About blocking D-actions, Eagle Sight and blocking window

Ankha wrote:

Sure, but since most players play their Conditioning right after their prey has declined to block, very often you can't blame the player that wants to play Eagle Sight to have waited too long.

Hence the open question "Any blocks?" to the whole table. A conversation like:

A: "Watenda bleeds for 1. Any blocks?"
B: "Sela attempts to block, with +1 intercept from Mr Winthrop."
A: "Watenda plays Faceless Night." *draws card* "... and Lost in Crowds. +2 stealth."
B: "Nothing more from me."
A: "No blocks? ... Watenda plays Old Friends for +1 bleed."

If a player unexpectedly announcing a block attempt is going to upset you, don't rush by his block window.

Bear in mind that this isn't just about Eagle Sight. Another player could, at that point, step in and give Sela more intercept. Newspapers and Starshells make this obvious, but Tourette's Voice is often unexpected, as is Scobax, as is Ignis Fatuus.

People often rush past when a player might play stealth reduction or "Babble phase", but, yes, if you don't want arguments in a tournament, ask everyone whether they want to block an action before you considered it unblocked.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Hence the open question "Any blocks?" to the whole table.

That is not how people play in my neck of the woods, unless they specifically have a reason to suspect cross-table blocking.

I'm curious as to who plays this way.

In fact, the question "Any blocks?" seems insufficient to move the game along. As I understand it, you must ask every player with an obvious legal right to block after declaring an action and you must get a "no" from each player before continuing. "Any blocks?" doesn't ask those specific players specifically enough.

It is often very difficult to pry out the perfunctory "No block" declaration from players when they have an obvious legal right to block. There are some newbish players who have to be asked directly and more than once if they choose to block a bleed directed at them. They have to hear "Do you block?" while their predator looks them directly in the eyes. "Any blocks?" would not grab their attention sufficiently.

I know one player who sometimes likes to play a little game where he indicates with a small gesture that he is not blocking an undirected action of his prey, but then complains when an action moves on because "I never said I wasn't blocking."

I understand that acting players sometimes rush, but at the same time, it is impractical to hold up the game for every other player to say "no block" or "no DI/cancellation". Frankly, many players are asleep when it's not their turn.

It's an old problem, but there must be a cleaner solution, one that puts more responsibility on reacting players. A way that an acting player can show due diligence after which a reacting player loses the right to declare blocks/effects.

Declare an action/ask obvious legal blocking players/wait one second/continue. A measurable time frame of some sort.

Why should the burden be on the reacting players? The reacting players can't play cards until the acting player defines what is going on.

If a player doesn't play a master, there's no Sudden opportunity, so the reacting players need to wait until the acting player plays a master.

If a player declares an action, the reacting players need to wait until the terms are defined before playing a DI, assuming DI is even playable (the action isn't cardless or based on a card in play). Then, long before you get to blocks, you run through the as action is announced window. Nobody can do anything until the acting player asks for blockers because the acting player needs to pass impulse.

The main thing is that players should just be paying attention and be clear in what they are doing. But, sure, in reality, a lot of assumptions are made, like that not every single card will get DIed. That's why players tend to focus more on precise play when the actions matter more, like on a bleed that can oust.

I hesitate on Concealed Weapon/Disguised Weapon all of the time because they could be cancelled, where most people just drop a couple of cards on the table. Do I care that much about people knowing what weapon I have in hand? Not really. But, it saves rewinding time.

The reality is that it's the not paying attention that is so common, IME, that wastes far more time than making an effort to be clear about what is going on.

AaronC wrote:

In fact, the question "Any blocks?" seems insufficient to move the game along.

Because when players are asked if they want to block, they don't interpret it as a request for if they want to block?

AaronC wrote:

As I understand it, you must ask every player with an obvious legal right to block after declaring an action and you must get a "no" from each player before continuing.

That's one way of doing it, which works. However, your understanding is very much wrong.

[LSJ 20061212] In a situation where a player is arguing that tossing the pool they lost to a bleed into the blood bank is not a declaration of no blocks.

LSJ wrote:

If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not
blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to
play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as
your declaration of "no block".

As I pointed out (which you have apparently missed), a lot of this is social convention. Many things get elided in real play, because what is going on is understood. As LSJ points out in a similar case (precisely how much has to be announced), [LSJ 20060822]

LSJ wrote:

I've brought this up before, with the result that some players felt
inclined to teach me that this is a Bad Idea (tm) by announcing
everything (the minion's strength, even though it was the default; the
lack of a title, &c.). Killing the game with tedium, as it were. But,
of course, that's not how things are to be done, either. If one has to
get silly to avoid doing one's part to ensure that the game flows
smoothly, one should probably seek another game.

AaronC wrote:

"Any blocks?" doesn't ask those specific players specifically enough.

How so? The order in which blocks have to be declared or declined is well defined. So "Any blocks?" could easily be understood as "Will each player in turn either decline to block or make a block attempt."

AaronC wrote:

It is often very difficult to pry out the perfunctory "No block" declaration from players when they have an obvious legal right to block.

That's going to be true however you ask them.

AaronC wrote:

They have to hear "Do you block?" while their predator looks them directly in the eyes. "Any blocks?" would not grab their attention sufficiently.

If a player is not sufficiently paying attention to the game, call a judge. This leads very quickly to infringing the (unintentional) Slow Play rules.

AaronC wrote:

I know one player who sometimes likes to play a little game where he indicates with a small gesture that he is not blocking an undirected action of his prey, but then complains when an action moves on because "I never said I wasn't blocking."

Said player is being an ass, and it won't matter how you ask the question - the player is being an ass.

Further, [LSJ 20061212] indicates that you are probably handling the player's (to be charitable) sharp play incorrectly.

AaronC wrote:

It's an old problem, but there must be a cleaner solution, one that puts more responsibility on reacting players. A way that an acting player can show due diligence after which a reacting player loses the right to declare blocks/effects.

Which is pretty much what the conversation I outlined does.

I do understand the difference between social convention and legal requirement. The debate among players I know is always what constitutes what. I would like to distinguish between what is legally required and what a group has decided is socially convenient. That is why I am participating in this discussion.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

AaronC wrote:

As I understand it, you must ask every player with an obvious legal right to block after declaring an action and you must get a "no" from each player before continuing.

That's one way of doing it, which works. However, your understanding is very much wrong.

That doesn't fully answer the question. It seems as though you are saying that any indication that a player declines to block is sufficient. You use as an example writing from LSJ that indicates that burning blood from a bleed indicates a failure to block.

Wonderful. However, that doesn't answer whether every player who legally can block must decline to block before the action can continue. That is my understanding, but you claim that it "is very much wrong".

[LSJ 20061212] In a situation where a player is arguing that tossing the pool they lost to a bleed into the blood bank is not a declaration of no blocks.

LSJ wrote:

If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not
blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to
play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as
your declaration of "no block".

Thanks for that reference from LSJ, because, again, there is a player who sometimes plays the game of picking up his pool as if taking a bleed, and then, nope, oops, he never put it down, and oh, there, the bleed is bounced.