- Player A bleeds
- Player B, their prey, declines to block
- Player A plays a Conditioning
- Player C wants to block with Eagle's Sight
Q: Should player A take Conditioning back in hand?
On the grounds that declining to block is just passing, and that A does not get the impulse back before C gets the opportunity to block and play Eagle's Sight.
In essence, if you want to play Conditioning after blocks are declined, it's necessarily after all blocks are declined: C does not get an opportunity to "trick" A into playing their Conditioning before they decide whether to block or not.
I think this makes sense, but it looks like an updated ruling would be nice.
Relevant recent post with rulings links, discussion summary and rulebook excerpts.
OMG ... Does this mean, the sequence "regular block declined" => "bleed modifier played" => "Eagle's Sight block announced" is illegal play under ANY circumstances? And has EVER been so?
So many, many games that would have taken a different course ...
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> OMG ... Does this mean, the sequence "regular block declined" => "bleed modifier played" => "Eagle's Sight block announced" is illegal play under ANY circumstances? And has EVER been so?
> So many, many games that would have taken a different course ...
>
Most likely yes but not necessarily...really depends on if any effects are played (or not) at which point the acting could choose to play additional modifiers or pass and wait for the table to have declined to block which opens up for the acting again to play modifiers and is normally when one wants to play those,
Consider the following two examples, with five Methuselahs, A-E
Example 1:
A announces a bleed. Impulse back to A.
A declines to play any additional cards. Impulse to B.
B attempts to block. Impulse to A.
A plays stealth. Impulse to B.
B passes. (Note that their minion is still attempting to block because there is no decline to block only fails to block.). Impulse to C.
C locks WMRH to give B's minion intercept. Impulse to A.
A plays stealth. Impulse to B.
B passes. Impulse to C.
C passes. Impulse to D.
D wants to play Eagle's Sight, but cannot because there is still an active albeit failing blocker and E could make that block succeed (theoretically). D passes. Impulse to E.
E passes. Impulse to A.
If A plays Conditioning at this point, they have done so prior to getting any block attempts from C-E. You must resolve one Methuselah's attempts to completely before moving to the next Methuselah. And because other Methuselah's can play effects on the current blocking minion, all of the currently-attempting-to-block-Methuselah's minions must fail to block and all other Methuselah's must pass.
I cannot fathom a way in which that impulse doesn't pass to A for a Conditioning to be played before C-E get a chance to declare block attempts.
Example 2:
A declares a bleed. Impulse to A.
A passes. Impulse to B.
B passes. Impulse to C.
If C wants to play Eagle's Sight now and only now is the time for that. B passing all block attempts immediately puts C in a position to declare block attempts now or forever lose the ability to block.
Summary:
Given everything we know about lip's question, it seems to match example 2. If that is the case, then the illegally played Eagle's Sight must be returned to hand.
From a judging standpoint, this falls into two categories: did another Methuselah's minions attempt to block or not. If so, there is a window where the impulse moves back to the acting Methuselah before more block attempts can be made.
> Hakuron wrote:
> OMG ... Does this mean, the sequence "regular block declined" => "bleed modifier played" => "Eagle's Sight block announced" is illegal play under ANY circumstances? And has EVER been so?
> So many, many games that would have taken a different course ...
>
I think Ankha only described a situation, when C wanted to play ES after GtU, but A rushed with playing Conditioning, without asking for blocks of players other than B. Otherwise, I see no reason why ES couldn't be played after Conditioning, if C has not declared he is not blocking, i.e.:
- Player A bleeds
- Player B, their prey, declines to block
{ A should have asked other players for blocks, too, but he didn't and C has not declared he's not blocking }
- Player A plays a Conditioning
- Player C plays ES.
After all, Conditioning doesn't say "only usable after all blocks have been declined", it can be played even as the action is announced.
> KoRneeshon wrote:
>
> - Player A bleeds
> - Player B, their prey, declines to block
> { A should have asked other players for blocks, too, but he didn't and C has not declared he's not blocking }
> - Player A plays a Conditioning
> - Player C plays ES.
