Can a vampire use multiple "attempt to block" effects?

I think a rulebook clean up is the best way to handle this. I appreciate the proposed options.

I think option 1 is better because it maintains the current state of the game. I agree with agzocgud's comments that it makes blocking simpler and easier to understand.

Here's my edit of version 1 to clear up potential issues (Ankha's changes in bold, mine in red):
Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. Block attempts are made one at a time (if a minion is already attempting to block, additional block attempts made by the blocking same minion during that block attempt count as the same block continue the original attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.

Replaced blocking with same because minion is not blocking, they are attempting to block. same adequately identifies the attempting minion.

Replaced during that block attempt count as the same block with continue the original. This is more clear that the original attempt has never ended, we are simply continuing it in the same way as if we added a simple intercept card.

Ankha wrote:

kschaefer wrote:

Replaced blocking with same because minion is not blocking, they are attempting to block. same adequately identifies the attempting minion.

"Blocking minion" and "minion attempting to block" are the same. Check the rulebook glossary: "Blocking Minion: The minion currently attempting to block an action, or the minion who has successfully blocked the current action."

There will always be room for doubt whatever terms are used, or whatever system is used to define block attempts. This may be an additional proof of it.

Or perhaps this bit in the glossary perpetuates this confusion? Attempting to block and blocking are two distinct game mechanisms. The glossary fudges the line between the two mechanisms in its definition of "blocking minion." That definition, while probably helpful in determining certain card effects, is inconsistent with the game mechanism concepts outlined in the rulebook. Thus the confusion.

You've stated previously that you don't support use of the detailed play summary because of the problems it causes due to its inconsistencies with the rule book. If that's your modus operandi, why support that definition of "blocking minion" in the glossary?

Ankha wrote:

1/ Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. Block attempts are made one at a time (additional block attempts made by the blocking minion during that block attempt count as the same block attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.
2/ Who May Attempt to Block: ... with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. A Methuselah declares her block attempts one at a time (a minion can't declare a block attempt if there is already an ongoing block attempt); if one attempt to block fails, another can be declared as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes..

Independently of the current issue, I believe the paragraph is beyond patching at this point. It needs to be rewritten. Just one example:

If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final. As a convenience, when a card describes an action that is typically directed at another Methuselah, the card's text will usually include a symbol as a reminder that the action is typically directed.

(Emphasis mine.) The beginning is about directed/undirected, the end is about directed/undirected, but what is the bold section doing in the middle of that? The logical flow is broken.

First of all, I would change the title to "Block attempts". "Who may?" is only one of the questions that this paragraph must answer, and the reason we are having problems now is that the whole sequencing aspect was just an afterthought at the time of writing.