Example: I tap Rebecca to bleed my prey, he deflects, I play Change of
Target and untap. Now Rebecca can't take the same action again this
turn.
Now I was wondering restrictive this rule truly is.
It's clear that I can't attempt another default bleed action with
Rebecca this turn, but could I play Social Charm or Intimidation?
Another example: Anson is trying to play Kine Resources Contested. My
predator blocks the action, I play Change of Target. Can Anson try to
call a different referendum or is he prohibited from taking political
actions in general for the remainder of the turn?
In other words: does "the same action" mean the same *type* of action
(e.g. bleed, call a referedum, equip) or just the same action (e.g.
Computer Hacking, Domain Challenge, equip with the Ivory Bow)
Michael
"mostly harmless" <mostlyh...@chello.at> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9ebd888f.0109...@posting.google.com...
> Example: I tap Rebecca to bleed my prey, he deflects, I play Change of
> Target and untap. Now Rebecca can't take the same action again this
> turn.
>
> Now I was wondering restrictive this rule truly is.
>
> It's clear that I can't attempt another default bleed action with
> Rebecca this turn, but could I play Social Charm or Intimidation?
>
No. she can't.
> Another example: Anson is trying to play Kine Resources Contested. My
> predator blocks the action, I play Change of Target. Can Anson try to
> call a different referendum or is he prohibited from taking political
> actions in general for the remainder of the turn?
>
No, he can't take any political action for the remainder of the turn.
> In other words: does "the same action" mean the same *type* of action
> (e.g. bleed, call a referedum, equip) or just the same action (e.g.
> Computer Hacking, Domain Challenge, equip with the Ivory Bow)
>
The former :
Same Action" means: 1) The same inherent (cardless) action taken against the
same target. 2) The action taken with the same card played from hand,
regardless of target. 3) The same action provided by the same copy of a card
in play. (Each action provided by a card in play is a distinct action (and
doesn't count as the "same action"). [RTR 19950905]
Any "same action" is the "same type of action" - so a superior Govern the
Unaligned is a Govern action type just as a inferior Govern the Unaligned is
(and the inferior is also a bleed action type). [LSJ 20001122]
Hope this help
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
mostly harmless wrote:
>
> Example: I tap Rebecca to bleed my prey, he deflects, I play Change of
> Target and untap. Now Rebecca can't take the same action again this
> turn.
... by card text on Change of Target, right.
> Now I was wondering restrictive this rule truly is.
The card text is not very restrictive. By contrast, the "No Repeat Actions"
special floor rule for V:EKN sanctioned constructed-deck tournaments is
more restrictive.
> It's clear that I can't attempt another default bleed action with
> Rebecca this turn, but could I play Social Charm or Intimidation?
Yes, but not if you were playing with the No Repeat Actions rule.
> Another example: Anson is trying to play Kine Resources Contested. My
> predator blocks the action, I play Change of Target. Can Anson try to
> call a different referendum or is he prohibited from taking political
> actions in general for the remainder of the turn?
He is not prohibited by Change of Target. He would be if you were using
the NRA rule, however.
> In other words: does "the same action" mean the same *type* of action
> (e.g. bleed, call a referedum, equip) or just the same action (e.g.
> Computer Hacking, Domain Challenge, equip with the Ivory Bow)
Change of Target's card text just means "same action".
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote...
> mostly harmless wrote:
> >
> > Example: I tap Rebecca to bleed my prey, he deflects, I play Change of
> > Target and untap. Now Rebecca can't take the same action again this
> > turn.
>
> ... by card text on Change of Target, right.
>
> > Now I was wondering restrictive this rule truly is.
>
> The card text is not very restrictive. By contrast, the "No Repeat
Actions"
> special floor rule for V:EKN sanctioned constructed-deck tournaments is
> more restrictive.
[snip]
Thanks for clearing that up.
Is there a special reason why there is this 'NRA' rule at tournaments but it
is not part of the normal rules?
M.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> mostly harmless wrote:
> > Another example: Anson is trying to play Kine Resources Contested. My
> > predator blocks the action, I play Change of Target. Can Anson try to
> > call a different referendum or is he prohibited from taking political
> > actions in general for the remainder of the turn?
>
> He is not prohibited by Change of Target. He would be if you were using
> the NRA rule, however.
So, just to confirm what I have inferred from this ruling:
The successful block constitutes the earliest point at
which a cancelled action can be said to have resolved.
If an action is somehow cancelled at any earlier point,
whether when it is announced (through Direct Intervention)
or before blockers are announced (through some
as-yet-unprinted action modifier, reaction, master,
or minion ability), then the NRA restriction is not
invoked.
Is any of this correct?