>
The above is not entirely correct (hopefully this is correct and explains a lot of things)
- Player A bleeds, A then passes and impulse goes to prey B
- Player B declines to block, impulse goes to C (a minion declining to block doesn´t reset impulse to the acting)
- Player C plays Eagle´s Sight and attempts to block, impulse goes back to A
- Player A plays stealth and then passes impulse to B
- Player B passes and impulse goes to C (B cannot deflect the bleed because blocks are not yet declined "table state")
- Player C passes and impulse goes to D
- Player D passes and impulse goes to E
- Player E passes and block attempt is failed, the impulse goes back to A
- Player A passes and impulse goes to B (B has declined to block already and cannot choose to do so again)
- Player B passes impulse goes to C
- Player C passes and impulse goes to D (by passing on the opportunity to trigger effects or attempting to block it is considered to be declining to block)
- Player D declines to block and impulse goes to E
- Player E declines to block and impulse goes back to A (the fact that the entire table has declined to block is an impulse resetting event)
- Player A plays bleed modifier and passes impulse to B
- Player B plays Deflection changing the target of the bleed to C and impulse goes back to A (B could have played bleed reduction reaction instead)
- Player A passes and impulse goes to C
- Player C declines to block and impulse continues around the table where all players decline to block (C could have chosen to attempt to block as the choice to decline to block when B was the target is reset, block determination is reset if the target for the bleed is changed)
- Player A gets the impulse back as all have declined to block and chooses not to play any more effects and passes, impulse goes around the table with all players passing.
- Player A gets the impulse back, the bleed action is successful as it isn't blocked and the effect resolves resulting in C burning pool for the bleed (Spying Mission could have been played here before the resolution of the effect to modify it. After effect resolution there is an opportunity for eg Freak Drive etc.)
> KoRneeshon wrote:
> After all, Conditioning doesn't say "only usable after all blocks have been declined", it can be played even as the action is announced.
>
Only cards with explicit text (e.g. "when the action is announced") are played in the "as announced" window and as soon as another card that isn´t played as announced the "as announced" window is closed and no more as announced cards can be played.
> inm8 wrote:
> (...)
> The above is not entirely correct (hopefully this is correct and explains a lot of things)
> (...)
>
Would really like Ankha to confirm this, but I think you're right, due to sequencing rules.
> inm8 wrote:
>
> > KoRneeshon wrote:
> > After all, Conditioning doesn't say "only usable after all blocks have been declined", it can be played even as the action is announced.
> >
> Only cards with explicit text (e.g. "when the action is announced") are played in the "as announced" window and as soon as another card that isn´t played as announced the "as announced" window is closed and no more as announced cards can be played.
>
So I cannot play GtU and (respecting DI etc.) play Conditioning immediately?
The same sequencing rule say:
At every stage, the acting Methuselah always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, they may play another and another.
I see no reason why Condition couldn't be played in "as the action is announced" window.
> KoRneeshon wrote:
>
> > inm8 wrote:
> > Only cards with explicit text (e.g. "when the action is announced") are played in the "as announced" window and as soon as another card that isn´t played as announced the "as announced" window is closed and no more as announced cards can be played.
> >
> So I cannot play GtU and (respecting DI etc.) play Conditioning immediately?
> The same sequencing rule say:
> At every stage, the acting Methuselah always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, they may play another and another.
> I see no reason why Condition couldn't be played in "as the action is announced" window.
>
You can play Govern the Unaligned followed by Conditioning, but there is no “as announced” effects on those cards.
What I meant to clarify is that one cannot play Govern the Unaligned followed by Conditioning and then Seduction (as announced card) because when playing Conditioning the “as announced” window is considered passed and closed…for it to be a legal play one has to play GtU followed by Seduction and then Conditioning.
Govern the Unaligned
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dominate
Bleed with +2 bleed.
+1 stealth action. Add 3 blood to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region.
Conditioning
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dominate
Only usable during a bleed action.
+2 bleed (limited).
+3 bleed (limited).
Warning: Spoiler!
Seduction
[Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PV, CE:C/PV2, BH:PTr2, KoT:C/PV4, SP:PoS4, FB:PV2, NB:PV1]
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Dominate
Only usable as the action is announced.
