About blocking D-actions, Eagle Sight and blocking window

Hi. Could someone please clarify this? Say that seating order: A->B->C->A a) Methuselah A bleeds B; B declines to block; C doesn't block. When Methuselah A increases the bleed, is Methuselah C able to block with Eagle Sight? Or the blocking windows is passed, because B didn't change the target of the bleed? Eagle Sight Reaction [aus] 1 intercept. [AUS] This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions.

I am pretty sure the window is closed and blocking is no longer aloud.

Thats a bit of a gray area, if c didn't specifically state no block, then he could still play eagles' sight to block, the best way to handle that is to explicitly ask from the person who you know is playing eagles sights if he is going to block before playing your bleed mod.

I see. In the game I played, I asked all the table explicitly about blocking. The judge ruled that the window for blocking would be reopened if I increased the bleed. If I understood correctly, once declined to block, is not possible to any Methuselah block an action, even if I play modifieres. Am I correct?

If i remember correctly, I had a judge last tournament, Pascal Bertrand, declaring exactly that.

Is there some official clarification on this somewhere?

> makish wrote: > Is there some official clarification on this somewhere? > No clarification is needed, as the description of how to take an action and how to handle blocking is described in the rules. 6.2.2. Resolve Any Block Attempts [...]Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final. [...] "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

Notes: 1. Reactions can be played after an action modifier is played (e.g. Deflection in the case of a bleed modifier) but before the action resolves. 2. When a action targets a new Methuselah the block attempts window 're-opens'. The classic example is bleed actions. When the bleed is directed at a new player (say via Deflection) then the block attempts window is opened again and all valid block attempts can be made. If a card fails to change the target of a bleed (i.e. Deflection is cancelled as it is played) then the target has not changed and therefore the block attempts declarations stay as they were. 3. Playing a card which redirects the target of a bleed is ALWAYS considered to have been preceded by that player declaring "No block attempts". Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> makish wrote: > I see. In the game I played, I asked all the table explicitly about blocking. The judge ruled that the window for blocking would be reopened if I increased the bleed. > If I understood correctly, once declined to block, is not possible to any Methuselah block an action, even if I play modifieres. Am I correct? > The judge was wrong, once a player has declared no block, the only way they could attempt to block again is if the target of the bleed changes.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > 3. Playing a card which redirects the target of a bleed is ALWAYS considered to have been preceded by that player declaring "No block attempts". > No. A player must have in fact already declined to block, by card text. (Which was changed after the whole issue about redirecting a bleed, having the Deflection cancelled by a DI or something, and then wanting to block again came up.) Amongst other things, this means that you cannot play Deflection until after: - the acting Methuselah has done whatever he or she wants before asking for block attempts (which, while typically not that interesting, can be interesting if a vampire with Blessing of Chaos is on the table) - every other player on the table has declined (so it comes after Eagle Sight etc.); it's not "after you have declined to block", it's "after blocks are declined". (Although assuming the target changes and the card isn't cancelled, this will rarely be exciting because the block window re-opens on the target change.)

> Klaital wrote: > Thats a bit of a gray area, if c didn't specifically state no block, then he could still play eagles' sight to block, the best way to handle that is to explicitly ask from the person who you know is playing eagles sights if he is going to block before playing your bleed mod. > Is this correct? Do you have to always ask players with or minions or Anneke (or Enzo!) whether they decline to block? Shouldn't it be their responsibility to chime in at some point? Obviously it's a nice thing to check when you suspect superior Eagle Sight, but that player shouldn't get to wait to see if a bleed gets pumped.

In a tournament, ask the player with AUS if they are blocking. Ask enough times and they'll tell you if they're planning to use Eagle Sights on you... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> AaronC wrote: > > > Klaital wrote: > > Thats a bit of a gray area, if c didn't specifically state no block, then he could still play eagles' sight to block, the best way to handle that is to explicitly ask from the person who you know is playing eagles sights if he is going to block before playing your bleed mod. > > > Is this correct? Do you have to always ask players with or minions or Anneke (or Enzo!) whether they decline to block? Shouldn't it be their responsibility to chime in at some point? > > Obviously it's a nice thing to check when you suspect superior Eagle Sight, but that player shouldn't get to wait to see if a bleed gets pumped. > Yes it is correct. You can't negate a player's opportunity to block if he or she doesn't say that he or she declines the block. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > In a tournament, ask the player with AUS if they are blocking. Ask enough times and they'll tell you if they're planning to use Eagle Sights on you... > That sounds like advice, not a rule. Jameszephyr, Google us up some rulings.

