Scenario A
A tapped vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
Intercept and stealth are matched.
Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
Scenario B
A vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
Action is at more stealth then the intercept the vampire has.
Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
> Eluding the Arms of Morpheus
> Only usable by a tapped vampire.
> This vampire untaps and attempts to block.
>
> Under Siege
> +1 stealth action. Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Unique.
> Put this card in play with 3 counters. Once each action, a Sabbat vampire you control can burn 1 counter from this card to unlock and attempt to block with +1 intercept, even if intercept is not yet needed. Burn this card when it has no counters.
>
> Guardian Vigil
> Requires an anarch. More than one discipline can be used when playing this card. This anarch attempts to block.
> [aus] +1 intercept, even if intercept is not yet needed.
> [cel] This anarch gets 1 optional maneuver in the resulting combat if he or she blocks.
> [for] This anarch does not tap for the block.
>
> ResurrectioN wrote:
> Scenario A
> A tapped vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
> Intercept and stealth are matched.
>
> Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
>
Yes (because they grant intercept "even if intercept is not yet needed.")
This is otherwise similar to attempting to block, and playing Eagle's Sight at AUS to "cycle".
> LSJ wrote:
> > - After player A play +1 stealth and B play +1 intercept can player B
> > block with superior ES (just for card cycling) the bleed?
> Yes.
>
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/4ctVyrAAfOg/__niW-SI9F4J
> ResurrectioN wrote:
> Scenario B
> A vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
> Action is at more stealth then the intercept the vampire has.
>
> Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
>
Yes.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > ResurrectioN wrote:
> > Scenario A
> > A tapped vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
> > Intercept and stealth are matched.
> >
> > Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
> >
> Yes (because they grant intercept "even if intercept is not yet needed.")
> This is otherwise similar to attempting to block, and playing Eagle's Sight at AUS to "cycle".
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > - After player A play +1 stealth and B play +1 intercept can player B
> > > block with superior ES (just for card cycling) the bleed?
> > Yes.
> >
> groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/4ctVyrAAfOg/__niW-SI9F4J
>
I strongly suspect this to be incorrect.
www.vekn.net/detailed-play-summary reads : NOTE: For each block attempt, resolve the attempt (step C.) before going on to the next attempt.
If I am wrong, how do we handle the following scenarii :
- Vampire A has Dominion (Vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block this Black Hand vampire.) and declares an action. Vampire B attempts to block, and during that attempt, would play Eagle's Sight. Does B burn blood twice to Dominion ?
- Vampire A declares an action. Vampire B attempts to block. Vampire A plays Dawn Operation (or whatever), can vampires B and C play Coterie Tactics (These two vampires attempt to block) ?
This is a good point. Since LSJ's ruling seems weird and makes things convoluted (or maybe there was a confusion with playing Eagle's Sight to attempt to block vs when already attempting to block), I revert his ruling.
You can declare only one block attempt at a time. If the block attempt is not successful, only then can you declare another block attempt.
EDIT: This reversal has been canceled.
So:
>
> ResurrectioN wrote:
> Scenario A
> A tapped vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
> Intercept and stealth are matched.
>
> Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
>
No. You have already an ongoing block attempt that is currently successful.
> ResurrectioN wrote:
> Scenario B
> A vampire attempts to block an action by playing Eluding the Arms of Morpheus.
> Action is at more stealth then the intercept the vampire has.
>
> Can the vampire play Guardian Vigil or use effect of Under Siege?
>
You have to declare first that the initial block attempt fails. Then, you can play Guardian Vigil or Under Siege to declare a new block attempt.
This means that you would have to burn twice 1 blood to attempt to block Giotto ("Vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block Giotto.")
Also:
- A is acting. B is attempting to block. B can't play Eagle's Sight at superior "to cycle".