Choose a younger vampire. The chosen vampire cannot block this action.
As above, but choose any vampire.
Would really like a confirmation from Ankha on this one. I thought that "as announced" is just a time window, so IMO playing GtU, then Conditioning and then Seduction (latter two in the "as announced" window) should be allowed.
If it's not, then it means that only one "as announced" card / effect could be played / used per action, because after that first one, the "as announced" window is closed. Is this the case?
One can play as many "as announced" effects that one can and wants but once one plays an effect that isn´t played in the "as announced" window or pass the impulse the "as announced” window is closed for that action.
> KoRneeshon wrote:
> So I cannot play GtU and (respecting DI etc.) play Conditioning immediately?
>
You can. After every card, the active player has the first opportunity to play cards. This includes after your own govern the unaligned. However, canceling GtU with something like DI is still possible.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> inm8 wrote:
>
> > KoRneeshon wrote:
> >
> > > inm8 wrote:
> > > Only cards with explicit text (e.g. "when the action is announced") are played in the "as announced" window and as soon as another card that isn´t played as announced the "as announced" window is closed and no more as announced cards can be played.
> > >
> > >
> > So I cannot play GtU and (respecting DI etc.) play Conditioning immediately?
> > The same sequencing rule say:
> > At every stage, the acting Methuselah always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, they may play another and another.
> > I see no reason why Condition couldn't be played in "as the action is announced" window.
> >
> You can play Govern the Unaligned followed by Conditioning, but there is no “as announced” effects on those cards.
>
> What I meant to clarify is that one cannot play Govern the Unaligned followed by Conditioning and then Seduction (as announced card) because when playing Conditioning the “as announced” window is considered passed and closed…for it to be a legal play one has to play GtU followed by Seduction and then Conditioning.
>
> Govern the Unaligned
>
> Cardtype: Action
> Cost: 1 blood
> Discipline: Dominate
> Bleed with +2 bleed.
> +1 stealth action. Add 3 blood to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region.
>
> Conditioning
>
> Cardtype: Action Modifier
> Cost: 1 blood
> Discipline: Dominate
> Only usable during a bleed action.
> +2 bleed (limited).
> +3 bleed (limited).
>
> Warning: Spoiler!
>
> Seduction
> [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PV, CE:C/PV2, BH:PTr2, KoT:C/PV4, SP:PoS4, FB:PV2, NB:PV1]
> Cardtype: Action Modifier
> Discipline: Dominate
> Only usable as the action is announced.
> Choose a younger vampire. The chosen vampire cannot block this action.
> As above, but choose any vampire.
>
Correct.
> inm8 wrote:
> One can play as many "as announced" effects that one can and wants but once one plays an effect that isn´t played in the "as announced" window or pass the impulse the "as announced” window is closed for that action.
>
Also correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Joscha wrote:
> You should always ask the AUS player, wether he likes to block, before going on. Then you should be safe.
>
Clearly, there is a conflict of interest if the acting is expected to be reminding other players that they should check if they want to play something at each stage of the game.
> Joscha wrote:
> You should always ask the AUS player, wether he likes to block, before going on. Then you should be safe.
>
Indeed.
Then again, sometimes a player forgets to do certain things and you don't necessarily want to remind of them the things they might've forgotten...
Wait a while after the target of the bleed is declined, quickly look through the other players, say something in the lines of "since there are no blocks...", wait a second or two and then modify the bleed.
If critical situation, call judge to observe just in case.
Finnish Politics!
> inm8 wrote:
> One can play as many "as announced" effects that one can and wants but once one plays an effect that isn´t played in the "as announced" window or pass the impulse the "as announced” window is closed for that action.
>
Understood, e.g. stealth boosting action modifier definitely is not played in "as announced" window, because it (usually) requires a block attempt. But what is the reason Conditioning cannot be played in as announced window? "Only usable as the action is announced" is a limitation for some action modifiers so that they cannot be played later during the action, sure. But what makes Conditioning unplayable in "as the action is announced" window?
EDIT: I think I found good reasoning that you're right.
