About blocking D-actions, Eagle Sight and blocking window

jamesatzephyr wrote:

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.)

Again, you've avoided the question. You refuse to give your name and you refuse to make the city or even country in which you live public. You've judged tournaments in the UK - does that mean you live somewhere in the UK? Location is information that basically all regular posters add to their public profile.

And you're not just any poster. You post here multiple times each day. It's like it's becoming the James @ zephyr VTES forum around here.

I make one comment that questions a recommendation you've given, and then you make a statement with a confrontational tone: "You are very wrong". Then you repeat your very questionable comment for some reason in a second post. I have been nothing but reasonable and complimentary to you. I am genuinely interested in your perspective. I am genuinely appreciative of your research. But since you have no actual authority when it comes to VTES rulings, I have every right to offer a differing perspective on your recommendations.

In fact, you admitted that you don't even play regularly, which is relevant when I specifically was questioning if your recommendations were practical besides being legal. And from what I can guess, you have no decks in the TWDA (no one with the first name 'James' from the UK). That certainly is no barrier to being a participant on this forum, but considering the volume of your postings on rules questions, your authoritative tone, your use of the F-word, and your insistence on guarding your anonymity, I just have to wonder who you think you are.

I agree with Lonkka that you've done a lot of good research and your postings are very helpful. But you seem to be very prickly about being challenged. If you want to make personal attacks, that's fine. Just don't use internet anonymity when you do it.

Many posters here have public identities, or it's obivous who they are. For example, I know who Pascal is. I've met him, and his identity is public. I know who Lonkka is. I've met him, too, and he's not trying to hide his identity. KevinM! Ankha, Damnans, Squidalot - I think any of them would let you know who they are if asked.

To me it's fine if people want to remain anonymous on this forum as long as they don't abuse that anonymity by expressing mean, confrontational, or condescending attitudes. Oh yeah, or curse. However, I'm fine if someone wants to say something mean or insulting as long as I will know who they are if I ever happen to meet them at a tournament. Having a public identity means that a poster has to live with the consequences of his posts in this small community, and that is more than reasonable.

Aaron Clark, Los Angeles, California

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

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).

You wrote a nice summary.

As I've (perhaps clumsily) mentioned, I find the point about asking the question to the group troublesome. The social norm I have experienced is more often to only ask the specific player in the case of actions and both prey and predator in turn for undirected actions. We normally do NOT bother to direct a question to the table when crosstable people have or Anneke, unless the acting player is paranoid about crosstable blocking. Crosstable blockers normally have to say "WAIT!" per our social convention. Otherwise play seems to get even more cumbersome than it already can be.

I'll store this in my file on how to play particularly correctly. Also the trick of waiting for the action mod in case I'm crosstable blcoking and the acting player has not specifically asked me if I want to block.

@Aaron:
Remember, if the acting Methuselah asks "Are you going to attempt to block?" then they must be given an answer and may wait for as long as it takes. If the other player waits too long, they may be accused of time-wasting in tournaments or just suffer social penalties (in my playgroup that is likely to be the suggestion you need to find your wife/girlfriend's purse and recover your testicles from that purse...)

AaronC wrote:

As I've (perhaps clumsily) mentioned, I find the point about asking the question to the group troublesome. The social norm I have experienced is more often to only ask the specific player in the case of actions and both prey and predator in turn for undirected actions. We normally do NOT bother to direct a question to the table when crosstable people have or Anneke, unless the acting player is paranoid about crosstable blocking. Crosstable blockers normally have to say "WAIT!" per our social convention. Otherwise play seems to get even more cumbersome than it already can be.

Asking the table "Any blocks?" isn't any more cumbersome than asking a specific person if they block, and, since you have to deal with Direct Intervention and other card cancelling effects anyway, I don't see where the concerns about additional delays are.

AaronC wrote:

I'll store this in my file on how to play particularly correctly. Also the trick of waiting for the action mod in case I'm crosstable blcoking and the acting player has not specifically asked me if I want to block.

I don't follow this. You appear to be advocating playing illegally.

Non-existant user 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."

(emphasis added)

Allowing the acting player to move onto playng an action modifier before everyone has passed isn't legal. There's been no event which allows the playing new action modifiers.

I can see using this as a short term approach to improve your local playgroup's playstyle by doing this in casual games to drive home the point of correct sequencing, but it would be helpful if you could clarifiy your intentions.

AaronC wrote:

Again, you've avoided the question.

No, I'm not avoiding the question - I'm squarely addressing it by telling you that your demands for personal information are worryingly inappropriate. I do not acquiesce to the demands of online stalkers!

People do not have to pass your identity test to tell you you are wrong.

People do not have to pass your identity test to post here.

You do not have any concept of boundaries.

Frankly, your control-freak demands for personal information are unpleasant, unwelcome, inappropriate, and just plain wrong.

Therefore, before replying to this post, you must provide:

- a high-resolution scan of your passport
- your login credentials for this website, including username and password
- a scan of your birth certificate
- a full genetic history, back for five generations
- a detailed history of every illness ever suffered by anyone in your family
- a transcript from every educational establishment you have ever attended, including a full break-down of every grade you have ever been given, every subject you have ever studied, and every punishment you have ever received
- a full copy of your criminal record
- a full copy of your credit record, or other financial information that would be used to determine if you are suitable for a loan or mortgage
- a written reference from at least three employers or colleagues.

These have precisely as much relevance to this discussion as your stalking demands to know where I live, given that I'm proving you are wrong by using, you know, actual verifiable rulings provided by the official rules authority. (For clarity, that is: none at all.)

makish wrote:

Hi. Could someone please clarify this?
Say that seating order:
A->B->C->A
a) Methuselah A bleeds B; B declines to block; C doesn't block. When Methuselah A increases the bleed, is Methuselah C able to block with Eagle Sight? Or the blocking windows is passed, because B didn't change the target of the bleed?

Eagle Sight
Reaction
[aus] 1 intercept.
[AUS] This reacting vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions.

Here is the correct atomic sequence (skipping the DI windows)
A announces a bleed attempt.
A passes on using the impulse "as the action is announced".
B (target) passes on using the impulse "as the action is announced".
C, D (clockwise) pass on using the impulse "as the action is announced".

Impulse goes back to A, we are in the "during the action (before resolution)" window.

A has the opportunity (before block attempts are declared to play Conditioning). A passes.
B (target) declines to block.
Impulse goes to C.
C gets to choose whether he declares a block attempt or passes. Here, A cannot play Conditioning, because A doesn't have the impulse.