> Ankha wrote: > Yes it is correct. You can't negate a player's opportunity to block if he or she doesn't say that he or she declines the block. > If true, that's pretty dumb. "Ha ha, I block your pumped bleed with Eagle Sight. I guess you should have asked everyone first." And what's the timing with post-pump Eagle Sight blocks and bleed redirection? "No, you can't Eagle Sight block that bleed yet because I get to play my Deflection first."

Except Deflection can only be played after ALL block attempts are declined.

> Ankha wrote: > Yes it is correct. You can't negate a player's opportunity to block if he or she doesn't say that he or she declines the block. > It depends on what's being communicated. In much the same way that other areas of the game are elided by social norms, the same can happen here. For example, we do not typically explicitly ask every player on the table "Are you going to cancel this as it is played?" every time we play a card, and we understand that there will be some occasional tension, but more or less everyone would agree that by the time you're into the block combat that resulted from the Form of Mist continue action that resulted from the block of your bleed action, it's a little too late for someone to say "Err, I Directly Intervene on that Govern the Unaligned." So don't get hung up on the use of exact words - we don't use them all the time. And if a player is (inadvertantly) trying to close a window, you really should speak up. (If a player is intentionally trying to rush by a window to stop other people using it, call a judge.) However, yes, at some point, you have to determine that a player is not using a cross-table blocker. I would recommend using the open question "Any blocks?" and then determining that a player not responding after some reasonable time isn't getting involved - much like if you're trying to DI something 5 minutes later because some hateful cheating players denied you your sovereign right to do so, you'll likely be faced with little to no help. [LSJ 20030708] > > LSJ wrote: > The action cannot be resolved if any Methuselah still has a chance to > block, and therefore each Methuselah who might have a chance to > block must eventually decline to do so (or block, of course). Since > that declination cannot be postponed to the End of Time, it must > be made at some point. The acting Methuselah can wait for that > point to pass before playing further effects. >

Sure, but since most players play their Conditioning right after their prey has declined to block, very often you can't blame the player that wants to play Eagle Sight to have waited too long. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Sure, but since most players play their Conditioning right after their prey has declined to block, very often you can't blame the player that wants to play Eagle Sight to have waited too long. > Hence the open question "Any blocks?" to the whole table. A conversation like: A: "Watenda bleeds for 1. Any blocks?" B: "Sela attempts to block, with +1 intercept from Mr Winthrop." A: "Watenda plays Faceless Night." *draws card* "... and Lost in Crowds. +2 stealth." B: "Nothing more from me." A: "No blocks? ... Watenda plays Old Friends for +1 bleed." If a player unexpectedly announcing a block attempt is going to upset you, don't rush by his block window. Bear in mind that this isn't just about Eagle Sight. Another player could, at that point, step in and give Sela more intercept. Newspapers and Starshells make this obvious, but Tourette's Voice is often unexpected, as is Scobax, as is Ignis Fatuus.

People often rush past when a player might play stealth reduction or "Babble phase", but, yes, if you don't want arguments in a tournament, ask everyone whether they want to block an action before you considered it unblocked. Traveller Card Game

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Hence the open question "Any blocks?" to the whole table. > That is not how people play in my neck of the woods, unless they specifically have a reason to suspect cross-table blocking. I'm curious as to who plays this way. In fact, the question "Any blocks?" seems insufficient to move the game along. As I understand it, you must ask every player with an obvious legal right to block after declaring an action and you must get a "no" from each player before continuing. "Any blocks?" doesn't ask those specific players specifically enough. It is often very difficult to pry out the perfunctory "No block" declaration from players when they have an obvious legal right to block. There are some newbish players who have to be asked directly and more than once if they choose to block a bleed directed at them. They have to hear "Do you block?" while their predator looks them directly in the eyes. "Any blocks?" would not grab their attention sufficiently. I know one player who sometimes likes to play a little game where he indicates with a small gesture that he is not blocking an undirected action of his prey, but then complains when an action moves on because "I never said I wasn't blocking." I understand that acting players sometimes rush, but at the same time, it is impractical to hold up the game for every other player to say "no block" or "no DI/cancellation". Frankly, many players are asleep when it's not their turn. It's an old problem, but there must be a cleaner solution, one that puts more responsibility on reacting players. A way that an acting player can show due diligence after which a reacting player loses the right to declare blocks/effects. Declare an action/ask obvious legal blocking players/wait one second/continue. A measurable time frame of some sort.