Current Conditioning has this text: "Only usable during a bleed action", so if we assume the action starts after it is announced, then Conditioning cannot be played in the "as the action is announced" window. I was looking at the old card text from HttB that had only "you cannot play another action modifier (...)". Peace
The actual reason why you cannot play Conditioning and other modifiers that don't explicitly say that they are played in the "as announced" window is that the default timing window for modifiers is after action announcement and before action resolution, thus only modifiers with explicit text allowing them to be played outside the default window can do so.
Ankha, can you please also confirm if the below is the correct handling of the sequence for the main point of the topic, thanks.
> inm8 wrote:
> - Player A bleeds, A then passes and impulse goes to prey B
> - Player B declines to block, impulse goes to C (a minion declining to block doesn´t reset impulse to the acting)
> - Player C plays Eagle´s Sight and attempts to block, impulse goes back to A
> - Player A plays stealth and then passes impulse to B
> - Player B passes and impulse goes to C (B cannot deflect the bleed because blocks are not yet declined "table state")
> - Player C passes and impulse goes to D
> - Player D passes and impulse goes to E
> - Player E passes and block attempt is failed, the impulse goes back to A
> - Player A passes and impulse goes to B (B has declined to block already and cannot choose to do so again)
> - Player B passes impulse goes to C
> - Player C passes and impulse goes to D (by passing on the opportunity to trigger effects or attempting to block it is considered to be declining to block)
> - Player D declines to block and impulse goes to E
> - Player E declines to block and impulse goes back to A (the fact that the entire table has declined to block is an impulse resetting event)
> - Player A plays bleed modifier and passes impulse to B
> - Player B plays Deflection changing the target of the bleed to C and impulse goes back to A (B could have played bleed reduction reaction instead)
> - Player A passes and impulse goes to C
> - Player C declines to block and impulse continues around the table where all players decline to block (C could have chosen to attempt to block as the choice to decline to block when B was the target is reset, block determination is reset if the target for the bleed is changed)
> - Player A gets the impulse back as all have declined to block and chooses not to play any more effects and passes, impulse goes around the table with all players passing.
> - Player A gets the impulse back, the bleed action is successful as it isn't blocked and the effect resolves resulting in C burning pool for the bleed (Spying Mission could have been played here before the resolution of the effect to modify it. After effect resolution there is an opportunity for eg Freak Drive etc.)
>
If it complies with the following rules, then yes:
The action has been announced.
A - there is no current block attempt
1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
2. in addition to any effect that can be used during an action (playing an action modifier or reaction card, using effects of cards in play etc.), a Methuselah who can block (see Who May Attempt to Block) can declare a block attempt, switching to B - there is a current block attempt
3. if a Methuselah passes, that Methuselah cannot declare any block attempt until the end of the action unless the target of the action changes.
4. once every Methuselah has passed, switch to C - blocks have been declined
B - there is a current block attempt
1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
2. the target of the action cannot be changed
3. the Methuselah who has declared the current block attempt may use effects that force the currently blocking to attempt to block (no other minion can attempt to block until this block attempt is resolved)
4. once every Methuselah has passed, the block attempt is resolved: if it is successful, the action is unsuccessful and blocked. Otherwise, switch back to A - there is no current block attempt
C - blocks have been declined
1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
2. if the target of the action is changed, switch to A - there is no current block attempt
3. once every Methuselah has passed, the action is successful and resolves
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Hakuron wrote:
> OMG ... Does this mean, the sequence "regular block declined" => "bleed modifier played" => "Eagle's Sight block announced" is illegal play under ANY circumstances? And has EVER been so?
> So many, many games that would have taken a different course ...
>
It's illegal if A played a card or effect without having the impulse.
Which is the case if B declines to block (passes the impulse to the next player C) and A plays an effect while C has the impulse.
> inm8 wrote:
> The actual reason why you cannot play Conditioning and other modifiers that don't explicitly say that they are played in the "as announced" window is that the default timing window for modifiers is after action announcement and before action resolution, thus only modifiers with explicit text allowing them to be played outside the default window can do so.
