hang on." You pause, waiting for him to think, probably about an Eagle's sight, since there's nothing else that can really affect the game state at this moment. After a few moments, he says "Okay, go."
>
> You play your modifier, at which point he says "I block with eagle's sight."
>
> His rationale is that the words "no block" never left his lips, though he did interject for thought. In addition, he insists that the modifier remain played, even though you had taken his "Okay go." as a pass of priority.
>
> So. What's the protocol?
>
You must curse yourself for being a bad player and not demanding a "Block or No Block, please". It's primarily your own fault that you are playing in a sloppy manner and aren't aware of the rules which he is taking advantage of.
The protocol is: You say "Sorry, you passed your block attempt" and you proceed to bleed your prey unblocked.
If he argues, and if you felt like he didn't mean to be a rules-lawyer and he was just ignorantly doing what he was taught in some other game, you have a heart-to-heart chat with him. You explain to him about the impulse and about "Block or No Block" being the only possible answers at that point in the declaration sequence (so he is crystal-clear about the rules of the game) and you apologize for playing sloppy yourself and not correcting him.
Also, you could explain to him about how people that play VTES aren't rules lawyers, except with the Edge, and that we don't want people like that in our game or in our lives, because they are bad human beings (so he is crystal-clear about the ethics of VTES) and they are detrimental to life itself.
I make sure to do this, but I do not expect it from everyone. Some people are so desperate for players and so tolerant of jerks that they've become blind to such things. Which is why I say it here, out loud, for you.
Hopefully, that would get him up to the current rules and ethical standards that you expect in a VTES player. If truly not, then ostracision is your best option. Stay away from him and keep him away from VTES.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
se Sadly, id have to agree with Kevin here. If he were amongst your playing group or friends then that signal should have been to signify a "no block" intent. But if he's going to stick to the rules and find loopholes in every system or play, then he's not a player worth playing with. I for one avoid oath breakers as well, like those who would say "ill support you on the diablerie, but then vote to burn you instead". There has to be a little friendship and camarederie in games or at least professionalism, if they cant muster it drop them off like the douche bags they are.
> Pascal wrote:
> Declining to block is not an effect that gives the impulse back to the acting player. The impulse is given back only when a player declares a block attempt, or when all players have passed.
>
> > Rulebook wrote:
> > Note that moving past the block attempts (when all Methuselahs have declined to block) is an effect and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects.
> >
Am I correct in understanding that this is the only window for blocking? That there is no way for a player to pass priority back to the acting player without declining block?
Basically, I'm asking if this passage means that any indication for the acting player to proceed passes block [bin addition to priority[/b]? "Go On", "Play your cards", etc.
> blackday wrote:
> I for one avoid oath breakers as well, like those who would say "ill support you on the diablerie, but then vote to burn you instead". There has to be a little friendship and camarederie in games or at least professionalism, if they cant muster it drop them off like the douche bags they are.
>
Lying is permitted by the rules. Of course you will never make such a deal with that player again. But he played perfectly in the sense of the game (he also would have if he honoured the deal of course).
I think a correct announcement like "block" or "no block" isn't that hard to do and helps smoothing the game flow. Just play it right and no such annoying things will happen. And we don't have to think about if somebody is an **** we don't like to play with anymore.
Baron of Frankfurt
> Malcolm wrote:
> Basically, I'm asking if this passage means that any indication for the acting player to proceed passes block [bin addition to priority[/b]? "Go On", "Play your cards", etc.
>
Why not just demand a "Block, or no block" declaration? Then you don't need to ask questions about obscure phrases, because you are 100% absolutely positively conclusively crystal clear.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I had a similar problem some time ago, on the occasion I was blocked after the action was resolved and even after having passed the turn to my prey, even so, because I didn't ask every player on the table if they wished to block, and consequently, they didn't said the words "I don't block", the judge ruled that my predator could (and did) blocked me with Anneke.
At the time I though I was beeing cheated by my predator and the judge, but in the old forum, LSJ said the judge was right.
However, I still don't see how needing to ask all players on the table if they wish to block, and having them spoke the words "No" or "No block" for every action in the game will be good for the game, I, for instance, take 3 to 6 actions per turn in middle game usually, that is too much interruptions to the game flow.
I'm not saying that I'm correct, I just think that there must be a more efficient way of doing it and I'd love to hear from the community.
> larsantos wrote:
> I'm not saying that I'm correct, I just think that there must be a more efficient way of doing it and I'd love to hear from the community.
>
That is a thing of practice. You declare your action, ask your prey "block?", wait for a denial, ask your predator "block?", wait for a denial and then, if there are any, ask those players with AUS, Annekes and SPI for blocks. That's not that much effort as it seems.
What annoys me more is that in fact you should ask for DIs after playing each card. But that is near to not doable.
Baron of Frankfurt
> larsantos wrote:
> I'm not saying that I'm correct, I just think that there must be a more efficient way of doing it and I'd love to hear from the community.
>
Unless you're psychic, I can't see a better way to do it than asking.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > larsantos wrote:
> > I'm not saying that I'm correct, I just think that there must be a more efficient way of doing it and I'd love to hear from the community.
> >
> Unless you're psychic, I can't see a better way to do it than asking.
>
Asking is always the best attitude, what I think is that it must be an time window while you can block, in the case I referred, I'd already passed my turn and my prey had untapped and we can say that he was in the middle of the untap phase when my predator decided that he wanted to block; the rules allow him to do so but I think (and it's only an opinion) that there must be a time frame while this can be possible, or where do we stop? can we rollback an entire game because in the first turn a player forgot to ask if someone blocked??
That is really my doubt and what worries me.
> larsantos wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > larsantos wrote:
> > > I'm not saying that I'm correct, I just think that there must be a more efficient way of doing it and I'd love to hear from the community.
> > >
> > Unless you're psychic, I can't see a better way to do it than asking.
> >
> Asking is always the best attitude, what I think is that it must be an time window while you can block, in the case I referred, I'd already passed my turn and my prey had untapped and we can say that he was in the middle of the untap phase when my predator decided that he wanted to block; the rules allow him to do so but I think (and it's only an opinion) that there must be a time frame while this can be possible, or where do we stop? can we rollback an entire game because in the first turn a player forgot to ask if someone blocked??
>
> That is really my doubt and what worries me.
>
In a tournament, just call a judge. From my point of view, it seems a bit late to react.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director