In other played / resolved rules, I just want to confirm
for my play group things I already know (they're an
untrusting lot):
If I Direct Intervention on an action card, is the acting
minion restricted in any way on whether he can attempt
that action, by type or card title, again?
If I Direct Intervention on an action modifier (say,
Conditioning), is the acting minion restricted in any
way on whether he can attempt that action modifier
by title again during the same action? Can that minion
attempt any other action modifier that increases the
bleed during the same action?
I sadly sensed quite a bit of irony as I tried to
explain these distinctions to my play group, and
saw the same expressions of doubt, confusion,
and frustration that I went through when I first
tackled the played / resolved distinction mixed
with the no repeat action / no repeat action
modifier difference.
- Jason Bell
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Cf7u7.68848$4W6.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> So, just to confirm what I have inferred from this ruling:
> The successful block constitutes the earliest point at
> which a cancelled action can be said to have resolved.
> If an action is somehow cancelled at any earlier point,
> whether when it is announced (through Direct Intervention)
> or before blockers are announced (through some
> as-yet-unprinted action modifier, reaction, master,
> or minion ability), then the NRA restriction is not
> invoked.
> Is any of this correct?
All of it so far.
> In other played / resolved rules, I just want to confirm
> for my play group things I already know (they're an
> untrusting lot):
>
> If I Direct Intervention on an action card, is the acting
> minion restricted in any way on whether he can attempt
> that action, by type or card title, again?
The acting minion is not restricted in any way by an opponent using
Direct Intervention on their action card. (Except Political Stranglehold,
Ancient Influence, or other potential action cards that can only be "played"
once per game.)
If you DI my Govern the Unaligned, I may immediately play another Govern
from my hand as the "card was played" not the "action was taken".
[LSJ 19980721] -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6p20i5%242q6%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com> If I Direct Intervention on an action modifier (say,
> Conditioning), is the acting minion restricted in any
> way on whether he can attempt that action modifier
> by title again during the same action?
He cannot play another action modifier of the same name.
The card has to have been "played" for the DI to be played,
therefore any restrictions on "playing" the card must be followed.
> Can that minion attempt any other action modifier that increases the
> bleed during the same action?
No.
[LSJ 19980212] -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34E302E3.41C6%40wizards.com
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
In message <5dd4c2331349a5574d7...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Can that minion attempt any other action modifier that increases the
>> bleed during the same action?>
>No.
>
>[LSJ 19980212] -
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34E302E3.41C6%40wizards.com
Erm, I don't see how that's a relevant link, given the question.
The situation I believe being referred to is:
I bleed you. I play Conditioning. You DI it. This cancels the card,
including the "negative" effects of what I can play after it. So I can
play Threats.
Unlike, say, Giant's Blood, the whole bleed modifier thing isn't a "only
one may be played per action", in which case Threats would self-limit
even with a cancelled text of Conditioning.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
When all the world seemed to sleep, why, why did you go? EBD690ECD7A1F
Was it me? Was it you? B457CA213D7E6
Questions in a world of blue. 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <5dd4c2331349a5574d7...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> Can that minion attempt any other action modifier that increases the
> >> bleed during the same action?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >[LSJ 19980212] -
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34E302E3.41C6%40wizards.com
>
> Erm, I don't see how that's a relevant link, given the question.
>
> The situation I believe being referred to is:
>
> I bleed you. I play Conditioning. You DI it. This cancels the card,
> including the "negative" effects of what I can play after it. So I can
> play Threats.
>
> Unlike, say, Giant's Blood, the whole bleed modifier thing isn't a "only
> one may be played per action", in which case Threats would self-limit
> even with a cancelled text of Conditioning.
Correct. If your Conditioning is DIed, you can't play another Conditioning,
but you could play a Threats (or any other action modifier you haven't
already played).
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3BB9B3BB...@white-wolf.com...
> James Coupe wrote:
> >
> > In message <5dd4c2331349a5574d7...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> > The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >> Can that minion attempt any other action modifier that increases the
> > >> bleed during the same action?
> > >
> > >No.
> > >
> > >[LSJ 19980212] -
> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34E302E3.41C6%40wizards.com
> >
> > Erm, I don't see how that's a relevant link, given the question.
Right.
It was supposed to go with the question above it, sorry.
> > The situation I believe being referred to is:
> >
> > I bleed you. I play Conditioning. You DI it. This cancels the card,
> > including the "negative" effects of what I can play after it. So I can
> > play Threats.
If a DI allows the card text "Only one Ancient Influence can be played
in a game." and prohibit the card from being played later, then it must also
read the card text "After playing this card, you cannot play another
action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action."