>
Correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> kschaefer wrote:
> Consider the following two examples, with five Methuselahs, A-E
>
> Example 1:
> A announces a bleed. Impulse back to A.
> A declines to play any additional cards. Impulse to B.
> B attempts to block. Impulse to A.
> A plays stealth. Impulse to B.
> B passes. (Note that their minion is still attempting to block because there is no decline to block only fails to block.). Impulse to C.
> C locks WMRH to give B's minion intercept. Impulse to A.
> A plays stealth. Impulse to B.
> B passes. Impulse to C.
> C passes. Impulse to D.
> D wants to play Eagle's Sight, but cannot because there is still an active albeit failing blocker and E could make that block succeed (theoretically). D passes. Impulse to E.
> E passes. Impulse to A.
>
> If A plays Conditioning at this point, they have done so prior to getting any block attempts from C-E. You must resolve one Methuselah's attempts to completely before moving to the next Methuselah. And because other Methuselah's can play effects on the current blocking minion, all of the currently-attempting-to-block-Methuselah's minions must fail to block and all other Methuselah's must pass.
>
> I cannot fathom a way in which that impulse doesn't pass to A for a Conditioning to be played before C-E get a chance to declare block attempts.
>
> Example 2:
> A declares a bleed. Impulse to A.
> A passes. Impulse to B.
> B passes. Impulse to C.
>
> If C wants to play Eagle's Sight now and only now is the time for that. B passing all block attempts immediately puts C in a position to declare block attempts now or forever lose the ability to block.
>
> Summary:
> Given everything we know about lip's question, it seems to match example 2. If that is the case, then the illegally played Eagle's Sight must be returned to hand.
>
> From a judging standpoint, this falls into two categories: did another Methuselah's minions attempt to block or not. If so, there is a window where the impulse moves back to the acting Methuselah before more block attempts can be made.
>
This example 1 is so complicated.
in moment:"C locks WMRH to give B's minion intercept. Impulse to A.
A plays stealth. Impulse to B.
B passes. Impulse to C.
C passes. Impulse to D.
D wants to play Eagle's Sight, but cannot because there is still an active albeit failing blocker and E could make that block succeed (theoretically). D passes. Impulse to E.
E passes. Impulse to A.
If A plays Conditioning at this point, they have done so prior to getting any block attempts from C-E. "
So A plays Conditioning, in this moment,B fail block now
C passes. Impulse to D.
D now can play Eagle's Sight and attempts to block?
if we have this that complicated,then also judge decisions can be optional and not clear.
> beslin wrote:
> This example 1 is so complicated.
> in moment:"C locks WMRH to give B's minion intercept. Impulse to A.
> A plays stealth. Impulse to B.
> B passes. Impulse to C.
> C passes. Impulse to D.
> D wants to play Eagle's Sight, but cannot because there is still an active albeit failing blocker and E could make that block succeed (theoretically). D passes. Impulse to E.
> E passes. Impulse to A.
>
> If A plays Conditioning at this point, they have done so prior to getting any block attempts from C-E. "
>
At this stage B has failed the attempt to block and A does not need to play anything and can just pass the impulse to B to see if a new attempt will be made or not. A can wait till everyone at the table has declined to block which give the impulse back to them to play the Conditioning if they want be sure not to waste it.
> beslin wrote:
> So A plays Conditioning, in this moment,B fail block now
> C passes. Impulse to D.
> D now can play Eagle's Sight and attempts to block?
> if we have this that complicated,then also judge decisions can be optional and not clear.
>
Not clear what you are saying with this... the judge's decision should always be factual, correct, and clear.
> Ankha wrote:
> If it complies with the following rules, then yes:
>
> The action has been announced.
>
> A - there is no current block attempt
> 1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
> 2. in addition to any effect that can be used during an action (playing an action modifier or reaction card, using effects of cards in play etc.), a Methuselah who can block (see Who May Attempt to Block) can declare a block attempt, switching to B - there is a current block attempt
> 3. if a Methuselah passes, that Methuselah cannot declare any block attempt until the end of the action unless the target of the action changes.