Why should the burden be on the reacting players? The reacting players can't play cards until the acting player defines what is going on. If a player doesn't play a master, there's no Sudden opportunity, so the reacting players need to wait until the acting player plays a master. If a player declares an action, the reacting players need to wait until the terms are defined before playing a DI, assuming DI is even playable (the action isn't cardless or based on a card in play). Then, long before you get to blocks, you run through the as action is announced window. Nobody can do anything until the acting player asks for blockers because the acting player needs to pass impulse. The main thing is that players should just be paying attention and be clear in what they are doing. But, sure, in reality, a lot of assumptions are made, like that not every single card will get DIed. That's why players tend to focus more on precise play when the actions matter more, like on a bleed that can oust. I hesitate on Concealed Weapon/Disguised Weapon all of the time because they could be cancelled, where most people just drop a couple of cards on the table. Do I care that much about people knowing what weapon I have in hand? Not really. But, it saves rewinding time. The reality is that it's the not paying attention that is so common, IME, that wastes far more time than making an effort to be clear about what is going on. Traveller Card Game

> AaronC wrote: > In fact, the question "Any blocks?" seems insufficient to move the game along. > Because when players are asked if they want to block, they don't interpret it as a request for if they want to block? > AaronC wrote: > As I understand it, you must ask every player with an obvious legal right to block after declaring an action and you must get a "no" from each player before continuing. > That's one way of doing it, which works. However, your understanding is very much wrong. [LSJ 20061212] In a situation where a player is arguing that tossing the pool they lost to a bleed into the blood bank is not a declaration of no blocks. > LSJ wrote: > If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not > blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to > play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as > your declaration of "no block". > As I pointed out (which you have apparently missed), a lot of this is social convention. Many things get elided in real play, because what is going on is understood. As LSJ points out in a similar case (precisely how much has to be announced), [LSJ 20060822] > LSJ wrote: > I've brought this up before, with the result that some players felt > inclined to teach me that this is a Bad Idea (tm) by announcing > everything (the minion's strength, even though it was the default; the > lack of a title, &c.). Killing the game with tedium, as it were. But, > of course, that's not how things are to be done, either. If one has to > get silly to avoid doing one's part to ensure that the game flows > smoothly, one should probably seek another game. > > AaronC wrote: > "Any blocks?" doesn't ask those specific players specifically enough. > How so? The order in which blocks have to be declared or declined is well defined. So "Any blocks?" could easily be understood as "Will each player in turn either decline to block or make a block attempt." > AaronC wrote: > It is often very difficult to pry out the perfunctory "No block" declaration from players when they have an obvious legal right to block. > That's going to be true however you ask them. > AaronC wrote: > They have to hear "Do you block?" while their predator looks them directly in the eyes. "Any blocks?" would not grab their attention sufficiently. > If a player is not sufficiently paying attention to the game, call a judge. This leads very quickly to infringing the (unintentional) Slow Play rules. > AaronC wrote: > I know one player who sometimes likes to play a little game where he indicates with a small gesture that he is not blocking an undirected action of his prey, but then complains when an action moves on because "I never said I wasn't blocking." > Said player is being an ass, and it won't matter how you ask the question - the player is being an ass. Further, [LSJ 20061212] indicates that you are probably handling the player's (to be charitable) sharp play incorrectly. > AaronC wrote: > It's an old problem, but there must be a cleaner solution, one that puts more responsibility on reacting players. A way that an acting player can show due diligence after which a reacting player loses the right to declare blocks/effects. > Which is pretty much what the conversation I outlined does.

I do understand the difference between social convention and legal requirement. The debate among players I know is always what constitutes what. I would like to distinguish between what is legally required and what a group has decided is socially convenient. That is why I am participating in this discussion. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > As I understand it, you must ask every player with an obvious legal right to block after declaring an action and you must get a "no" from each player before continuing. > > > That's one way of doing it, which works. However, your understanding is very much wrong. > That doesn't fully answer the question. It seems as though you are saying that any indication that a player declines to block is sufficient. You use as an example writing from LSJ that indicates that burning blood from a bleed indicates a failure to block. Wonderful. However, that doesn't answer whether every player who legally can block must decline to block before the action can continue. That is my understanding, but you claim that it "is very much wrong". > [LSJ 20061212] In a situation where a player is arguing that tossing the pool they lost to a bleed into the blood bank is not a declaration of no blocks. > > > LSJ wrote: > > If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not > > blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to > > play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as > > your declaration of "no block". > > Thanks for that reference from LSJ, because, again, there is a player who sometimes plays the game of picking up his pool as if taking a bleed, and then, nope, oops, he never put it down, and oh, there, the bleed is bounced.