- A is acting. There is no ongoing block attempt. B can play Eagle's Sight at superior to attempt to block.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
How long the intercept last on a "attempt to block with +X intercept" card? If A is acting at 2 Stealth, can B attempt to block with Guardian Vigil, fail, then try again with e.g. Read the Winds for a total +2 intercept?
> Non-existant user wrote:
> How long the intercept last on a "attempt to block with +X intercept" card? If A is acting at 2 Stealth, can B attempt to block with Guardian Vigil, fail, then try again with e.g. Read the Winds for a total +2 intercept?
>
Yes, the intercept gained lasts for the duration of the action.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Pascal wrote:
> I strongly suspect this to be incorrect.
> www.vekn.net/detailed-play-summary reads : NOTE: For each block attempt, resolve the attempt (step C.) before going on to the next attempt.
>
Except that's not what the actual rulebook states:
>
> If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.
>
The Detailed Play Summary uses language that is slightly different than the rulebook. The latter should take precedence. It is the language of the play summary that is most confusing here.
A vampire playing with Eagle's Sight at superior must attempt to block. Following that with Guardian Vigil the vampire must also attempt to block. The vampire is already attempting to block and the text is satisfied. The rulebook does not demarcate blocks as by attempt, merely that an attempt continues until it fails. Forcing a vampire to block that is already blocking is no different that locking a vampire that is already locked. The game state does not change.
Here's how I'd answer these questions:
>
> Pascal wrote:
> - Vampire A has Dominion (Vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block this Black Hand vampire.) and declares an action. Vampire B attempts to block, and during that attempt, would play Eagle's Sight. Does B burn blood twice to Dominion ?
>
This should be no.
> Pascal wrote:
> - Vampire A declares an action. Vampire B attempts to block. Vampire A plays Dawn Operation (or whatever), can vampires B and C play Coterie Tactics (These two vampires attempt to block) ?
>
Well, this is just a poorly worded card. That being said, nothing on Coterie Tactics suggests that you cannot. The original block attempt is still continuing, CT simply "breaks" the base game state by adding the second blocking vampire.
> Ankha wrote:
> This is a good point. Since LSJ's ruling seems weird and makes things convoluted (or maybe there was a confusion with playing Eagle's Sight to attempt to block vs when already attempting to block), I revert his ruling.
>
> You can declare only one block attempt at a time. If the block attempt is not successful, only then can you declare another block attempt.
>
The problem is that you're adding the word "new" into the card text that simply is that there. "This vampire attempts to block" is not "This vampire attempts a new block." The block attempt is continuous until it fails, per the rulebook. So, I don't understand how requiring a vampire to block that is in the process of blocking is illegal. You've just said A=!A.
Furthermore, this add more inelegance to the game than it solves. Now to play these affects you need to fail your block to get a new opportunity to block. So, Vampire A bleeds. Vampire B plays Netwar at chi to unlock Vampire C. Vampire C must attempt to block per card text. Vampire A now plays Faceless Night at superior. Vampire C fails to block because of the new ruling, so that it can play Guardian Vigil at aus/for/cel. Vampire C would still be still be tapped at the end of the action per FN card text. This seems confusing and unintended and much less elegant that allowing the block to continue.
I think LSJ's original ruling is correct. You're satisfying the "attempt to block requirement" by attempting to block. That could be a continuation of a current block attempt or a new one. The requirement is about the attempt, not about a new attempt.
> kschaefer wrote:
> I think LSJ's original ruling is correct. You're satisfying the "attempt to block requirement" by attempting to block. That could be a continuation of a current block attempt or a new one. The requirement is about the attempt, not about a new attempt.
>
The earlier ruling of [LSJ 20050708] makes that much clearer.
> Since Eagle's Sight at [AUS] causes a block attempt, don't you lose the
> window in which to play Black Sunrise (to untap and attempt to block)?
No. You may attempt to block while attempting to block. It is
indeed difficult to do otherwise.
That is, when a vampire who is not attempting to block plays a card that attempts a block, the vampire attempts a new one. When a vampire who is already attempting to block plays a card that makes that attempt to block, they (redundantly) continue that attempt.