Otherwise, you have to allow a DI'd Ancient Influence to be played again.
The situations are identical.
Card text is kept and followed even though the card is cancelled.
> > Unlike, say, Giant's Blood, the whole bleed modifier thing isn't a "only
> > one may be played per action", in which case Threats would self-limit
> > even with a cancelled text of Conditioning.
Right.
It's right there on the card that you "played".
The only requirement to play DI is that the card be played.
If the card is played, it prevents all further action modifiers
that increase bleed.
> Correct. If your Conditioning is DIed, you can't play another Conditioning,
> but you could play a Threats (or any other action modifier you haven't
> already played).
I cannot agree.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. DI cancels the "only one can be played" on AI, as well as the rest of
the text. Just as it cancels "no more bleed modifiers" text on Conditioning.
The entire effect is canceled.
But the next AI has the same (uncanceled) text, so cannot be played, since
the first (canceled one) was played.
>
> > > Unlike, say, Giant's Blood, the whole bleed modifier thing isn't a "only
> > > one may be played per action", in which case Threats would self-limit
> > > even with a cancelled text of Conditioning.
>
> Right.
> It's right there on the card that you "played".
It's right there on the next card you try to play, which is the key.
> The only requirement to play DI is that the card be played.
> If the card is played, it prevents all further action modifiers
> that increase bleed.
No. That effect "prevent all further bleed enhancers" is canceled.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <39955b14b7d81f604da...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes
>It's right there on the card that you "played".
>The only requirement to play DI is that the card be played.
>If the card is played, it prevents all further action modifiers
>that increase bleed.
DI cancels the card text.
It either cancels all of it or none of it. It does not cancel some of
it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote[ quoted text not captured ]
I am similarly baffled by this ruling.
I can think of no way to parse these two card texts in such
a way that one's play restriction is discarded while the other's
play restriction is enforced:
"After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to
further increase the bleed for this action."
versus
"Only one Giant's Blood can be played in a game."
- Jason Bell
[ quoted text not captured ]
Both are canceled.
> "After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to
> further increase the bleed for this action."
A Conditioning is played (and canceled in its entirety, but still played).
Another Conditioning cannot be played (since the rule preventing a minion
from playing the same modifier on the same action has not been canceled).
A Threats, however, can be played, since it doesn't say: "cannot be played
if a Conditioning has been played" or "only one threats, conditionin, or
bonding can be played on an action".
> versus
> "Only one Giant's Blood can be played in a game."
The Giant's Blood is played (and canceled in its entirety, but still played).
The next Giant's Blood says (uncanceled): "Only one can be played". Since
one has been played, the new (uncanceled) one's card text prohibits it from
being played.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <VQBu7.78374$4W6.16...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>I can think of no way to parse these two card texts in such
>a way that one's play restriction is discarded while the other's
>play restriction is enforced:
>
>"After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to
>further increase the bleed for this action."
This one refers to after the playing of the card. This text is
cancelled when Conditioning is DIed.
Threats is then played. It says "After playing this card....", so makes
no reference to earlier to cards being played.
>versus
>"Only one Giant's Blood can be played in a game."
This one refers to the playing of the card in a general context. This
text is cancelled when GB is SRed.
Another Giant's Blood is then played. This has text which refers to the
whole game - not just *after* it. It looks around, sees that another
Giant's Blood has been played and prohibits itself. Threats, by card
text, is under no such compulsion to remember previous cards, only limit
successive cards. For instance, you can play Threats *after* playing
superior Command of the Beast because it (CotB) has no card text
limiting later plays and Threats has no card text requiring
retrospective inspection, as it were.
If Giant's Blood said, instead, "After playing this card, no more
Giant's Blood can be played this game", and it were SRed, a second one
played would function - because no previous card text had limited its
play and it was not required to look behind.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>If Giant's Blood said, instead, "After playing this card, no more
>Giant's Blood can be played this game", and it were SRed, a second one
>played would function - because no previous card text had limited its
>play and it was not required to look behind.
Yep.
And similarly, if Conditioning said "Only one bleed modifier can be played
during an action," then it would be in the same boat that Giant's Blood is in
right now (where the second copy's text would prohibit its play).
Halcyan 2
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> Jason Bell wrote:
> > I am similarly baffled by this ruling.
> >
> > I can think of no way to parse these two card texts in such
> > a way that one's play restriction is discarded while the other's
> > play restriction is enforced:
>
> Both are canceled.
>
> > "After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to
> > further increase the bleed for this action."
>
> A Conditioning is played (and canceled in its entirety, but still played).
>
> Another Conditioning cannot be played (since the rule preventing a minion
> from playing the same modifier on the same action has not been canceled).