> AaronC wrote: > Thanks for that reference from LSJ, because, again, there is a player who sometimes plays the game of picking up his pool as if taking a bleed, and then, nope, oops, he never put it down, and oh, there, the bleed is bounced. > Break that guy's fingers. One solution for both picking up the pool and bouncing the bleed More serious: I think asking 'any blocks' in a loud enough and clear voice should do the trick. If people running eagle's sight should just be more attentive of things to block, so that when the question comes they can react as needed. www.facebook.com/groups/vtes.belgium/

> AaronC wrote: > That doesn't fully answer the question. It seems as though you are saying that any indication that a player declines to block is sufficient. > It is. > AaronC wrote: > However, that doesn't answer whether every player who legally can block must decline to block before the action can continue. That is my understanding, but you claim that it "is very much wrong". > And that's what the other LSJ ruling addresses. (Yes, you are still "very much wrong".) Don't kill the game with tedium. Do your bit to help the game flow. Just as we don't announce every single possible timing phase for every possible play of every possible effect and, somehow, we still manage to play cards, it is also possible to handle the question of blocking without entering into a staring contest with every player on the table, followed by the signing of a contract corroborated by two uninvolved witnesses, in red ink on vellum. If you can cope with the situation where I play Govern the Unaligned and we work on the principle that no-one is DI-ing it when I've gone on, at a leisurely pace, to draw a replacement, then play Seduction, then draw a replacement, then tapped Brigitte Gebauer (Wraith) to get an extra +1 bleed in the "as announced" window, you can cope with any other similar situation. Including: - calling for blocks - handling polling in a referendum - allowing a player to play Nosferatu Putrescence - a cross-table play of Rotschreck, by neither of the combatants - bidding during Malkavian Time Auction when one player attempts to bid out of turn > AaronC wrote: > Thanks for that reference from LSJ, because, again, there is a player who sometimes plays the game of picking up his pool as if taking a bleed, and then, nope, oops, he never put it down, and oh, there, the bleed is bounced. > Picking up your pool and making the mechanical motions for taking the bleed can reasonably indicate no blocks. The impulse goes back to the acting Methuselah who can then change the bleed, such as increasing it, or whatever else. If that happens, it's perfectly reasonable for the player to bounce the bleed. (Moving the pool to the blood bank can't rush by that timing window.) If nothing happens, the player deciding to bounce instead of taking the bleed is reasonable, if a little weird. Possibly the player thinks picking up the pool will lull the acting Methuselah into thinking they don't have a bounce and so draw out the Conditioning - but if "no block" has been communicated, it's still no block.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > However, that doesn't answer whether every player who legally can block must decline to block before the action can continue. That is my understanding, but you claim that it "is very much wrong". > > > And that's what the other LSJ ruling addresses. (Yes, you are still "very much wrong".) Don't kill the game with tedium. Do your bit to help the game flow. > I read the entire post by LSJ ([LSJ 20060822]), and it is very interesting. However, it addresses the responsibilities of the acting player, and I am interested in the responsibility of the reacting players. Are all players who can apparently legally block required to communicate block or no block? By the way, I really appreciate your knowledge and research, but I don't appreciate your occasionally bitchy tone. If you are going to hold yourself up as an expert and also use a disparaging tone on this forum, I would appreciate knowing your actual name, location, and what tournaments you have judged. Curious to see your TWDs for example.

> AaronC wrote: > I read the entire post by LSJ ([LSJ 20060822]), and it is very interesting. However, it addresses the responsibilities of the acting player, and I am interested in the responsibility of the reacting players. > No, it addresses the responsibilities of everyone to not kill the game with tedium and to do their bit to help game flow. The same issues found in (mis-)announcing an action apply to pretty much all effect announcements. > AaronC wrote: > Are all players who can apparently legally block required to communicate block or no block? > Clearly, you need to determine whether the action is being blocked or not. This does not allow a player to say "Lalala, I'm not listening to anything going on on the table, you have to PUNCH ME IN THE FACE before I'll answer." > AaronC wrote: > By the way, I really appreciate your knowledge and research, but I don't appreciate your occasionally bitchy tone. If you are going to hold yourself up as an expert and also use a disparaging tone on this forum, I would appreciate knowing your actual name, location, and what tournaments you have judged. Curious to see your TWDs for example. > By posting links to actual, verifiable rulings, I don't have to hold myself up as an expert. That's the point. Since you are, repeatedly, arguing "Well, I understand it works like this" without providing any backing for your point of view, it is you who's arguing as though you are an authority. When the rulings are provided and they don't support you and you still continue to assert your wrongness, perhaps you should be less surprised that the reactions you provoke are somewhat brusker than you apparently desire. (For example, arguing from a point of view that players ignoring, you know, questions about the game is a tenable state of affairs is not at all reasonable.) However, I've judged (single judge and multi-judge) a large number of UK tournaments over the years - local things, nationals, Continental Qualifiers, whatever. (I haven't had much access to real world V:TES for a while, as a consequence of a slightly weird job choice meaning I have relatively little free time many evenings, and my weekends are then taken up with the things I'd do at other times.)