(Ankha can still reverse the ruling if he wants, but it would be helpful to actually understand what is being reversed before doing so.)
jamesatzephyr's ruling seems by far the clearest and one I personally would endorse if my vote mattered. I'm sure there are other card ruling issues which could benefit from this redundancy principle.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Thanks for your inputs. I couldn't find a previous double "attempt to block" ruling despite my research.
I'm aiming towards consistency, but also logical and "intuitive" rules (so that people get it right from the start most of the time).
There are two ways to see things:
- I'm attempting to block, and I play a card that redundantly makes me attempt to block with the same vampire
- I'm attempting to block, and I want to use a card that would declare a block attempt with the same vampire.
The rulebook says:
- [The Methuselahs] may use their ready unlocked minions to attempt to block the action
- [The action] can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator
- If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final.
Nothing says here that attempts must be made one by one. One could say that they have multiple ongoing block attempts. But anyway, at some point, the defending player has to declare that her minion B is attempting to block, or "decide" that she's not making "any further attempts to block".
That's what the Detailed Play Summary tries to outline.
The question is: since you declare at some point that B attempts to block, is it logical to declare a block attempt during the same block attempt, or is it more logical to handle block attempts one by one? LSJ's ruling says both, because he avoids the "declare" part: "You may attempt to block while attempting to block." He considers that it's the same block attempt, because it's the same minion.
Back to the rulebook. How would this be written in one wanted to describe more precisely the course of a block attempt?
1/ Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. Block attempts are made one at a time (additional block attempts made by the blocking minion during that block attempt count as the same block attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.
2/ Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. A Methuselah declares her block attempts one at a time (a minion can't declare a block attempt if there is already an ongoing block attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be declared as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes..
Both would be valid. Give me more time to decide.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
From my experience, players use option 1 without reflecting upon it since there hasn't been clear rule against it. Also, more freedom may be better that a lot of restrictions about which cards you may play in a certain window, especially when learning the game.
Overkill is highly underrated. You know, like in computor games and such.
Reading all of the above answers I must say that when I was be a beginner, VTES players learned me to interpret this rule as have stated here jamesatzephyr and agzocgud.
example: minion A bleed metuzalem B,metuzalem B declare no block atempt. minion C (whu is controling any other metuzalem,example metuzalem D) play Wake with Evenings Freshness and Eagle Sight (sup) and after that him can play Black Sunrise (or Sense to Savage Way) to untap and continue block
I think a rulebook clean up is the best way to handle this. I appreciate the proposed options.
I think option 1 is better because it maintains the current state of the game. I agree with agzocgud's comments that it makes blocking simpler and easier to understand.
Here's my edit of version 1 to clear up potential issues (Ankha's changes in bold, mine in red):
Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. Block attempts are made one at a time (if a minion is already attempting to block, additional block attempts made by the blocking same minion during that block attempt count as the same block continue the original attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.
Replaced blocking with same because minion is not blocking, they are attempting to block. same adequately identifies the attempting minion.
Replaced during that block attempt count as the same block with continue the original. This is more clear that the original attempt has never ended, we are simply continuing it in the same way as if we added a simple intercept card.
> kschaefer wrote:
> Replaced blocking with same because minion is not blocking, they are attempting to block. same adequately identifies the attempting minion.
>
"Blocking minion" and "minion attempting to block" are the same. Check the rulebook glossary: "Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action."
There will always be room for doubt whatever terms are used, or whatever system is used to define block attempts. This may be an additional proof of it.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > kschaefer wrote:
> > Replaced blocking with same because minion is not blocking, they are attempting to block. same adequately identifies the attempting minion.
> >
> "Blocking minion" and "minion attempting to block" are the same. Check the rulebook glossary: "Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action."
>
> There will always be room for doubt whatever terms are used, or whatever system is used to define block attempts. This may be an additional proof of it.
