Cactus Game Design Message Boards

That doesn't seem right.  I'd think that any character in battle opposing the Hero is "blocking".  The quote you're looking at is probably relevant to things that respond to "the action of being blocked."

Example: Angel's Sword says that if you're blocked by a human E.C. you may play an enhancement.  Thus, if the initial block (character enters battle, character's ability goes off, character's weapon goes off) includes a human, Angel's Sword goes off.  If, however, a human E.C. bands in after enhancements start getting played, Angel's Sword doesn't re-trigger.

Yeah, there seems to be "Block" as a verb and "Blocking" as a, what, adjective?

This looks correct to me.

There is a separate entry in the glossary for "blocking". A character is "blocking" while it is defending in a battle begun by a Hero. Even if there are no Heroes currently in battle. (Mostly so things that check "while blocking" don't turn off when a Hero is removed and have to turn on if a new one is added.)

A character "blocks" if it enters battle as part of a group where there were no blocking ECs when the group started entering battle.

There's also "opposed" (as an adjective), which checks for the presence of a character on the opposite side of battle.

That does mean a character is "blocking" before it has "blocked".

It's trying to say that if an EC enters battle and after you've run the abilities on it, banded other ECs in and run their abilities, etc, if there were no ECs in battle before that, then the ECs that show up are Blocking, right?

It's saying that the ECs that showed up have blocked. (They're also blocking, but that's not covered by the definition of "block".)

So, if you block with an EC that can band in Leviathan, then Leviathan is considered Blocking, so his abilities trigger, right?

Leviathan is considered to have blocked, and his abilities can trigger.

But if, during the battle, you play an enhancement to band in Behemoth, that Behemoth is not considered Blocking, correct?

Behemoth is not considered to have blocked, but is blocking.

So with Angel's Sword, if a Human EC is the initial blocker or there is one in battle at the time it is played, its ability triggers, I'm guessing? (Edit: Wait, no, I was thinking it could be read as "a Human EC is blocking" but perhaps that is not the case at all.)

"If blocked by" is looking for something in the future, so Angel's Sword only works if a human blocks after it's been played.

But, if Leviathan is around, and during the battle Behemoth is banded in or added to battle while there are EC's already there, does that cause Leviathan's ability to trigger?

No, because a character does not block if banded into battle outside of the act of the block.

Quote from: thejambi on February 25, 2019, 06:28:53 AM

But if, during the battle, you play an enhancement to band in Behemoth, that Behemoth is not considered Blocking, correct?

Behemoth is not considered to have blocked, but is blocking.

This hurts my head.  Hopefully we can find a better way to word the rules where something like this isn't true - where the rule and the actual English are in conflict.

1. There are abilities that trigger when a character is blocked that need to be kept in check so they don’t get out of control.

2. “Blocking” Or “If blocking” is a term that is usually used to help keep EC abilities in balance.

Believe it or not, this did nothing to ease my headache, and in fact made it worse   

Simple and logically sound rules should never be sacrificed on the altar of any individual card.  The integrity of the game itself is way too important to be defiled by individual rules designed to accommodate specific cards.

If a certain card can't play by the rules, then it needs to go.  The Throne of David (or any other individual card) cannot possibly be more important than Redemption itself.

Twisting the rules to the special interests of individual cards leads to...  Well, something similar to the Internal Revenue Code and its endless pages of exceptions and accommodations to special interest groups.

If a card needs a literal change of rules "to be kept in check", then it needs banned.  Which is easier to maintain/remember:  An ever-increasing complex set of rules where you find literal English contradictions such as an EC didn't block but is blocking?  Or a banlist?

I understand your confusion, and really don’t want to turn this into a  ban/no ban thread. I believe there are quite a few of those out there already.

I believe that the block/blocking rules actually make sense with the English language too.  Here is how I see it:

Block constitutes an event that meets the criterion outlined in the REG. Once the block has occurred, any ECs that are added to the battle will join the block and still be blocking, but it is the same block. It does not constitute a new block. 

I agree with both sides. To have the function of the initial block be separate from anyone who happens to battle at any point makes sense, but using the terminology "blocking" and "blocked" and "block" to all refer to different versions of the gamestate is stupid.