> AaronC wrote: > I read the entire post by LSJ ([LSJ 20060822]), and it is very interesting. However, it addresses the responsibilities of the acting player, and I am interested in the responsibility of the reacting players. Are all players who can apparently legally block required to communicate block or no block? > The responsibility of reacting players is to answer the question asked - "Are there any other block attempts?" Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

On "announcing any oddball timing phases": Its helpful to imterject with"not done!" During the part of another players minion phase when you can use cog or madness network. Its helpful to ask "any DI?" On a really heinous action thats unblocked, like sense dep, or maybe amaranth. Ive been asked "AI?" When being bled for 4. Hell, i (jokingly 90% or the time) ask "any foul blood?" After hunting, before adding a bead. I know weve all backtracked by a discard action, adding or removing a bead, playing freak drive, etc. If you are worried, ask "any eagles sight/falcons eye/annekke block?" Before playing your bleed pump. Otherwise, deal with getting blocked after the normal block options are denied. Small mistakes happen, ive ousted with Marcellous playing aire of elation, and nobody noticed somethimg wrong until a minute laterwhen i bled with someone else(luckily, no decks were shuffled yet....) You CAN play like an ass, and eagle sight after the target declines if the acting methuselah doesnt ask. You always bounce after pump, its common to act like you wont, amd ask "how much?" So, if it could cost a turn sooner vp, assume someone will screw you, and ask. Especially ir im playing Pascal, interpretation?

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > However, I've judged (single judge and multi-judge) a large number of UK tournaments over the years - local things, nationals, Continental Qualifiers, whatever. (I haven't had much access to real world V:TES for a while, as a consequence of a slightly weird job choice meaning I have relatively little free time many evenings, and my weekends are then taken up with the things I'd do at other times.) > And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like. I'm serious - please feel free to be, shall we say, "confrontational", but it's not cool to do so anonymously, at least not here. In thhis link you provided (sorry, don't know how to condense): groups.google.com/forum/#msg/rec.games.tradingcards.jyhad/0J9gSnqS7Ck/4A4z_k1G5FAJ , LSJ only speaks about what acting players should do, clearly to me at least. Then Peter Bakija, not LSJ, goes on to opine about what the responsibilities of all players should be, including reacting players. I see how this whole conversation sprang from my questioning (daring to question?) your assertion that "Any blocks?" is an advisable way to proceed when trying to determine crosstable blockers. My purpose wasn't to criticize you, but rather to find the technical basis of your advice and test it against my personal experience. I'm very curious about parsing out what is technically correct versus what is "advice", "common practice", or "eliding" as you put it. To me the concept that a player can guard their chance to block cross-table after others have declined is so queer that I am playing catch-up. All the advice about avoiding this loophole so that you don't prematurely play your Conditioning seems crazy, and that's where I'm coming from. In this James said: > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Amongst other things, this means that you cannot play Deflection until after: ... > > - every other player on the table has declined (so it comes after Eagle Sight etc.); it's not "after you have declined to block", it's "after blocks are declined". (Although assuming the target changes and the card isn't cancelled, this will rarely be exciting because the block window re-opens on the target change.) > You also said: > However, yes, at some point, you have to determine that a player is not using a cross-table blocker. I would recommend using the open question "Any blocks?" and then determining that a player not responding after some reasonable time isn't getting involved - much like if you're trying to DI something 5 minutes later because some hateful cheating players denied you your sovereign right to do so, you'll likely be faced with little to no help. > This implies that you think that it is okay to "elide" player communication, which certainly seems like a good idea. The LSJ quote that you follow up with sort of agrees with you and sort of doesn't. > LSJ wrote: > The action cannot be resolved if any Methuselah still has a chance to > block, and therefore each Methuselah who might have a chance to > block must eventually decline to do so (or block, of course). Since > that declination cannot be postponed to the End of Time, it must > be made at some point. The acting Methuselah can wait for that > point to pass before playing further effects. > He says "each must eventually decline", but also that the acting player "can wait for that point to pass." A bit contradictory. So, technically: All players with a "chance" to block must either attempt or decline. According to James, cross-table players fall into this category. Probably it only includes players who control minions with , , or special minions like Anneke. James has given us an LSJ quote that indicates that a player can decline to block non-verbally. He and others recommend giving a blanket question about blocking to all cross-table players, possibly only in special circumstances such as tournaments. Is the game halted until every player at the table affirms "no block" in some way in his turn? James thinks that waiting a reasonable amount of time means that a cross-table player gives up his right, but only if a blanket question is posed first. LSJ doesn't discuss a reasonable time or even exactly agrees with that. LSJ and the rules do say that any player with a "chance" to block must decline eventually. That means that any player with a minion with , , Anneke or similar might technically have to communicate his decision to decline to block or not any eligible action. Informally, it's another story. I am interested in this because I think that technical rules and the social norms of play should be as close to each other as possible. There should either be a requirement to ask for cross-table blockers or not. I don't think there should be such a requirement. I think that crosstable blockers should be quick on the draw but that they should also have the right to add themselves to the list of potential blockers to be asked. All blockers should have to declare in the same window. If you weren't paying attention and then somebody ousts your predator with Conditioning, you shouldn't get to go back and say "Oh, I didn't say I wasn't blocking - Eagle Sight!"