>
Or perhaps this bit in the glossary perpetuates this confusion? Attempting to block and blocking are two distinct game mechanisms. The glossary fudges the line between the two mechanisms in its definition of "blocking minion." That definition, while probably helpful in determining certain card effects, is inconsistent with the game mechanism concepts outlined in the rulebook. Thus the confusion.
You've stated previously that you don't support use of the detailed play summary because of the problems it causes due to its inconsistencies with the rule book. If that's your modus operandi, why support that definition of "blocking minion" in the glossary?
> Ankha wrote:
> 1/ Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. Block attempts are made one at a time (additional block attempts made by the blocking minion during that block attempt count as the same block attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.
> 2/ Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. A Methuselah declares her block attempts one at a time (a minion can't declare a block attempt if there is already an ongoing block attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be declared as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes..
>
Independently of the current issue, I believe the paragraph is beyond patching at this point. It needs to be rewritten. Just one example:
>
> If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final. As a convenience, when a card describes an action that is typically directed at another Methuselah, the card's text will usually include a symbol as a reminder that the action is typically directed.
>
(Emphasis mine.) The beginning is about directed/undirected, the end is about directed/undirected, but what is the bold section doing in the middle of that? The logical flow is broken.
First of all, I would change the title to "Block attempts". "Who may?" is only one of the questions that this paragraph must answer, and the reason we are having problems now is that the whole sequencing aspect was just an afterthought at the time of writing.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > kschaefer wrote:
> > > Replaced blocking with same because minion is not blocking, they are attempting to block. same adequately identifies the attempting minion.
> > >
> > >
> > "Blocking minion" and "minion attempting to block" are the same. Check the rulebook glossary: "Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action."
> >
> > There will always be room for doubt whatever terms are used, or whatever system is used to define block attempts. This may be an additional proof of it.
> >
> Or perhaps this bit in the glossary perpetuates this confusion? Attempting to block and blocking are two distinct game mechanisms.
>
It's no more confusing that "attempt to block" vs. "declare a block attempt". And "attempting to block" and "blocking" are the same (or two different views of the same thing).
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> The glossary fudges the line between the two mechanisms in its definition of "blocking minion." That definition, while probably helpful in determining certain card effects, is inconsistent with the game mechanism concepts outlined in the rulebook.
>
No. The game mechanism concepts outlines in the rulebook heavily uses "blocking minion" as "mining attempting to block":
"If a block attempt is successful, then the blocking minion locks..." "Intercept represents the blocking minion's efforts..." "To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept."
>
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> You've stated previously that you don't support use of the detailed play summary because of the problems it causes due to its inconsistencies with the rule book. If that's your modus operandi, why support that definition of "blocking minion" in the glossary?
>
Because the glossary is part of the rulebook.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Independently of the current issue, I believe the paragraph is beyond patching at this point. It needs to be rewritten.
>
This is a two-step process. First, patch the existing rulebook. Then, provide a new rulebook (which is an ongoing task).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> "Blocking minion" and "minion attempting to block" are the same. Check the rulebook glossary: "Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action."
>
Thanks. I had forgotten that we could use those terms interchangeably. It feels a little awkward, but I guess the phrase "the minion attempting to block" is rather cumbersome if used repeatedly.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> The rulebook says:
> - [The Methuselahs] may use their ready unlocked minions to attempt to block the action
> - [The action] can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator
> - If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final.
>
> Nothing says here that attempts must be made one by one. One could say that they have multiple ongoing block attempts. But anyway, at some point, the defending player has to declare that her minion B is attempting to block, or "decide" that she's not making "any further attempts to block".
>
> That's what the Detailed Play Summary tries to outline.
>
> The question is: since you declare at some point that B attempts to block, is it logical to declare a block attempt during the same block attempt, or is it more logical to handle block attempts one by one? LSJ's ruling says both, because he avoids the "declare" part: "You may attempt to block while attempting to block." He considers that it's the same block attempt, because it's the same minion.
