About blocking D-actions, Eagle Sight and blocking window

jamesatzephyr wrote:

However, I've judged (single judge and multi-judge) a large number of UK tournaments over the years - local things, nationals, Continental Qualifiers, whatever. (I haven't had much access to real world V:TES for a while, as a consequence of a slightly weird job choice meaning I have relatively little free time many evenings, and my weekends are then taken up with the things I'd do at other times.)

And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like.

I'm serious - please feel free to be, shall we say, "confrontational", but it's not cool to do so anonymously, at least not here.

In thhis link you provided (sorry, don't know how to condense):
groups.google.com/forum/#msg/rec.games.tradingcards.jyhad/0J9gSnqS7Ck/4A4z_k1G5FAJ ,
LSJ only speaks about what acting players should do, clearly to me at least. Then Peter Bakija, not LSJ, goes on to opine about what the responsibilities of all players should be, including reacting players.

I see how this whole conversation sprang from my questioning (daring to question?) your assertion that "Any blocks?" is an advisable way to proceed when trying to determine crosstable blockers. My purpose wasn't to criticize you, but rather to find the technical basis of your advice and test it against my personal experience. I'm very curious about parsing out what is technically correct versus what is "advice", "common practice", or "eliding" as you put it. To me the concept that a player can guard their chance to block cross-table after others have declined is so queer that I am playing catch-up. All the advice about avoiding this loophole so that you don't prematurely play your Conditioning seems crazy, and that's where I'm coming from.

In this James said:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Amongst other things, this means that you cannot play Deflection until after: ...

- every other player on the table has declined (so it comes after Eagle Sight etc.); it's not "after you have declined to block", it's "after blocks are declined". (Although assuming the target changes and the card isn't cancelled, this will rarely be exciting because the block window re-opens on the target change.)

You also said:

However, yes, at some point, you have to determine that a player is not using a cross-table blocker. I would recommend using the open question "Any blocks?" and then determining that a player not responding after some reasonable time isn't getting involved - much like if you're trying to DI something 5 minutes later because some hateful cheating players denied you your sovereign right to do so, you'll likely be faced with little to no help.

This implies that you think that it is okay to "elide" player communication, which certainly seems like a good idea. The LSJ quote that you follow up with sort of agrees with you and sort of doesn't.

LSJ wrote:

The action cannot be resolved if any Methuselah still has a chance to
block, and therefore each Methuselah who might have a chance to
block must eventually decline to do so (or block, of course). Since
that declination cannot be postponed to the End of Time, it must
be made at some point. The acting Methuselah can wait for that
point to pass before playing further effects.

He says "each must eventually decline", but also that the acting player "can wait for that point to pass." A bit contradictory.

So, technically: All players with a "chance" to block must either attempt or decline.

According to James, cross-table players fall into this category. Probably it only includes players who control minions with , , or special minions like Anneke.

James has given us an LSJ quote that indicates that a player can decline to block non-verbally.

He and others recommend giving a blanket question about blocking to all cross-table players, possibly only in special circumstances such as tournaments. Is the game halted until every player at the table affirms "no block" in some way in his turn? James thinks that waiting a reasonable amount of time means that a cross-table player gives up his right, but only if a blanket question is posed first. LSJ doesn't discuss a reasonable time or even exactly agrees with that.

LSJ and the rules do say that any player with a "chance" to block must decline eventually. That means that any player with a minion with , , Anneke or similar might technically have to communicate his decision to decline to block or not any eligible action. Informally, it's another story.

I am interested in this because I think that technical rules and the social norms of play should be as close to each other as possible. There should either be a requirement to ask for cross-table blockers or not.

I don't think there should be such a requirement. I think that crosstable blockers should be quick on the draw but that they should also have the right to add themselves to the list of potential blockers to be asked. All blockers should have to declare in the same window. If you weren't paying attention and then somebody ousts your predator with Conditioning, you shouldn't get to go back and say "Oh, I didn't say I wasn't blocking - Eagle Sight!"

Aaron it is easy.
1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5

Meth 1 is taking an action targeting 2 (e.g. a bleed). Once it is declared, 5 cannot gain the chance to block until 2 has declined to block. After 1 stops playing action modifiers, 2 may play reactions and then after 2 stops playing reactions they may ask others to contribute to their block attempt. When the block attempt by 2 has failed, then 1 is obliged to ask any other player who may be able to block if they will do so. It goes in bleed-order around the table (as these things generally do). All players must decline before the action is unblocked.