Aaron it is easy. 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 Meth 1 is taking an action targeting 2 (e.g. a bleed). Once it is declared, 5 cannot gain the chance to block until 2 has declined to block. After 1 stops playing action modifiers, 2 may play reactions and then after 2 stops playing reactions they may ask others to contribute to their block attempt. When the block attempt by 2 has failed, then 1 is obliged to ask any other player who may be able to block if they will do so. It goes in bleed-order around the table (as these things generally do). All players must decline before the action is unblocked. 1) It is irrelevant to ask Methuselahs who could not conceivably block (e.g. those without minions with or or controlling Anneke) 2) All of those players for whom the question is relevant can, by social norm, be asked the question as a group. This is effectively the same as asking each in person going in bleed-order around the table. The acting player can wait for any suitable period of time to get this answer. They may wait this time by any method which does not contradict the rules of the game or the tournament rules (I am thinking particularly of the Sportsmanship rules). 3) Players may decline to block by any clearly understood method including non-verbal communication. I assume this could also include signs or written information so long as that method did not constitute attempts to deliberately slow down the play of the game. It is an extension of the idea that you can identify action targets by pointing for instance or by identifying them as "Your 3rd minion from my left" and so on. 4) If players do not make a clear indication they intend to block, then they may be assumed to be declining. 5) Once all players have declined to block (LSJ's "can wait for that point to pass before playing effects" comment with "that point" being "the time when all players have declined to block), you are free to continue playing effects and other cards playable after an action 'would be successful' but before it resolves. This includes cards which will redirect bleeds, but this resets the Declare Block Attempts Window beginning with the player who is the new target and repeats the entire process. 6) The game is not halted, the block attempts window has not yet closed for this acting minion-target pair. It is time taken by players to make decisions and resolve block attempts. The game is not 'halted' into some limbo-state; the timer clock should continue running down. 7) Players may enter into overt verbal agreements about their intentions to use cards like Eagle's Sight, Falcon's Eye and Anneke. Such as "I do not plan to block your actions which do not directly affect my pool or minions" from a cross-table buddy. This could then be assumed to be a "Decline to block" from that player until such point as they contradict that statement. Which is why it should be checked anyway before playing important cards. 8) The rules already add in all potential blockers as players that should be asked via the Impulse rules. So, is this answered well enough for you yet? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> AaronC wrote: > And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like. > > I'm serious - please feel free to be, shall we say, "confrontational", but it's not cool to do so anonymously, at least not here. > Come on AaronC, YOU'RE now coming off as the one who is confrontational. I don't think jamesatzephyr, or anyone else, in here needs to provide that kind of info to anyone to justify anything. Besides, jamesatzephyr has in my mind ben EXTREMELY helpful in providing answers to rules questions here for a good long while. Which has been WAY nice when Pascal hasn't been able to answer the questions that quickly. Finnish Politics!

> AaronC wrote: > And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like. > Why do you need this information? Correct, verifiable rulings are correct, verifiable rulings, whether or not I submit to your petty nonsense about knowing where I live. Which has precisely nothing to do with whether or not a ruling is correct. Why the hell do you think you have the right to demand to know WHERE I LIVE? Seriously, re-evaluate your behaviour. You can't accept that your interpretation of the rules is wrong and demand to know WHERE I LIVE? Fuck the hell off. (For anyone about to hit the "Report to Moderator" button because I said a naughty word, please do not support AaronC's aggressively stalker-ish behaviour in this fashion.)