>
In my opinion it would be logical to allow a second "wakes/untaps and attempts to block" cards to be played by same minion during a single blocking attempt because:
The second card does not contradict the first one. First wake forces the minion to attempt to block. Second wake is not trying to make the minion to do something OTHER than block, So the second "attempt to block" should simply be redundant. There is no logical contradiction and thus the second wake should be allowed to be played in my opinion.
The idea of forcing blocking attempts to be resolved one at a time can create problems with both overcomplicating the rules (as exemplified by posts in this thread) and making rules difficult to understand by beginners. If blocking attempts are redundant, I believe most blocking situations would be simple to handle.
This rule may allow players to cycle cards during a blocking attempt slightly easier, but most cards that I can think of already have an in-built restriction or penalty that discourages/prevents multiples to be played during a single block attempt. Qui vive can only be played once per minion per turn. Wake with evenings freshness is not replaced. Eluding the arms of morpheus costs blood, Black sunrise untaps the minion and is only playable by a tapped vampire, and so on. I dont see that this rule would "break things".
This whole thing is a bit of a "glass is half full /half empty" thing. If something is not explicitly forbidden, is it allowed? If something is not explicitly allowed, is it forbidden? I personally belong in the "if something is not explicitly forbidden, it is allowed" camp. This way, rules questions tend to be simpler, more intuitive and easier to handle.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Based on LSJ's ruling,
Based on agzocgud's comment about leaving more freedom to block rather than restricting options arbitrarily,
I revert my previous ruling.
The rulebook will be updated this way:
> 1. Who May Attempt to Block: If the action targets one or more other Methuselahs (or things controlled by other Methuselahs), then the action is called directed, and only the Methuselahs who are targeted (or control the targets) may use their ready unlocked minions to attempt to block the action (going clockwise from the acting Methuselah, as usual). If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. A minion can attempt to block as long as another minion is not already blocking. If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final. As a convenience, when a card describes an action that is typically directed at another Methuselah, the card's text will usually include a symbol as a reminder that the action is typically directed. Remember, political actions are always undirected.
>
> 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."
>
This covers the "nothing prevents me from blocking with two minions at a time" and clarifies the OP question: minions can play cards that make them "attempt to block" when they are already attempting to block.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> And "attempting to block" and "blocking" are the same (or two different views of the same thing).
>
Sorry Ankha, but you are incorrect there. Attempting to block is the phase before blocks occur, after block declarations are made, and is contiguous with making block declarations. A blocking minion is one who has successfully blocked an action. Not the same at all.
> Blooded wrote:
> Sorry Ankha, but you are incorrect there. Attempting to block is the phase before blocks occur, after block declarations are made, and is contiguous with making block declarations. A blocking minion is one who has successfully blocked an action. Not the same at all.
>
Sorry Blooded Sand, but you are incorrect there. The term "blocking minion" includes one who is currently attempting to block.
From the Rules Glossary in the rulebook (which has already been quoted in this thread):
Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action.
See also:
Elder Impersonation, which does not require the target to be successfully blocking:
Only usable when a minion attempts to block. The attempt fails (do not tap that blocking minion). That minion cannot attempt to block this action again.
Crocodile's Tongue, which does not require the target to be successfully blocking:
Only usable when an ally or a younger vampire attempts to block. That block is canceled (the minion is not tapped). The blocking minion's controller cannot attempt to block this action again. The blocking minion can cancel this card by burning a blood or life.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Blooded wrote:
> > Sorry Ankha, but you are incorrect there. Attempting to block is the phase before blocks occur, after block declarations are made, and is contiguous with making block declarations. A blocking minion is one who has successfully blocked an action. Not the same at all.
> >
> Sorry Blooded Sand, but you are incorrect there. The term "blocking minion" includes one who is currently attempting to block.
>
You're both correct. That is, until the rulebook is rewritten so that glossary definitions don't contradict the main text.
