'As it is played' timing

Once the block fails, the window for playing DI has, way, way, waaaaaay been closed.

That A replaces too fast is not an issue (unless he was acting out of turn and replaced with a Sudden...) and you can easily play the DI afterwards without changing the gamestate.

-C: waitwaitwaitwaitwait. If you cannot block, DI on the stealth card

This is incorrect play. Player C should be saying "hold on I may want to DI" as soon as the stealth is played and then start talking. He can't act like nothing is happening and once things stop going his way play the DI.

This leads to kinda awkward situations obviously, but so does Eagles Sight.

Kiddo wrote:

I have a question regarding, specifically DI, but also all the cards like that one, with 'as it is played' clause. I'll give you a specific example from the last night's game:

My pred was playing some politics (that would have been hurtful for both me and my prey) and I, Ahrimane player, decided to block. He went to +4 stealth (via 3 additional cards) against my current +3 intercept, at which point I sad that my current blocker can't catch his vamp and that I needed to think for a second because I had another wake in my hand and a vamp that might be able to catch him. After about a 10 second deliberation, I decided against another block attempt (this was perhaps altogether 30 seconds after he obtained his +4 stealth). At this point my prey plays DI on my pred's card for fourth stealth, making my block successful. No cards have been played between fourth stealth card and DI and no further actions attempted or declared and referendum has not yet been started.

So, my pred argued that DI has been played too late and not in direct response to a card played, I argued that the window is still there since no other card nor action has been played, declared or attempted.

Who was right?

Depends on the judge,
Most (and what I really mean is at least 75%) of the questions asked to a judge are asked because players skip announcing phases.
- "But I wanted to use this in my untap phase"
- "He just played Tates of Vitae and now wants to press"
- "We wanted to DI the card, but he played Seduction"
- ,,,

There's nothing much I can say except "Don't skip phases", I know it's a pain, I also know it's a bigger pain to try to resolve these issues.

So, for cards that are important, I would really recommend asking for DIs or Suddens/...

Or, if you have the DI, just say "Wait... I might want to ID that" as the card is played.

Izaak wrote:

Once the block fails, the window for playing DI has, way, way, waaaaaay been closed.

I'd agree with you if only two players are involved in the action and the blocking player wants to DI anything.
However, it is not so easy for a third party (any other player) to know or recognize a block is not about to succeed (since he has no knowledge of blocking player's cards in hand) and so any intervention on his part is bound to be preceded by a small pause or gap in play. I believe he cannot be expected to act instantaneously, as something that is expected from a blocking player.

I think that it should be the cancelling player's duty to be ready to call out a cancelling effect, even if someone else has the impulse. Play gets too ponderous when you have to wait to see if every card is going to be cancelled.

I've been thinking about what kind of practical policy makes sense for casual and tournament play. This is what I came up with:

It is reasonable to rewind one step if the player with the impulse declared a card or effect immediately after the card to be cancelled, thus leaving no time at all for another player's verbal interjection. Verbal timing should be the only reason for the rewind - there should be no evidence that the cancelling player had been fishing for information.

In the example given, if B had declared "No block" at the same moment that A replaced his stealth card, C should have been able to IMMEDIATELY make a verbal interjection. The interjection could have been "I wanted to DI that stealth card", or even "Wait a second, B!" In that case, it would be reasonable to rewind the step in which player B declares "no block" to the playing of the stealth card.

However, in the example given, C made it obvious that he was waiting to see if B had additional intercept before playing his DI. It is also not obvious that C didn't have time after the stealth card was declared to make a verbal interjection. It seems reasonable to rule that C could no longer play the DI.

However, it is not so easy for a third party (any other player) to know or recognize a block is not about to succeed (since he has no knowledge of blocking player's cards in hand) and so any intervention on his part is bound to be preceded by a small pause or gap in play. I believe he cannot be expected to act instantaneously, as something that is expected from a blocking player.

No. I disagree with this for a fundamental reason here.

In the example, the third player wants to play his DI based on extra information. Information that he couldn't possibly have because -indeed- he can't see the defending players' hand. Because he waited for the defending player failing the block, he was fishing for extra information that he could not legally have and therefore he misplayed the DI.

If you want to DI the stealth card, you have two options:

1) Do it immediately as it is played without waiting it out to fish for information.
2) Announce you are considering it immediately and then start asking the defending player if he would fail the block, would the DI not be played before you decide.

Waiting for the failed block and then jumping in is without exception misplay.

Of course, I understand that players that actually like to move the game forward don't pause for 15 seconds after each played card so the DI-window might be a bit short. That, among many other reasons is of course why Di should be banned from tournament play. Not because it's too strong, but because it disrupts play.

There's a reason blue permission in MtG is loathed like a plague, and especially in EDH (MtG multiplayer, that's absolutely spanking VtES in FLGS presence). "Golden Bullets" slow down play into permission games. Also been a reason why modern design team keeps an eye how much 'blue counterspell' is available in the current block.

Sudden/Wash affects a tight subset of cards, with a generally small and expected window. The Jones, reflex cards, et al. are very specific -- silver bullets -- and we may argue that specific timing forces the player of such cards to be pro-active about its timing window. DIs are just so general -- 'golden bullets,' like Counterspell -- that people get sloppy about timing. And VtES doesn't have an explicit "Stack Resolves," an unarguable closing of the response window like MtG, (we have "did you draw up yet?" instead,) so it's even uglier than MtG.

It's just Bad. For. The. Game. because it interferes with Playing. The. Game.

First, and cleanest, solution: ban DIs and other golden bullets. Specific hosers already cornercase themselves into manageable silver bullet territory.
Second solution: completely alter VtES resolution timing, migrate text and issue reams of errata.
Third solution: ask players not to be sloppy, stalling punters, and ignore DI judge calls during tourneys with "did you speak up about you maybe DI'ing before or during the draw to replace? no? well, you're supposed to be pro-active about your DI, so too bad. No rewind, play continues."