> 4. once every Methuselah has passed, switch to C - blocks have been declined
>
> B - there is a current block attempt
> 1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
> 2. the target of the action cannot be changed
> 3. the Methuselah who has declared the current block attempt may use effects that force the currently blocking to attempt to block (no other minion can attempt to block until this block attempt is resolved)
> 4. once every Methuselah has passed, the block attempt is resolved: if it is successful, the action is unsuccessful and blocked. Otherwise, switch back to A - there is no current block attempt
>
> C - blocks have been declined
> 1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
> 2. if the target of the action is changed, switch to A - there is no current block attempt
> 3. once every Methuselah has passed, the action is successful and resolves
>
This is incorrect and based off an old ruling that Floppy made (www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/35703-eagle-s-sight-window-and-declaration#35711) from a version of the rulebook that I am unable to locate. That being said the ruling is outdated because of the wording in the current rulebook.
> Rulebook wrote:
> If a block attempt fails, either another attempt is made or the defending Methuselah declares that they will not make any further attempts to block the action. Note that this declaration is an effect and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects.
>
That makes "declining to block" an "effect." Per the rulebook the acting Methuselah must regain the impulse.
> Rulebook wrote:
> Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to use the next card or effect.
>
There was a change in wording in the first quoted passage from the last version of the rulebook I have (LoB), which used the word "event" instead of "effect." I imagine that this was cleaned up for the improved V5 rulebook, but changed the way the game was "played."
To be fair, the current version of the rulebook's wording and it's effect on how the impulse moves doesn't violate the principal of least surprise like the old wording did. It works how people expect it to work.
That means if A wants to ensure that all Methuselahs decline to block they should ensure that they are asking in a way to indicate that. Either by using a general question, such as, "Are there any blocks?" or by explicitly asking each Methuselah "Do you block?" Otherwise, if the only person that A asks is their prey on a bleed action, there's a chance the someone can step in after a Conditioning is played.
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > If it complies with the following rules, then yes:
> >
> > The action has been announced.
> >
> > A - there is no current block attempt
> > 1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
> > 2. in addition to any effect that can be used during an action (playing an action modifier or reaction card, using effects of cards in play etc.), a Methuselah who can block (see Who May Attempt to Block) can declare a block attempt, switching to B - there is a current block attempt
> > 3. if a Methuselah passes, that Methuselah cannot declare any block attempt until the end of the action unless the target of the action changes.
> > 4. once every Methuselah has passed, switch to C - blocks have been declined
> >
> > B - there is a current block attempt
> > 1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
> > 2. the target of the action cannot be changed
> > 3. the Methuselah who has declared the current block attempt may use effects that force the currently blocking to attempt to block (no other minion can attempt to block until this block attempt is resolved)
> > 4. once every Methuselah has passed, the block attempt is resolved: if it is successful, the action is unsuccessful and blocked. Otherwise, switch back to A - there is no current block attempt
> >
> > C - blocks have been declined
> > 1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
> > 2. if the target of the action is changed, switch to A - there is no current block attempt
> > 3. once every Methuselah has passed, the action is successful and resolves
> >
> This is incorrect and based off an old ruling that Floppy made (www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/35703-eagle-s-sight-window-and-declaration#35711) from a version of the rulebook that I am unable to locate. That being said the ruling is outdated because of the wording in the current rulebook.
>
I disagree, Ankha has it right for below explained reason
www.vekn.net/forum/rulebook/79258-rulebook-potentially-misleading-and-oddly-placed-passages?start=48#108899
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Rulebook wrote:
> > If a block attempt fails, either another attempt is made or the defending Methuselah declares that they will not make any further attempts to block the action. Note that this declaration is an effect and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects.
> >
> That makes "declining to block" an "effect." Per the rulebook the acting Methuselah must regain the impulse.
>
This is wrong and a mistake of removing the wrong portion when making the changes to what is the current rulebook version, the portion that remains is the one LSJ should have removed when adding the one about that it is when all have (table state) declined to block that moves the impulse back to the acting
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Rulebook wrote:
> > Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to use the next card or effect.