Current ruling on " Eluding the arms of morpheus " read: "Can be used by a vampire who is already attempting to block."
Considering the following scenario:
Player A: declares an action with +1 stealth.
Player B: plays Eyes of Argus and another card that gives his vampire +1 Intercept, declaring a block. While replacing his cards Player B draws an "Eluding the arms of morpheus" and decides to play it as well. Nonetheless, Player A shouts "blocked" just after +1 intercept, while Player B is still playing his cards.
In the light of the current ruling and the discussion above, is Player B allowed to play his "Eluding the arms of morpheus"?
Player B can play as many cards as he wants/allowed to play and only after that he passes the impulse to player A. What player A shouts or not do not relevant.
> Miller wrote:
> Current ruling on " Eluding the arms of morpheus " read: "Can be used by a vampire who is already attempting to block."
>
> Considering the following scenario:
>
> Player A: declares an action with +1 stealth.
>
> Player B: plays Eyes of Argus and another card that gives his vampire +1 Intercept, declaring a block. While replacing his cards Player B draws an "Eluding the arms of morpheus" and decides to play it as well. Nonetheless, Player A shouts "blocked" just after +1 intercept, while Player B is still playing his cards.
>
> In the light of the current ruling and the discussion above, is Player B allowed to play his "Eluding the arms of morpheus"?
>
Player A plays as many cards as they want, and only then passes the impulse to player B. Player B plays as many of their cards as they want, and player A gets the opportunity to play cards again.
Player B can play multiple cards in a row before they pass the impulse back, so playing eluding in this case is allowed.
Its very common (and an unfortunate fault) for timing rules in VTES to force players to backtrack what they did in order to follow the rules.. Question of who has the opportunity to play which cards in what window is very muddled.
For example, vast majority of time players do not have a direct intervention in their hand. But it is played in basically earliest possible window, and affects cards which can be played afterwards. Therefore players are often forced to backtrack their plays when someone actually HAS a DI and wants to use it, because pausing to ask "do you have a DI" After every single played card is clumsy as all hell.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Squencing rules are indeed complicated. From the rulebook:
Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to use the next card or effect.
So actually, player A may play as many cards as they want, impuls then goes to B, B play Eyes of Argus, impulse goes back to A, they pass impulse to B with B playing intercept and so on.
However, the call "blocked" is not a call for player A to make. In fact, after B has played sufficient intercept, player A can either play more cards or pass. If A passes, then B can either play another card or pass. Only if B passes at this point the action is blocked. However, B can play Eluding the Arms of Morpheus instead, giving A another opportunity to play a card.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Yomyael wrote:
> Squencing rules are indeed complicated. From the rulebook:
>
> Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to use the next card or effect.
>
> So actually, player A may play as many cards as they want, impuls then goes to B, B play Eyes of Argus, impulse goes back to A, they pass impulse to B with B playing intercept and so on.
>
> However, the call "blocked" is not a call for player A to make. In fact, after B has played sufficient intercept, player A can either play more cards or pass. If A passes, then B can either play another card or pass. Only if B passes at this point the action is blocked. However, B can play Eluding the Arms of Morpheus instead, giving A another opportunity to play a card.
>
Correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Yomyael wrote:
> > Squencing rules are indeed complicated. From the rulebook:
> >
> > Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to use the next card or effect.
> >
> > So actually, player A may play as many cards as they want, impuls then goes to B, B play Eyes of Argus, impulse goes back to A, they pass impulse to B with B playing intercept and so on.
> >
> > However, the call "blocked" is not a call for player A to make. In fact, after B has played sufficient intercept, player A can either play more cards or pass. If A passes, then B can either play another card or pass. Only if B passes at this point the action is blocked. However, B can play Eluding the Arms of Morpheus instead, giving A another opportunity to play a card.
> >
> Correct.
>
Exactly how I thought of it ... thanks - )