>
> A Threats, however, can be played, since it doesn't say: "cannot be played
> if a Conditioning has been played" or "only one threats, conditionin, or
> bonding can be played on an action".
Since you bring up the former wording for bleed modifiers, a
question springs to mind:
Is this ruling an unintentional adjunct to how the wording
of bleed modifiers was changed, or was the tortured
wording that now accompanies all bleed modifiers constructed
to allow for cancelled bleed modifiers? I suppose it was
the former, since the wording was probably chosen to allow
for the existence of bleed modifiers that do not have the
limitation.
I perfectly understand the need to interpret card texts
precisely, but I'm getting increasingly weary of the
game inconsistencies that result from doing so.
In any event, it's just another thing I'll have to explain to my
group with the ever more common disclaimer:
"It's not my fault!" ($1 to Hahn Solo).
- Jason Bell
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would guess the former as well, since minion-card-canceling
effects didn't exist at the time the change was made.
It seems it was done in anticipation of bleed modifiers that
weren't bonding, threats, or conditioning.
> I perfectly understand the need to interpret card texts
> precisely, but I'm getting increasingly weary of the
> game inconsistencies that result from doing so.
I don't see any problem here.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> Jason Bell wrote:
> I would guess the former as well, since minion-card-canceling
> effects didn't exist at the time the change was made.
>
> It seems it was done in anticipation of bleed modifiers that
> weren't bonding, threats, or conditioning.
Nah, the wording is a little too tortured for just that.
> > I perfectly understand the need to interpret card texts
> > precisely, but I'm getting increasingly weary of the
> > game inconsistencies that result from doing so.
>
> I don't see any problem here.
Well, to address only the Direct Intervention situtation:
When action cards are cancelled, there is no prohibition
against repeating that action, though there is a broader
no repeat action rule.
However, when action modifier cards are cancelled,
there is a prohibition against repeating the action
modifier, in accordance with the no repeat action
modifier rule.
When a once per game card is cancelled (Ancient
Influence), that card cannot be played again.
However, when a once per action card type (bleed
modifier) is cancelled, another of the same type
(though not the same name) may still be played.
These two pairs of examples are broadly inconsistent.
They are understandable once the peculiarities
of the card texts, the meanings of terms like
"played", and timing of event resolutions are
understood, but these are minutiae of the game
that are liable to escape a new player, a returning
player, or even an occasional experienced player.
It is the fine distinctions that defy an easy
understanding of game mechanics that often
cause the most frustration in games, especially
when a player is confronted with a situation
where the rules prevent him from following through
on a strategy that was set up over several
turns or actions.
Suffice it to say that such an environment of
confusion and frustration is not the best forum
to help a player distinguish the finer aspects of
action modifier rules or the relationship between
"played" and "cancelled."
It is not clear to me that anything can or even
should be done about some of these inconsistent
situations, but it defies the ability for players
to easily transport understood rule mechanics from
one part of the game to another, making this game
more complicated in sometimes surprising ways.
- Jason Bell
In message <G6av7.82710$4W6.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>Well, to address only the Direct Intervention situtation:
>
>When action cards are cancelled, there is no prohibition
>against repeating that action, though there is a broader
>no repeat action rule.
Yes, but the NRA rule only works on actions which are taken to some sort
of resolution - be that a blocked action or a successful action.
>However, when action modifier cards are cancelled,
>there is a prohibition against repeating the action
>modifier, in accordance with the no repeat action
>modifier rule.
Correct.
>When a once per game card is cancelled (Ancient
>Influence), that card cannot be played again.
Correct.
>However, when a once per action card type (bleed
>modifier) is cancelled, another of the same type
>(though not the same name) may still be played.
Incorrect. None of the action modifiers say "Only one bleed modifier
may be played per action." A number of cards specify that after playing
them, you may not play certain other cards. This is substantially
different.
In your suggestion, where you have one card type per action cards, you
cannot play Command of the Beast followed by Threats. This is out of
line with superior Command of the Beast, which is expressly designed to
take advantage of this wording at superior (though it must be played
first).
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F
'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6
So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D
Jason Bell wrote:
> Well, to address only the Direct Intervention situtation:
>
> When action cards are cancelled, there is no prohibition
> against repeating that action, though there is a broader
> no repeat action rule.
Right. The NRA rule doesn't care about action cards "played".
It cares about actions performed. If the action never happens,
it isn't performed.
> However, when action modifier cards are cancelled,
> there is a prohibition against repeating the action
> modifier, in accordance with the no repeat action
> modifier rule.
Right. The No Repeat Action Modifier rule says a minion
can only "play" one...
> When a once per game card is cancelled (Ancient
> Influence), that card cannot be played again.