> >
> There was a change in wording in the first quoted passage from the last version of the rulebook I have (LoB), which used the word "event" instead of "effect." I imagine that this was cleaned up for the improved V5 rulebook, but changed the way the game was "played."
>
The game has not changed how it is played when it comes to decline to block or how the impulse moves… the error in the rulebooks (both current and previous versions) have clearly been overruled by 3 consecutive RDs
> kschaefer wrote:
> To be fair, the current version of the rulebook's wording and it's effect on how the impulse moves doesn't violate the principal of least surprise like the old wording did. It works how people expect it to work.
>
It is wrong and if played like this the advantage of the acting is decreased which is not intentional but by mistake
> kschaefer wrote:
> That means if A wants to ensure that all Methuselahs decline to block they should ensure that they are asking in a way to indicate that. Either by using a general question, such as, "Are there any blocks?" or by explicitly asking each Methuselah "Do you block?" Otherwise, if the only person that A asks is their prey on a bleed action, there's a chance the someone can step in after a Conditioning is played.
>
Agree and would be the case also when playing according to the rulings
Inm8
I don't want to copy everything again, I will only put the part that is not clear to you.
So,if you see how kschaefer explain scenario,in 1st page this topic. Him say,how D cant block,because there is still acting blocker B,because in theory E can give somehow intercept to B,or maybe can reduce stealth,or something. but E pasess,impulse to A
"If A plays Conditioning at this point, they have done so prior to getting any block attempts from C-E." word from kschaefer
So I asked,if A plays Conditioning,if D can get impulse again to block?
Or actually A cant plays Conditioning,and must give impulse to table again.
so I mean all from C-E,there only declaring how they cannot give intercept to B,or cannot reduce stealth,but B still blocking.
probably I understand wrong.
kschaefer,so if you opinion actualy,to A cannot plays Conditioning,in this moment,and A must give whole table impulse to anyone attempt to block?
or is legal this part,how I continue you scenario:
So A plays Conditioning, in this moment,B fail block now
C passes. Impulse to D.
D now can play Eagle's Sight and attempts to block?
> beslin wrote:
> Inm8
>
> I don't want to copy everything again, I will only put the part that is not clear to you.
> So,if you see how kschaefer explain scenario,in 1st page this topic. Him say,how D cant block,because there is still acting blocker B,because in theory E can give somehow intercept to B,or maybe can reduce stealth,or something. but E pasess,impulse to A
> "If A plays Conditioning at this point, they have done so prior to getting any block attempts from C-E." word from kschaefer
>
Also before knowing if B will make any further attempts t oblock with the same or another minion.
> beslin wrote:
> So I asked,if A plays Conditioning,if D can get impulse again to block?
>
They can but only if both B and C declines to block by playing eg Eagle´s Sight
> beslin wrote:
> Or actually A cant plays Conditioning,and must give impulse to table again.
>
A is allowed to play any relevant effect at this time, but could be doing so without knowing if anyone else is going to block the bleed directed at B, and then passes impulse to B and around the table again.
> beslin wrote:
> so I mean all from C-E,there only declaring how they cannot give intercept to B,or cannot reduce stealth,but B still blocking.
> probably I understand wrong.
>
A block attempt fails once the impulse has gone around the table completely while the stealth of the action is greater than what the intercept of the attempting to block minion is...then impulse goes back to A which normally passes at this stage but can play more effects if they want to followed by further attempts to block or declines to block.
> beslin wrote:
> kschaefer,so if you opinion actualy,to A cannot plays Conditioning,in this moment,and A must give whole table impulse to anyone attempt to block?
> or is legal this part,how I continue you scenario:
> So A plays Conditioning, in this moment,B fail block now
> C passes. Impulse to D.
> D now can play Eagle's Sight and attempts to block?
>
It is legal and can play out as described by you here above
thanks inm8,I also hope how kschaefer will confirm this scenario,because him start it.
and ofc Ankha confirmation will be welcome.
so end in end Conditioning can be played before or after Eagle's Sight,both is legal.
when B fail block,and all passes to give B intercept,A can play Conditioning,or 1st can ask: any block,if all declare no block attempt,after that A can play Conditioning.