|
Related Topics:
| Dumb Reindoctrination questions - [LoB:C] Cardtype: Action Clan: antitribu Cost: 2 blood +1 stealth action. Choose a younger Gargoyle. That Gargoyle loses any existing slave status and becomes a slave to this acting vampire's clan. Take control of the..
Dumb Zhenga timing question - Zhenga announces a recruit action or employ action, she may burn X blood. If the action succeeds, she may recruit and employ up to X allies and retainers from your hand (pay cost as So, let's say Zhenga Clan to..
Louisiana: North American Qualifier: Hell's Fool - I would like to invite everyone to the North American Hell's Fool that is going to be held at 12 noon on April 1st, 2006 in LA at the Day's Inn on If you are going to be renting a room we have a special $45..
Advanced Beckett and Freak Drive - Say I have advanced beckett and I'm sent to torpor during combat after being blocked. Is there a window after combat but before I head off to torpor and discard my hand during which I can play Freak Drive? --George
Saulot-Gargoyle Trophy - Deck Name : Trophy Author : Norman S. Brown Jr : The ULTIMATE DECK! Get out Saulot. Get out a Titled Malk. Use Titled Malk to Sibyl's tongue a Clan Clan Saulot to Gargoyle. Go To Town with Raking..
|
|
|
Next: Next yardsale announcement
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Oct 19, 2005 Posts: 16
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:55 pm
Post subject: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's Archived from groups: rec>games>trading-cards>jyhad (more info?)
|
|
|
Situation 1:
Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
(or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
guess yes and yes.)
Situation 2:
Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.
Appolonius. >> Stay informed about: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Aug 30, 2006 Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:55 pm
Post subject: Re: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Appolonius kirjoitti:
> Situation 1:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
> (or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
> Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
> specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
> so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
> guess yes and yes.)
>
As Meth A can ask wheter or not Meth B blocks, he also declines to play
further action mods to that action at that point (that is, before B
decides if he blocks). Then, B must decide wheter or not he blocks A.
Wheter B answers yes or no, A may play action modifier (stealth, bleed
enhancer etc.) and then B may play reaction modifier (Telepathic
Misdirection at superior etc. or another Telepathic Counter if B has
other minion who is able to play the card in question).
> Situation 2:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
> to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
> Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
> was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
> been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
>
When a Meth declines to block an action, that Meth cannot attempt to
block during that action. So no.
> Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.
>
> Appolonius.
Regards
- jussi >> Stay informed about: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 08, 2006 Posts: 42
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:20 am
Post subject: Re: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Appolonius wrote:
> Situation 1:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
> (or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
> Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
> specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
> so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
> guess yes and yes.)
If Meth B declines to block, the Meth declines to block. Onces Meth B
declines to block, it's set in stone unless it gets bounced to him
again. So you are correct.
At least in mu opinion...
> Situation 2:
> Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
> to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
> Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
> was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
> been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
Your right again, Meth B does not get a new chance to block.
> Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.
>
> Appolonius. >> Stay informed about: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 14, 2004 Posts: 649
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:54 am
Post subject: Re: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jussi wrote:
> Appolonius kirjoitti:
> > Situation 1:
> > Meth A bleeds Meth B. B plays Telepathic Counter and reduces it to zero
> > (or lower). Before playing any modifiers, Meth A inquires as to whether
> > Meth B will attempt to block the bleed for zero. Does Meth B have to
> > specify at this stage whether they will block the bleed for zero, and if
> > so is that decision binding in the face of further modifiers? (I would
> > guess yes and yes.)
>
> As Meth A can ask wheter or not Meth B blocks, he also declines to play
> further action mods to that action at that point (that is, before B
> decides if he blocks). Then, B must decide wheter or not he blocks A.
>
> Wheter B answers yes or no, A may play action modifier (stealth, bleed
> enhancer etc.) and then B may play reaction modifier (Telepathic
> Misdirection at superior etc. or another Telepathic Counter if B has
> other minion who is able to play the card in question).
Correct.
> > Situation 2:
> > Meth A bleeds Meth B. B declines to block, then later plays Deflection
> > to bounce the bleed to Meth C. C cancels the Deflection as played with a
> > Terra Incognita. Does Meth B now get another opportunity to block, or
> > was her earlier decision not to block binding since the bleed has not
> > been retargeted? (I would guess she does not get another opportunity.)
Correct.
> When a Meth declines to block an action, that Meth cannot attempt to
> block during that action. So no.
Correct enough here. But note that if the bleed is successfully
Deflected away and then Deflected back to the original Methuselah, that
Methuselah would get another chance to block. >> Stay informed about: (LSJ) A couple of dumb blocking Q's |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|