Perhaps using Momentum as a layman term would be better for the discussion. > After 1 stops playing action modifiers, 2 may play reactions > This is incorrect, because the momentum shifts after every card played, so you are eligible to react after the action is declared and after every modifier is played, instead only after all the initial modifiers. Just for extreme case, imagine asking all 4 potential blockers after every card play. THEN draw a line for your common sense, where would you like to sacrifice the flow and speed of the current game for filling a questionaire. "Any blocks?" is a fine and efficient routine, while everyone asking and those asked know their basic rights for the blocking (e.g. prey cannot force predator to declare blocks before him, etc.). Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > Perhaps using Momentum as a layman term would be better for the discussion. > Why? > kombainas wrote: > > > After 1 stops playing action modifiers, 2 may play reactions > > > This is incorrect, because the momentum shifts after every card played, so you are eligible to react after the action is declared and after every modifier is played, > No, this is wildly incorrect. After MethA (the acting Methuselah) plays an action modifier, the player who next has the opportunity to play an action modifier (or other effect, like tapping a location) is MethA. When MethA stops playing action modifiers, the impulse moves to MethB, and each player in turn (if MethB, MethC... passes). If any of them play an effect, the opportunity to play the next effect goes back to MethA. > kombainas wrote: > Just for extreme case, imagine asking all 4 potential blockers after every card play. > That would be the wrong thing to do. The impulse doesn't work like that. Indeed, asking other players if they want to play a reaction is usually taken as passing the impulse (those players cannot play reactions, or use an effect, or whatever, if you still have the impulse). And if you pass the impulse and they pass the impulse and the relevant timing window therefore closes, you cannot re-open the window, which will sometimes prevent you from playing cards you want to play.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like. > > > Why do you need this information? Correct, verifiable rulings are correct, verifiable rulings, whether or not I submit to your petty nonsense about knowing where I live. Which has precisely nothing to do with whether or not a ruling is correct. > > Why the hell do you think you have the right to demand to know WHERE I LIVE? Seriously, re-evaluate your behaviour. You can't accept that your interpretation of the rules is wrong and demand to know WHERE I LIVE? > > Fuck the hell off. > > (For anyone about to hit the "Report to Moderator" button because I said a naughty word, please do not support AaronC's aggressively stalker-ish behaviour in this fashion.) > Again, you've avoided the question. You refuse to give your name and you refuse to make the city or even country in which you live public. You've judged tournaments in the UK - does that mean you live somewhere in the UK? Location is information that basically all regular posters add to their public profile. And you're not just any poster. You post here multiple times each day. It's like it's becoming the James @ zephyr VTES forum around here. I make one comment that questions a recommendation you've given, and then you make a statement with a confrontational tone: "You are very wrong". Then you repeat your very questionable comment for some reason in a second post. I have been nothing but reasonable and complimentary to you. I am genuinely interested in your perspective. I am genuinely appreciative of your research. But since you have no actual authority when it comes to VTES rulings, I have every right to offer a differing perspective on your recommendations. In fact, you admitted that you don't even play regularly, which is relevant when I specifically was questioning if your recommendations were practical besides being legal. And from what I can guess, you have no decks in the TWDA (no one with the first name 'James' from the UK). That certainly is no barrier to being a participant on this forum, but considering the volume of your postings on rules questions, your authoritative tone, your use of the F-word, and your insistence on guarding your anonymity, I just have to wonder who you think you are. I agree with Lonkka that you've done a lot of good research and your postings are very helpful. But you seem to be very prickly about being challenged. If you want to make personal attacks, that's fine. Just don't use internet anonymity when you do it. Many posters here have public identities, or it's obivous who they are. For example, I know who Pascal is. I've met him, and his identity is public. I know who Lonkka is. I've met him, too, and he's not trying to hide his identity. KevinM! Ankha, Damnans, Squidalot - I think any of them would let you know who they are if asked. To me it's fine if people want to remain anonymous on this forum as long as they don't abuse that anonymity by expressing mean, confrontational, or condescending attitudes. Oh yeah, or curse. However, I'm fine if someone wants to say something mean or insulting as long as I will know who they are if I ever happen to meet them at a tournament. Having a public identity means that a poster has to live with the consequences of his posts in this small community, and that is more than reasonable. Aaron Clark, Los Angeles, California

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > 2) All of those players for whom the question is relevant can, by social norm, be asked the question as a group. This is effectively the same as asking each in person going in bleed-order around the table. The acting player can wait for any suitable period of time to get this answer. They may wait this time by any method which does not contradict the rules of the game or the tournament rules (I am thinking particularly of the Sportsmanship rules). > You wrote a nice summary. As I've (perhaps clumsily) mentioned, I find the point about asking the question to the group troublesome. The social norm I have experienced is more often to only ask the specific player in the case of actions and both prey and predator in turn for undirected actions. We normally do NOT bother to direct a question to the table when crosstable people have or Anneke, unless the acting player is paranoid about crosstable blocking. Crosstable blockers normally have to say "WAIT!" per our social convention. Otherwise play seems to get even more cumbersome than it already can be. I'll store this in my file on how to play particularly correctly. Also the trick of waiting for the action mod in case I'm crosstable blcoking and the acting player has not specifically asked me if I want to block.