1) It is irrelevant to ask Methuselahs who could not conceivably block (e.g. those without minions with or or controlling Anneke)

2) All of those players for whom the question is relevant can, by social norm, be asked the question as a group. This is effectively the same as asking each in person going in bleed-order around the table. The acting player can wait for any suitable period of time to get this answer. They may wait this time by any method which does not contradict the rules of the game or the tournament rules (I am thinking particularly of the Sportsmanship rules).

3) Players may decline to block by any clearly understood method including non-verbal communication. I assume this could also include signs or written information so long as that method did not constitute attempts to deliberately slow down the play of the game. It is an extension of the idea that you can identify action targets by pointing for instance or by identifying them as "Your 3rd minion from my left" and so on.

4) If players do not make a clear indication they intend to block, then they may be assumed to be declining.

5) Once all players have declined to block (LSJ's "can wait for that point to pass before playing effects" comment with "that point" being "the time when all players have declined to block), you are free to continue playing effects and other cards playable after an action 'would be successful' but before it resolves. This includes cards which will redirect bleeds, but this resets the Declare Block Attempts Window beginning with the player who is the new target and repeats the entire process.

6) The game is not halted, the block attempts window has not yet closed for this acting minion-target pair. It is time taken by players to make decisions and resolve block attempts. The game is not 'halted' into some limbo-state; the timer clock should continue running down.

7) Players may enter into overt verbal agreements about their intentions to use cards like Eagle's Sight, Falcon's Eye and Anneke. Such as "I do not plan to block your actions which do not directly affect my pool or minions" from a cross-table buddy. This could then be assumed to be a "Decline to block" from that player until such point as they contradict that statement. Which is why it should be checked anyway before playing important cards.

8) The rules already add in all potential blockers as players that should be asked via the Impulse rules.

So, is this answered well enough for you yet?

AaronC wrote:

And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like.

I'm serious - please feel free to be, shall we say, "confrontational", but it's not cool to do so anonymously, at least not here.

Come on AaronC, YOU'RE now coming off as the one who is confrontational.

I don't think jamesatzephyr, or anyone else, in here needs to provide that kind of info to anyone to justify anything.

Besides, jamesatzephyr has in my mind ben EXTREMELY helpful in providing answers to rules questions here for a good long while. Which has been WAY nice when Pascal hasn't been able to answer the questions that quickly.

AaronC wrote:

And your name is what? And you live in the UK where? You may PM me if you like.

Why do you need this information? Correct, verifiable rulings are correct, verifiable rulings, whether or not I submit to your petty nonsense about knowing where I live. Which has precisely nothing to do with whether or not a ruling is correct.

Why the hell do you think you have the right to demand to know WHERE I LIVE? Seriously, re-evaluate your behaviour. You can't accept that your interpretation of the rules is wrong and demand to know WHERE I LIVE?

Fuck the hell off.

(For anyone about to hit the "Report to Moderator" button because I said a naughty word, please do not support AaronC's aggressively stalker-ish behaviour in this fashion.)

Perhaps using Momentum as a layman term would be better for the discussion.

After 1 stops playing action modifiers, 2 may play reactions

This is incorrect, because the momentum shifts after every card played, so you are eligible to react after the action is declared and after every modifier is played, instead only after all the initial modifiers. Just for extreme case, imagine asking all 4 potential blockers after every card play. THEN draw a line for your common sense, where would you like to sacrifice the flow and speed of the current game for filling a questionaire. "Any blocks?" is a fine and efficient routine, while everyone asking and those asked know their basic rights for the blocking (e.g. prey cannot force predator to declare blocks before him, etc.).

kombainas wrote:

Perhaps using Momentum as a layman term would be better for the discussion.

Why?

kombainas wrote:

After 1 stops playing action modifiers, 2 may play reactions

This is incorrect, because the momentum shifts after every card played, so you are eligible to react after the action is declared and after every modifier is played,

No, this is wildly incorrect.

After MethA (the acting Methuselah) plays an action modifier, the player who next has the opportunity to play an action modifier (or other effect, like tapping a location) is MethA. When MethA stops playing action modifiers, the impulse moves to MethB, and each player in turn (if MethB, MethC... passes). If any of them play an effect, the opportunity to play the next effect goes back to MethA.

kombainas wrote:

Just for extreme case, imagine asking all 4 potential blockers after every card play.

That would be the wrong thing to do. The impulse doesn't work like that.

Indeed, asking other players if they want to play a reaction is usually taken as passing the impulse (those players cannot play reactions, or use an effect, or whatever, if you still have the impulse). And if you pass the impulse and they pass the impulse and the relevant timing window therefore closes, you cannot re-open the window, which will sometimes prevent you from playing cards you want to play.