Right, if card text says "only one can be *played*..."
The next (uncanceled) one will self-restrict by
explicit card text.
> However, when a once per action card type (bleed
> modifier) is cancelled, another of the same type
> (though not the same name) may still be played.
Right, since only future ones are restricted, and
the canceled one's restrictive effect is canceled.
> These two pairs of examples are broadly inconsistent.
They are consistent.
A canceled card is canceled.
An uncanceled card's card text is to be followed.
> They are understandable once the peculiarities
> of the card texts, the meanings of terms like
> "played", and timing of event resolutions are
"Played" is not an obscure term.
> understood, but these are minutiae of the game
What timiing?
A canceled card is canceled.
An uncanceled one is not.
> that are liable to escape a new player, a returning
> player, or even an occasional experienced player.> It is the fine distinctions that defy an easy
> understanding of game mechanics that often
> cause the most frustration in games, especially
> when a player is confronted with a situation
> where the rules prevent him from following through
> on a strategy that was set up over several
> turns or actions.
Without the "fine distinctions" (card text, basically),
the game becomes unplayable.
> Suffice it to say that such an environment of
> confusion and frustration is not the best forum
> to help a player distinguish the finer aspects of
> action modifier rules or the relationship between
> "played" and "cancelled."
The relationship is direct.
A card cannot be canceled until it is played.
So it is played.
If it is canceled, then it has no effect (even
though it was played).
> It is not clear to me that anything can or even
> should be done about some of these inconsistent
> situations, but it defies the ability for players
> to easily transport understood rule mechanics from
> one part of the game to another, making this game
> more complicated in sometimes surprising ways.
>
> - Jason Bell[ quoted text not captured ]
> It is the fine distinctions that defy an easy
> understanding of game mechanics that often
> cause the most frustration in games, especially
> when a player is confronted with a situation
> where the rules prevent him from following through
> on a strategy that was set up over several
> turns or actions.
>
> Suffice it to say that such an environment of
> confusion and frustration is not the best forum
> to help a player distinguish the finer aspects of
> action modifier rules or the relationship between
> "played" and "cancelled."
Question: Is this theoretical or practical? Do you actually have
players that CAN'T understand the explanations? If so, they're not of the
caliber the game requires: too bad. The game isn't simple, no, but they'll
have trouble enough playing the game as complex as it is, even with such
"inconsistencies" "fixed" (which would only open up TRUE inconsistencies,
instead of -perceived- ones.)
Do you have players that get upset at being thwarted by the confusion?
As recommended here multiple times, it is best to explain the situation, let
them know to not do it again, but let them finish off that one
action/game/whatever. If they continually complain and whine, then they are
"poor sports," and I'd recommend playing less competitive games with them,
and finding new players.
If this is just "I can see players being confused," then you're playing
a combination of game.cop and net.cop. It would be insulting to a new
player to assume their inability to understand the explanations given to
them, all of which are logically sound once the terminology is correctly
understood. I mean, your message basically said "Ok, I got it now, but it
seems unintuitive." But, AFTER having it EXPLAINED, you GOT IT. It would
be completely egotistical to assume that other players could not do the
same.
[note: none of that is "stinky troll bait," Jason. If I had wanted to
say such, I would have paraphrased rudely, like: "Is all this bitching for a
reason, or is it just bitching?" <-- Joke, JOKE! =) ]
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
*huge snip*
> The relationship is direct.
> A card cannot be canceled until it is played.
> So it is played.
> If it is canceled, then it has no effect (even
> though it was played).
On the contrary, a cancelled card can have an
effect. If it is an action modifier, an effect
is that the playing of the card prohibits a card
of that name from being played for the duration
of the action, despite having been cancelled.
If it is a once-per-game card, the playing of the
card prohibits another of the same name from being
played for the rest of the game, despite having been
cancelled.
These are definite effects. For what you wrote
above to be true (that cancelled cards have no
effect), then the cancelled rule would have to be
extended to also cancel the fact that the card
was played, which would simplify several confusing
situations (but probably cause more confusion
for those who have made the effort to understand
the played-though-cancelled enigma).
- Jason Bell
In message <uDqv7.420906$TM5.66...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>On the contrary, a cancelled card can have an
>effect.
There is a difference between an effect - that generated by card text -
and an application of the rules - that of one named action modifier per
minion per action.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:uDqv7.420906$TM5.66...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
>
> *huge snip*
>
> > The relationship is direct.
> > A card cannot be canceled until it is played.
> > So it is played.
> > If it is canceled, then it has no effect (even
> > though it was played).
>
> On the contrary, a cancelled card can have an
> effect. If it is an action modifier, an effect
> is that the playing of the card prohibits a card
> of that name from being played for the duration
> of the action, despite having been cancelled.
