Declining blocks impulse, Conditioning and Eagle's Sight

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 That being said the ruling is outdated because of the wording in the current rulebook.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.