No Block Declaration & Eagle Sight

Dorrinal wrote:

Follow up question, vaguely related.

Player A declares a bleed.
Player B declares no block.
Player A increases the bleed with Conditioning.
Player C plays Eagle's Sight to block.

Argument erupts!
Player A claims that he is able to take back the Conditioning because blocks had been declined before he played it.

Only B declined. C has said nothing in your scenario.

Dorrinal wrote:

Player C claims that Player A has the right to play Conditioning at any time; therefore, he should ask for blocks from the AUS player explicitly first.

Sure. It's always better to ask AUS/SPI guys around the table when the action is quite important.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Ankha wrote:

Only B declined. C has said nothing in your scenario.

However, that silence might be taken to be a declaration of "no blocks", just as saying nothing for a sufficient period of time may be taken to indicate that you're not playing Direct Intervention, or have no votes to cast in a referendum, or that another player isn't going to use Heidelberg so you can move on to your next action etc.

My original answer contained something like this, but it's wrong to assume that saying nothing means you don't interact. It's usually the reverse in fact: people thinking about interacting are usually silent at the beginning.

Classical case is playing a DI on an action. Player A announces some critical unexpected action. Player B has a DI, but he must think whether or not he's going to DI that, or maybe DI the stealth... People tend to concentrate in that case and be silent. He could say "wait! I may DI" but then he would give away the information he has a DI before thinking whether it's pertinent or not to DI in the end.

Or in the OP scenario, if A bleeds B and B has already begun to remove his pool, C could still be thinking about playing the Eagle's Sight or not.

C can't be denied the opportunity to interact by players playing too fast. But people can't react neither 5 minutes later saying "hey, I may DI that card". Add in some cases where people are already negociating the terms of a political action when the vote is played and player C leave them talk to know where the game is heading before DIing or not. After all, it's not clear whether they're still in the "as played" window or not.

So it's entirely up to the judge to say if A played too fast or not, and if C has still the opportunity to interact, and whether the situation should be rollbacked or not.

With the OP scenario, we could imagine that C "wakes up" after B has burned his pool and A begun a new action, but without playing fast. Judge could decide C had plenty of time to react but didn't.

Or A and B played fast, someone talked about playing maybe a Major Boon, etc. then B starts burning his pool, and C was about to play an Eagle's Sight. Judge could decide that C can play his Eagle's Sight, even after A played the Conditioning.