> If it is a once-per-game card, the playing of the
> card prohibits another of the same name from being
> played for the rest of the game, despite having been
> cancelled.
It's the card text of the second copy of the card that is preventing you
from playing it, not the card text of the first copy of the card ( which
doesn't take effect because it was cancelled ).
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote
> > It is the fine distinctions that defy an easy
> > understanding of game mechanics that often
> > cause the most frustration in games, especially
> > when a player is confronted with a situation
> > where the rules prevent him from following through
> > on a strategy that was set up over several
> > turns or actions.
> >
> > Suffice it to say that such an environment of
> > confusion and frustration is not the best forum
> > to help a player distinguish the finer aspects of
> > action modifier rules or the relationship between
> > "played" and "cancelled."
>
> Question: Is this theoretical or practical? Do you actually have
> players that CAN'T understand the explanations?
Practical. The distinction is not "CAN'T," it is that they do not
accept my recounting of the tortured definitions and distinctions
for this and other aspects of the game, especially after hearing
seemingly contradictory explanations applied in different situations.
I must admit, there are several rules and rulings that I would never
believe if I could not plainly see LSJ as the author (and sometimes
not even then, for anyone who has read my posts in this forum).
I have no idea how you formed this idea about "CAN'T," which
you will hereafter use to insult my playgroup. My point is that
certain aspects of card interactions, especially when combined
with cancellation effects, are counter-intuitive, especially when
attempting to use the rules applied to other card interactions
as a template.
> If so, they're not of the
> caliber the game requires: too bad. The game isn't simple, no, but
they'll
> have trouble enough playing the game as complex as it is, even with such
> "inconsistencies" "fixed" (which would only open up TRUE inconsistencies,
> instead of -perceived- ones.)
Must...resist...bait...
This is, I imagine, the standard flame bait for this newsgroup.
"Your playgroup is no good." is probably the Jyhad correlate to
"Your team sux" on the sports groups.
Sorry, try harder.
> Do you have players that get upset at being thwarted by the confusion?
> As recommended here multiple times, it is best to explain the situation,
let
> them know to not do it again, but let them finish off that one
> action/game/whatever.
This is, in many cases, unacceptable. Who should prevail in the situation
where I am directing my minions, knowing that my Direct Intervention
will save me from the Conditioning that can hurt me, while my opponent
is stacking up multiple Conditionings to overcome my Direct Intervention
(having mis-applied the cancelled-though-repeatable action rule to
action modifiers)? I insist that the player who is playing with an
understanding of the rules should not have to suffer while those that
do not know the rules get a pass.
> If this is just "I can see players being confused," then you're
playing
> a combination of game.cop and net.cop. It would be insulting to a new
> player to assume their inability to understand the explanations given to
> them, all of which are logically sound once the terminology is correctly
> understood.
Oh, really? Then add both myself and Lasombra to the list of players
who have an "inability to understand the explanations given to them,"
since neither of us accepted Coupe's accurate and "locically sound"
assessment of the bleed modifiers / Direct Intervention interaction
until LSJ confirmed it.
In that situation, we were just discussing a rules question with
plenty of time to reflect and consider, with no one having a stake
in the resolution. Compare to a game situation, where one player
may clearly benefit, the stress level is higher due to competition,
and an undercurrent of frustration and confusion is present due
to a claim that the rules preclude the play you are trying to make.
Oh, and no official netrep as far as the eye can see.
> I mean, your message basically said "Ok, I got it now, but it
> seems unintuitive." But, AFTER having it EXPLAINED, you GOT IT. It would
> be completely egotistical to assume that other players could not do the
> same.
See ABOVE.
> [note: none of that is "stinky troll bait," Jason. If I had wanted to> say such, I would have paraphrased rudely, like: "Is all this b*tching for
a
> reason, or is it just b*tching?" <-- Joke, JOKE! =) ]
You have got to be out of your mind.
There is no sense in which you can post an insult to the mental
and strategic capacities of my play group and expect me to
take it in good humor, solely as a result of a weak disclaimer
at the end of your offense, where you insist that you could
have been yet more insulting if you had so chosen.
- Jason Bell
"GreySeer" <fa...@email.com> wrote in message
news:trsgv4f...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:uDqv7.420906$TM5.66...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> >
> > *huge snip*
> >
> > > The relationship is direct.
> > > A card cannot be canceled until it is played.
> > > So it is played.
> > > If it is canceled, then it has no effect (even
> > > though it was played).
> >
> > On the contrary, a cancelled card can have an
> > effect. If it is an action modifier, an effect
> > is that the playing of the card prohibits a card
> > of that name from being played for the duration
> > of the action, despite having been cancelled.
> > If it is a once-per-game card, the playing of the
> > card prohibits another of the same name from being
> > played for the rest of the game, despite having been
> > cancelled.
>
> It's the card text of the second copy of the card that is preventing you
> from playing it, not the card text of the first copy of the card ( which
> doesn't take effect because it was cancelled ).
I was refering to the "once per game" case in the above above, as pointed
out elsewhere, the rules of the game prohibit the playing of multiple action
modifiers.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <_wrv7.420918$TM5.66...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>Practical. The distinction is not "CAN'T," it is that they do not
>accept my recounting of the tortured definitions and distinctions
>for this and other aspects of the game, especially after hearing
>seemingly contradictory explanations applied in different situations.
It would seem, then, that the problems are in your recounting.
Many players I know have no trouble accepting a ruling I give in a
tournament I'm judging; I would suggest printing out copies of LSJ's
rulings to avoid such problems.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
[ quoted text not captured ]
> You have got to be out of your mind.
> There is no sense in which you can post an insult to the mental
> and strategic capacities of my play group and expect me to
> take it in good humor, solely as a result of a weak disclaimer
> at the end of your offense, where you insist that you could
> have been yet more insulting if you had so chosen.
For the newsgroup: I've emailed Jason privately. Seeming to be a pro at
pissing off Jason without trying, I think I probably deserved getting
blasted after re-reading my post with his responses. Apologies to Jason
(thought they're already sent off in email) and apologies to his playgroup
if they took offense (that wasn't the intent, much less the point).
I do have some counterpoints, but since they might all be tainted by the
tone of the original post and reply, it's not really worth going over again
publicly. So, I won't waste any more bandwidth other than to again say: I'm
sorry.
--
Patrick O'Shea
[snip]
>
> [snip]
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Is there a special reason why there is this 'NRA' rule at tournaments but it
> is not part of the normal rules?
>
> M.
The "Gangrel Loop Deck" is a famous example of why it exists.
A Gangrel with FOR/PRO can
Do something that taps it.
Force of Will w/ Day Op to bleed unblockably
Movement of the Slow Body ( or Freak Drive ) to untap in torpor
Rapid Healing to leave torpor
wash, rinse, repeat.....
>A Gangrel with FOR/PRO can
>Do something that taps it.
>Force of Will w/ Day Op to bleed unblockably
>Movement of the Slow Body ( or Freak Drive ) to untap in torpor
>Rapid Healing to leave torpor
It doesn't necessarily have to get that card-intensive.
Take a DOM/PRO deck. I have a Conditioning in my hand. I bleed you. You block?
I Earth Meld to end combat and untap (and you have one less minion to block). I
bleed you again and again and each time I can just Earth Meld untap for free
and try bleeding again. I'll eventually get through and then play the
Conditioning. In addition, I can throw some Form of Mists in there too if I
want. And you don't even need the Conditioning if you're bleeding for 3 with
Stanislava each time...(and after I tap out all your blockers, I Freak Drive
multiple times and bleed again!!!).
Halcyan 2
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Cf7u7.68848$4W6.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > mostly harmless wrote:
> > > Another example: Anson is trying to play Kine Resources Contested. My
> > > predator blocks the action, I play Change of Target. Can Anson try to
> > > call a different referendum or is he prohibited from taking political
> > > actions in general for the remainder of the turn?
> >
> > He is not prohibited by Change of Target. He would be if you were using
> > the NRA rule, however.>
> So, just to confirm what I have inferred from this ruling:
> The successful block constitutes the earliest point at
> which a cancelled action can be said to have resolved.
> If an action is somehow cancelled at any earlier point,
> whether when it is announced (through Direct Intervention)
> or before blockers are announced (through some
> as-yet-unprinted action modifier, reaction, master,
> or minion ability), then the NRA restriction is not
> invoked.
> Is any of this correct?
"The same action" has a different meaning in the context of Change of Target and
the NRA. In CoT you can bleed, play CoT then play a Govern the Unaligned. They
are two different actions. One is a bleed action, one is a GtU action. In the
case of the NRA however the clauses
"A given minion may not repeat an action, by action type, in a single turn
(whether the first action was successful
or not). The defined "action types" are the ones defined in the rulebook:
bleed, hunt, equip, employ
retainer, recruit ally, political action, leave torpor, rescue a vampire from
torpor, and diablerize a vampire
in torpor.
If an action card is used to perform one of these actions, that action is
considered to be of that type. If
it is not one of those actions (such as Bum's Rush), then it is a type of its
own, by card name."
Prevents Anson from calling another referendum.
