Eagle's Sight Window, and declaration.

B-)

se Sadly, id have to agree with Kevin here. If he were amongst your playing group or friends then that signal should have been to signify a "no block" intent. But if he's going to stick to the rules and find loopholes in every system or play, then he's not a player worth playing with. I for one avoid oath breakers as well, like those who would say "ill support you on the diablerie, but then vote to burn you instead". There has to be a little friendship and camarederie in games or at least professionalism, if they cant muster it drop them off like the douche bags they are.

Pascal wrote:

Declining to block is not an effect that gives the impulse back to the acting player. The impulse is given back only when a player declares a block attempt, or when all players have passed.

Rulebook wrote:

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.

Am I correct in understanding that this is the only window for blocking? That there is no way for a player to pass priority back to the acting player without declining block?

Basically, I'm asking if this passage means that any indication for the acting player to proceed passes block [bin addition to priority[/b]? "Go On", "Play your cards", etc.

blackday wrote:

I for one avoid oath breakers as well, like those who would say "ill support you on the diablerie, but then vote to burn you instead". There has to be a little friendship and camarederie in games or at least professionalism, if they cant muster it drop them off like the douche bags they are.

Lying is permitted by the rules. Of course you will never make such a deal with that player again. But he played perfectly in the sense of the game (he also would have if he honoured the deal of course).

I think a correct announcement like "block" or "no block" isn't that hard to do and helps smoothing the game flow. Just play it right and no such annoying things will happen. And we don't have to think about if somebody is an **** we don't like to play with anymore.

Malcolm wrote:

Basically, I'm asking if this passage means that any indication for the acting player to proceed passes block [bin addition to priority[/b]? "Go On", "Play your cards", etc.

Why not just demand a "Block, or no block" declaration? Then you don't need to ask questions about obscure phrases, because you are 100% absolutely positively conclusively crystal clear.

I had a similar problem some time ago, on the occasion I was blocked after the action was resolved and even after having passed the turn to my prey, even so, because I didn't ask every player on the table if they wished to block, and consequently, they didn't said the words "I don't block", the judge ruled that my predator could (and did) blocked me with Anneke.

At the time I though I was beeing cheated by my predator and the judge, but in the old forum, LSJ said the judge was right.

However, I still don't see how needing to ask all players on the table if they wish to block, and having them spoke the words "No" or "No block" for every action in the game will be good for the game, I, for instance, take 3 to 6 actions per turn in middle game usually, that is too much interruptions to the game flow.

I'm not saying that I'm correct, I just think that there must be a more efficient way of doing it and I'd love to hear from the community.