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

05 Dec 2017 18:59 #84475 by kschaefer

I strongly suspect this to be incorrect.
www.vekn.net/detailed-play-summary reads : NOTE: For each block attempt, resolve the attempt (step C.) before going on to the next attempt.


Except that's not what the actual rulebook states:

If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes.


The Detailed Play Summary uses language that is slightly different than the rulebook. The latter should take precedence. It is the language of the play summary that is most confusing here.

A vampire playing with Eagle's Sight at superior must attempt to block. Following that with Guardian Vigil the vampire must also attempt to block. The vampire is already attempting to block and the text is satisfied. The rulebook does not demarcate blocks as by attempt, merely that an attempt continues until it fails. Forcing a vampire to block that is already blocking is no different that locking a vampire that is already locked. The game state does not change.

Here's how I'd answer these questions:

- Vampire A has Dominion (Vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block this Black Hand vampire.) and declares an action. Vampire B attempts to block, and during that attempt, would play Eagle's Sight. Does B burn blood twice to Dominion ?

This should be no.

- Vampire A declares an action. Vampire B attempts to block. Vampire A plays Dawn Operation (or whatever), can vampires B and C play Coterie Tactics (These two vampires attempt to block) ?

Well, this is just a poorly worded card. That being said, nothing on Coterie Tactics suggests that you cannot. The original block attempt is still continuing, CT simply "breaks" the base game state by adding the second blocking vampire.

This is a good point. Since LSJ's ruling seems weird and makes things convoluted (or maybe there was a confusion with playing Eagle's Sight to attempt to block vs when already attempting to block), I revert his ruling.

You can declare only one block attempt at a time. If the block attempt is not successful, only then can you declare another block attempt.

The problem is that you're adding the word "new" into the card text that simply is that there. "This vampire attempts to block" is not "This vampire attempts a new block." The block attempt is continuous until it fails, per the rulebook. So, I don't understand how requiring a vampire to block that is in the process of blocking is illegal. You've just said A=!A.

Furthermore, this add more inelegance to the game than it solves. Now to play these affects you need to fail your block to get a new opportunity to block. So, Vampire A bleeds. Vampire B plays Netwar at chi to unlock Vampire C. Vampire C must attempt to block per card text. Vampire A now plays Faceless Night at superior. Vampire C fails to block because of the new ruling, so that it can play Guardian Vigil at aus/for/cel. Vampire C would still be still be tapped at the end of the action per FN card text. This seems confusing and unintended and much less elegant that allowing the block to continue.

I think LSJ's original ruling is correct. You're satisfying the "attempt to block requirement" by attempting to block. That could be a continuation of a current block attempt or a new one. The requirement is about the attempt, not about a new attempt.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Dec 2017 01:13 - 06 Dec 2017 01:14 #84476 by jamesatzephyr

I think LSJ's original ruling is correct. You're satisfying the "attempt to block requirement" by attempting to block. That could be a continuation of a current block attempt or a new one. The requirement is about the attempt, not about a new attempt.


The earlier ruling of [LSJ 20050708] makes that much clearer.
> Since Eagle's Sight at [AUS] causes a block attempt, don't you lose the
> window in which to play Black Sunrise (to untap and attempt to block)?

No. You may attempt to block while attempting to block. It is
indeed difficult to do otherwise.

That is, when a vampire who is not attempting to block plays a card that attempts a block, the vampire attempts a new one. When a vampire who is already attempting to block plays a card that makes that attempt to block, they (redundantly) continue that attempt.

(Ankha can still reverse the ruling if he wants, but it would be helpful to actually understand what is being reversed before doing so.)
Last edit: 06 Dec 2017 01:14 by jamesatzephyr.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bloodartist, kschaefer

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Dec 2017 09:41 #84479 by Bloodartist
jamesatzephyr's ruling seems by far the clearest and one I personally would endorse if my vote mattered. I'm sure there are other card ruling issues which could benefit from this redundancy principle.

A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.
—Gotthold Ephraim Lessing



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Dec 2017 13:57 #84481 by Ankha
Thanks for your inputs. I couldn't find a previous double "attempt to block" ruling despite my research.
I'm aiming towards consistency, but also logical and "intuitive" rules (so that people get it right from the start most of the time).

There are two ways to see things:
- I'm attempting to block, and I play a card that redundantly makes me attempt to block with the same vampire
- I'm attempting to block, and I want to use a card that would declare a block attempt with the same vampire.

The rulebook says:
- [The Methuselahs] may use their ready unlocked minions to attempt to block the action
- [The action] can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator
- 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.

Nothing says here that attempts must be made one by one. One could say that they have multiple ongoing block attempts. But anyway, at some point, the defending player has to declare that her minion B is attempting to block, or "decide" that she's not making "any further attempts to block".

That's what the Detailed Play Summary tries to outline.

The question is: since you declare at some point that B attempts to block, is it logical to declare a block attempt during the same block attempt, or is it more logical to handle block attempts one by one? LSJ's ruling says both, because he avoids the "declare" part: "You may attempt to block while attempting to block." He considers that it's the same block attempt, because it's the same minion.

Back to the rulebook. How would this be written in one wanted to describe more precisely the course of a block attempt?

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..

Both would be valid. Give me more time to decide.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Dec 2017 15:14 #84483 by agzocgud
From my experience, players use option 1 without reflecting upon it since there hasn't been clear rule against it. Also, more freedom may be better that a lot of restrictions about which cards you may play in a certain window, especially when learning the game.

Overkill is highly underrated. You know, like in computor games and such.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Dec 2017 17:51 #84484 by beslin igor
Reading all of the above answers I must say that when I was be a beginner, VTES players learned me to interpret this rule as have stated here jamesatzephyr and agzocgud.
example: minion A bleed metuzalem B,metuzalem B declare no block atempt. minion C (whu is controling any other metuzalem,example metuzalem D) play Wake with Evenings Freshness and Eagle Sight (sup) and after that him can play Black Sunrise (or Sense to Savage Way) to untap and continue block

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.119 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum