Tenebrous Form vs Allies, and declaring additional strikes

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Didn't turn anything up googling, so...

Question #1:

The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless
Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays superior
Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the
since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue),
the NWC's block failed. Correct?

Superior Tenebrous Form: "[+1 stealth], and minions without
obtenebration must pay 1 blood to attempt to block"

Question #2:

Alexandra is blocked by Fatima. Alexandra dodges, Fatima fires her
Assault Rifle uselessly.

Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if
Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response?

It was ruled that she could, keeping with 1.6.1.6 -- Fatima generating
additional strikes was an effect that would reset the loop. Correct?

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Denis]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless
Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays
superior
Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the
since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue),
the NWC's block failed. Correct?

yes. since he fails to pay one 'blood'...


> Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if
Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response?

no. there is no 'response' like that, like there is no 'loop'. acting
player declares if he gets some or not, then the reacting does, thats
it...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> "UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message
news:YsydncjZbtSiGY7fRVn-jA@texas.net...
> > Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?
>
> Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet.
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f
> RTR 31 May 1995:
>
> 2) Following the initial Resolve Strike step of a round, the
> acting minion decides whether to play any additional strikes, and
> then the blocking minion decides whether to do so. If the acting
> minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking
> minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind.
> Presses and maneuvers follow a different procedure because
> each maneuver or press played after the first cancels the previous
> play. Additional strikes don't cancel each other, so the process
> used for presses and maneuvers is not used for additional strikes.

While I understand that it has always been that way, the rulebook
currently says "Additional strikes are announced (gained) and performed
(used) only after the first pair of strikes are completed. The acting
minion decides whether or not to gain additional strikes before the
opposing minion, AS USUAL." (emphasis mine).

In other circumstances, when an effect is played (such as a press,
maneuver, equipping a zip gun, playing Drawing out the Beast or
whatever), the rulebook says that the loop of opportunities to play
effects is reset. Yes, the rules explicitly say that you can play
presses and maneuvers in response to your opponent playing them to
counter their effect, but the rules don't state anywhere that doing so
would _not_ be legal without this explicit text; they reiterate and
clarify the already established rules on playing effects back-and-forth
as itemized under Sequencing (and prohibit you from playing multiple
presses/maneuvers on your own.)

Since this concept that the acting minion only gets one opportunity to
play additional strikes is not actually 'as usual' as the rulebook
states, but a distinctly different case than the defaults elsewhere in
the rulebook, could future versions of the Rulebook please include the
sentence you list above ("If the acting minion declines to use
additional strikes and then the blocking minion decides to do so, the
acting minion cannot change its mind."), considering that this
distinctly not-by-the-current-rulebook circumstance is an inherent
possibility of every combat a player will ever be in?

That way, this excepting rule would be explicitly clear not only to
older players like Mike or Colin but also to anybody picking up the
game for the first time - without their having to look up rulings on
the internet on how an integral and basic part of combats actually
works.

> LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:

> Yes, he decides. As usual, the acting minion goes first.
> Once he makes his decision, then the blocking minion makes his.
> Then you handle any additional strikes.
>
> --
> LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Since you've already replied to Mike that this will be forwarded to the
Rules Team for review and/or rulebook inclusion, I don't need to see
the rest of the truncated reply; that's all I was really asking for
(admittedly in a long-winded way.)

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

denis wrote:

>>The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless
>
> Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays
> superior
> Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the
> since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue),
> the NWC's block failed. Correct?
>
> yes. since he fails to pay one 'blood'...

Correct.

>>Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if
>
> Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response?
>
> no. there is no 'response' like that, like there is no 'loop'. acting
> player declares if he gets some or not, then the reacting does, thats
> it...

Correct.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news😛hGQd.222476$w62.151736@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> denis wrote:
>
>>>The Unmasking is in play. Gratiano attempts to bleed, and a hapless
>>
>> Neighborhood Watch Commander attempts to block. Gratiano plays
>> superior
>> Tenebrous Form. How does this affect the NWC? It was ruled that the
>> since TC did not say "blood or life" (unlike, eg, Crocodile's Tongue),
>> the NWC's block failed. Correct?
>>
>> yes. since he fails to pay one 'blood'...
>
> Correct.
>
>>>Can Alexandra decline to generate additional strikes, and then, if
>>
>> Fatima plays superior Pursuit, play a Blur in response?
>>
>> no. there is no 'response' like that, like there is no 'loop'. acting
>> player declares if he gets some or not, then the reacting does, thats
>> it...
>
> Correct.

But what about 1.6.1.6?

[Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the
acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has
the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one
effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the
opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed
actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order
from the acting Methuselah. Note that if any Methuselah uses a card or
effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next
effect.]

Why wouldn't the acting player be able to decline playing a card to gain
additional strikes and then respond by playing a card to gain additional
strikes if the reacting player plays a card to gain additional strikes?

If the acting player declines to play any cards before range is determined,
are they unable to play cards before range is determined if the reacting
player plays any cards before range?

Past rulings do not seem to agree.

Google search: before range card playing order

Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?


--
Mike Ooi
"You have left the world. Click to continue."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> > In other circumstances, when an effect is played (such as a press,
> > maneuver, equipping a zip gun, playing Drawing out the Beast or
> > whatever), the rulebook says that the loop of opportunities to play
> > effects is reset.
>
> If you consider Additional Strike Declaration to be in line with
Strike
> Declaration, then the acting minin chooses first and only first.

Sure, and Strike Declaration specifies that this is the case; similarly
the strikes generated by additional strikes are declared in this order
as part of a standard 'choose strike phase' - and the rulebook says
this explicitly.

However, nothing in the rulebook indicates that using cards and/or
effects to actually generate the strikes in the first place behaves
differently than playing and sequencing any other card and/or effect,
and I'd like to see the long-standing ruling about it (which I totally
agree with, btw) made part of the rulebook for clarity's sake - since
the way that using cards and effects to generate additional strikes
functions differently than using cards and effects for just about
everything else in the game, a.k.a 'the default rules in the book'.

And that's important, because a new player picking up a starter and
reading the rules won't have any reason to automatically think that
additional strikes don't work back-and-forth like presses, maneuvers,
playing stealth or intercept, or whatever, without having to look
online; if additional strikes are important enough to warrant inclusion
in the rulebook, the correct, exceptioning rules on how additional
strikes work differently than most things should be included as well,
IMO. (And not just the exception rule that says that you can only get
additional strikes from one source, as is the case now.) There's no
reason (again, IMO) why the Additional Strike section of the rulebook
should include only _some_ of the ways it is inherently different from
the default rules on sequencing cards and effects.

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:YsydncjZbtSiGY7fRVn-jA@texas.net...
> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?


Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f
RTR 31 May 1995:

2) Following the initial Resolve Strike step of a round, the
acting minion decides whether to play any additional strikes, and
then the blocking minion decides whether to do so. If the acting
minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking
minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind.
Presses and maneuvers follow a different procedure because
each maneuver or press played after the first cancels the previous
play. Additional strikes don't cancel each other, so the process
used for presses and maneuvers is not used for additional strikes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:37hffeF5diaqgU1@individual.net...
> "UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message
> news:YsydncjZbtSiGY7fRVn-jA@texas.net...
>> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?
>
>
> Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f
> RTR 31 May 1995:
>
> 2) Following the initial Resolve Strike step of a round, the
> acting minion decides whether to play any additional strikes, and
> then the blocking minion decides whether to do so. If the acting
> minion declines to use additional strikes and then the blocking
> minion decides to do so, the acting minion cannot change its mind.
> Presses and maneuvers follow a different procedure because
> each maneuver or press played after the first cancels the previous
> play. Additional strikes don't cancel each other, so the process
> used for presses and maneuvers is not used for additional strikes.

INteresting. The rest of the post is a good read, too.

So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, sent to
the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change?

I also noticed from this "classic" ruling that Cat's Guidance is be played
before combat ; )

As is superior Freak Drive. Look out Theft decks! I'm gonna start combat
untapped with no blood! Crazy '95 style!


--
Mike Ooi
"You have left the world. Click to continue."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:xM-dnZYYFt1hFo7fRVn-pw@texas.net...
> "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > "UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message
> >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?
> >
> > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet.
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/84962fdc6bbc665f
> > RTR 31 May 1995:
> So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, sent to
> the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change?


I'll put it on the RT list for review.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1108577939.699333.197680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> While I understand that it has always been that way, the rulebook
> currently says "Additional strikes are announced (gained) and performed
> (used) only after the first pair of strikes are completed. The acting
> minion decides whether or not to gain additional strikes before the
> opposing minion, AS USUAL." (emphasis mine).


Yes, he decides. As usual, the acting minion goes first.
Once he makes his decision, then the blocking minion makes his.
Then you handle any additional strikes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> In other circumstances, when an effect is played (such as a press,
> maneuver, equipping a zip gun, playing Drawing out the Beast or
> whatever), the rulebook says that the loop of opportunities to play
> effects is reset.

If you consider Additional Strike Declaration to be in line with Strike
Declaration, then the acting minin chooses first and only first.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
>> > "UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message
>> >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?
>> >
>> > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet.
>> >
>> So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed, sent to
>> the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change?
>
> I'll put it on the RT list for review.

For a non-RT opinion: I think that it's fine the way that it is, that a
decision to not take additional strikes is irrevocable. This is
analogous to the decision to "not block" being irrevocable.

It does appear, however, that the rulebook needs (at least for clarity)
a statement, like blocking does, that a decision to not generate an
additional strike is final.

Having said that, if the declaration of additional strikes worked like
Presses or Manoeuvres do, then it just means that the acting minion
(sometimes) gets a second opportunity to play an additional strike.
This would increase the value / playability of defensive additional
strikes by the acting minion (additional strike to dodge or S:CE) - this
decreases the value of blocking, marginally. Offensive additional
strikes are still going to be played, generally, at the first opportunity.

I don't think that the value of consistency outweighs the value of
don't-make-unnecessary-changes, in this case. The current use of
additional strikes is consistent, anyway - with the "not block" decision.

--
* lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"lehrbuch" <lehrbuch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4213c553@news.maxnet.co.nz...
> LSJ wrote:
>>> > "UniqueMaster" <shang@removethistexas.net> wrote in message
>>> >> Why would the phases treat sequencing differently?
>>> >
>>> > Mostly because it's always been that way and hasn't been changed yet.
>>> >
>>> So my next question would be: Is this going to be changed (reversed,
>>> sent to
>>> the rules team, etc.)? Or a rulebook change?
>>
>> I'll put it on the RT list for review.
>
> For a non-RT opinion: I think that it's fine the way that it is, that a
> decision to not take additional strikes is irrevocable. This is
> analogous to the decision to "not block" being irrevocable.

I'm not sure it fits. The decision to "not block" is the only explicitly
irrevocable declaration IIRC other than casting votes in a referendum. I
think a more analagous example is the sequencing of playing combat cards
before range is determined. Currently, if the acting player declines to play
cards before range and the reacting player does so, the acting player can
"respond" by choosing to play cards before range, and if both decline to
play cards before range then the acting player does not get to play cards
before range, IIRC.

> It does appear, however, that the rulebook needs (at least for clarity)
> a statement, like blocking does, that a decision to not generate an
> additional strike is final.

If that's the RT's decision, definitely.

> Having said that, if the declaration of additional strikes worked like
> Presses or Manoeuvres do, then it just means that the acting minion
> (sometimes) gets a second opportunity to play an additional strike.
> This would increase the value / playability of defensive additional
> strikes by the acting minion (additional strike to dodge or S:CE) - this
> decreases the value of blocking, marginally. Offensive additional
> strikes are still going to be played, generally, at the first opportunity.

I agree with this assessment, although the ability to choose your strike
after your opponent declares theirs is increidbly valuable - why would there
be combat cards that specifically grant you this ability? - and keeps the
advantage in combat with the reacting player.

> I don't think that the value of consistency outweighs the value of
> don't-make-unnecessary-changes, in this case. The current use of
> additional strikes is consistent, anyway - with the "not block" decision.

Ultimately, I think that if there are phases or sequences in the game that
do not follow 1.6.1.6, then those should be explicitly defined in the
rulebook. So a change one way or another would be necessary - either to an
10 year old online ruling, or the rulebook.


--
Mike Ooi
"You have left the world. Click to continue."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

UniqueMaster wrote:
[lehrbuch]
>> I think that it's fine the way that it is, that a
>> decision to not take additional strikes is irrevocable. This is
>> analogous to the decision to "not block" being irrevocable.
>
> I'm not sure it fits. The decision to "not block" is the only explicitly
> irrevocable declaration IIRC other than casting votes in a referendum. I
> think a more analagous example is the sequencing of playing combat cards
> before range is determined...

I mean that the _current_ additional strike system is analogous to the
decision "not to block". If it was changed to be like some other thing,
then yes, it would be analogous to that other thing.

The only reason that I mentioned this at all is that it is not without
precedent for additional strikes to work the way they do (ie "breaking"
1.6.1.6). (Not) blocking "breaks" it, similarly. Of course, (not)
blocking explicitly states that it breaks 1.6.1.6.

>> Having said that, if the declaration of additional strikes worked like
>> Presses or Manoeuvres do, then it just means that the acting minion
>> (sometimes) gets a second opportunity to play an additional strike.
>> This would increase the value / playability of defensive additional
>> strikes by the acting minion (additional strike to dodge or S:CE) - this
>> decreases the value of blocking, marginally. Offensive additional
>> strikes are still going to be played, generally, at the first opportunity.
>
> I agree with this assessment, although the ability to choose your strike
> after your opponent declares theirs is increidbly valuable ...

If your deck is designed that way, yes[0]. This is not, however, the
effect that "making additional strikes chosen like Presses or
play-before-combat-cards are" would have. This only changes the order
in which additional strikes are _gained_. The actual strike(s) would
still be declared (used) in the acting - reacting order.

> Ultimately, I think that if there are phases or sequences in the game that
> do not follow 1.6.1.6, then those should be explicitly defined in the
> rulebook. So a change one way or another would be necessary - either to an
> 10 year old online ruling, or the rulebook.

Yep.

[0] i.e. choosing strikes second is only valuable if you have several
ways to strike - or your opponent thinks you do, and they do.

--
* lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)