@Aaron: Remember, if the acting Methuselah asks "Are you going to attempt to block?" then they must be given an answer and may wait for as long as it takes. If the other player waits too long, they may be accused of time-wasting in tournaments or just suffer social penalties (in my playgroup that is likely to be the suggestion you need to find your wife/girlfriend's purse and recover your testicles from that purse...) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> AaronC wrote: > As I've (perhaps clumsily) mentioned, I find the point about asking the question to the group troublesome. The social norm I have experienced is more often to only ask the specific player in the case of actions and both prey and predator in turn for undirected actions. We normally do NOT bother to direct a question to the table when crosstable people have or Anneke, unless the acting player is paranoid about crosstable blocking. Crosstable blockers normally have to say "WAIT!" per our social convention. Otherwise play seems to get even more cumbersome than it already can be. > Asking the table "Any blocks?" isn't any more cumbersome than asking a specific person if they block, and, since you have to deal with Direct Intervention and other card cancelling effects anyway, I don't see where the concerns about additional delays are. > AaronC wrote: > I'll store this in my file on how to play particularly correctly. Also the trick of waiting for the action mod in case I'm crosstable blcoking and the acting player has not specifically asked me if I want to block. > I don't follow this. You appear to be advocating playing illegally. > Non-existant user 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." > (emphasis added) Allowing the acting player to move onto playng an action modifier before everyone has passed isn't legal. There's been no event which allows the playing new action modifiers. I can see using this as a short term approach to improve your local playgroup's playstyle by doing this in casual games to drive home the point of correct sequencing, but it would be helpful if you could clarifiy your intentions. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> AaronC wrote: > Again, you've avoided the question. > No, I'm not avoiding the question - I'm squarely addressing it by telling you that your demands for personal information are worryingly inappropriate. I do not acquiesce to the demands of online stalkers! People do not have to pass your identity test to tell you you are wrong. People do not have to pass your identity test to post here. You do not have any concept of boundaries. Frankly, your control-freak demands for personal information are unpleasant, unwelcome, inappropriate, and just plain wrong. Therefore, before replying to this post, you must provide: - a high-resolution scan of your passport - your login credentials for this website, including username and password - a scan of your birth certificate - a full genetic history, back for five generations - a detailed history of every illness ever suffered by anyone in your family - a transcript from every educational establishment you have ever attended, including a full break-down of every grade you have ever been given, every subject you have ever studied, and every punishment you have ever received - a full copy of your criminal record - a full copy of your credit record, or other financial information that would be used to determine if you are suitable for a loan or mortgage - a written reference from at least three employers or colleagues. These have precisely as much relevance to this discussion as your stalking demands to know where I live, given that I'm proving you are wrong by using, you know, actual verifiable rulings provided by the official rules authority. (For clarity, that is: none at all.)

> makish wrote: > Hi. Could someone please clarify this? > Say that seating order: > A->B->C->A > a) Methuselah A bleeds B; B declines to block; C doesn't block. When Methuselah A increases the bleed, is Methuselah C able to block with Eagle Sight? Or the blocking windows is passed, because B didn't change the target of the bleed? > > Eagle Sight > Reaction > [aus] 1 intercept. > [AUS] This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions. > Here is the correct atomic sequence (skipping the DI windows) A announces a bleed attempt. A passes on using the impulse "as the action is announced". B (target) passes on using the impulse "as the action is announced". C, D (clockwise) pass on using the impulse "as the action is announced". Impulse goes back to A, we are in the "during the action (before resolution)" window. A has the opportunity (before block attempts are declared to play Conditioning). A passes. B (target) declines to block. Impulse goes to C. C gets to choose whether he declares a block attempt or passes. Here, A cannot play Conditioning, because A doesn't have the impulse.

> AaronC wrote: > > > Klaital wrote: > > Thats a bit of a gray area, if c didn't specifically state no block, then he could still play eagles' sight to block, the best way to handle that is to explicitly ask from the person who you know is playing eagles sights if he is going to block before playing your bleed mod. > > > Is this correct? Do you have to always ask players with or minions or Anneke (or Enzo!) whether they decline to block? Shouldn't it be their responsibility to chime in at some point? > > Obviously it's a nice thing to check when you suspect superior Eagle Sight, but that player shouldn't get to wait to see if a bleed gets pumped. > You don't have to ask. But they have to say if they block. If thy don't, then, ask. If two players agree "I will not block any of your +1 stealth action" stands for the whole game as a declination to block, then, that's it. Otherwise, players should declare attempt/decline/ask. It's better to check than to call a judge and fix.

> AaronC wrote: > And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like. > > I'm serious - please feel free to be, shall we say, "confrontational", but it's not cool to do so anonymously, at least not here. > I would suggest using other ways to communicate than the Rules section for private discussions. E-mails, PMs, etc are available.