If the action is cancelled via a DI, the NRA still applies. The NRA states that
it matters not wether the aciton is successful, it is the fact that the action
was attempted ( even though it was cancelled, wether by the NRA or CoT ).
> In other played / resolved rules, I just want to confirm
> for my play group things I already know (they're an
> untrusting lot):
>
> If I Direct Intervention on an action card, is the acting
> minion restricted in any way on whether he can attempt
> that action, by type or card title, again?
Only by the NRA.
> If I Direct Intervention on an action modifier (say,
> Conditioning), is the acting minion restricted in any
> way on whether he can attempt that action modifier> by title again during the same action? Can that minion> attempt any other action modifier that increases the
> bleed during the same action?
The action modifier was still played ( event hought it was cancelled ) so you
cannot play it again. However, if you play a Conditioning and have it DI'ed, you
can then play a Threats because the card text preventing you from playing
further bleed modifiers in Conditioning does not apply since Conditioning, and
therefore any card text on Conditioning was cancelled by the DI.
> I sadly sensed quite a bit of irony as I tried to
> explain these distinctions to my play group, and
> saw the same expressions of doubt, confusion,
> and frustration that I went through when I first
> tackled the played / resolved distinction mixed
> with the no repeat action / no repeat action
> modifier difference.
>
> - Jason Bell
I found it a tad confusing until I was given a few examples, after that I was
able to properly understand the wording of the NRA and since then it's never
been confusing.
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011006194443...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Or there is the popular Toreador way (which I used back in the day).
Two or three Aching Bueaties on a Toreador. Bleed wil any Presence
bleed card, if blocked Majesty, pay 1 to untap. Bleed with any other
bleed card.....
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011006194443...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Or you could use the Toreador way (which I used back in the day).
2 or 3 Aching Bueaties on a Toreador, bleed with any Presence bleed,
if blocked Majesty and untap, bleed again. Pretty nasty on the pool
loss whether they block or not.....
"James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote
> Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
> >Practical. The distinction is not "CAN'T," it is that they do not
> >accept my recounting of the tortured definitions and distinctions
> >for this and other aspects of the game, especially after hearing
> >seemingly contradictory explanations applied in different situations.
>
> It would seem, then, that the problems are in your recounting.
Then yours as well, since your explanation of the bleed modifiers rule
was insufficient to both Lasombra and myself despite being spot-on
correct in logic.
My suspicion and current working theory is that some rules are
confusing and bizarre at first blush and contradictory in important
ways, such that one tends not to accept rules or interpretations
until seeing them from an official source, be that the rulebook
or the netrep.
But hey, maybe it is just me.
> Many players I know have no trouble accepting a ruling I give in a
> tournament I'm judging; I would suggest printing out copies of LSJ's
> rulings to avoid such problems.
I just don't have that much paper or ink available.
We have, occasionally, halted a game until the internet could
be consulted (making a long game longer).
- Jason Bell
In message <1vdw7.435021$TM5.68...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>"James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote>> Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>> >Practical. The distinction is not "CAN'T," it is that they do not
>> >accept my recounting of the tortured definitions and distinctions
>> >for this and other aspects of the game, especially after hearing
>> >seemingly contradictory explanations applied in different situations.
>>
>> It would seem, then, that the problems are in your recounting.>
>Then yours as well, since your explanation of the bleed modifiers rule
>was insufficient to both Lasombra and myself despite being spot-on
>correct in logic.
Once the explanation was clarified by both LSJ and myself separately, I
saw no further problems from Lasombra's direction.
The point of being able to explain rules to people is *not* to be able
to simply regurgitate a ruling but also to be able to clarify it until
such a time as people think "Oh yes" (assuming such is possible). This
can then allow them to seamlessly slot it into their play-style in the
future.
OTOH, you appear to be sitting there saying "This doesn't work how I
think it should work" after detailed explanation, which is not the same
thing either.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think that I've determined why Pat and I bump heads as we do,
and why I probably have mistaken him for a troll.
The first is my fault, as I am comfortable expressing my frustrations
with this game in this forum, and to the extent to which people
disagree with me, they are confronting my frustration, which
tends to make disagreements more severe.
The second, I believe, is a matter of the form in which Pat tries
to parse the points with which he disagrees or doesn't understand.
He develops alternate theories as to why I believe the things I do
and asks which one might be true.
If one or more of those theories or assumptions are incorrect
or groundless, and especially if they are not flattering, then
we're off to the races.
For instance (extreme hypothetical example follows):
Position: "I don't see how an unblocked minion isn't allowed to
use Bonding at superior."
Response: "Is it that you have the intelligence of a lobotomized
chimpanzee or have you not read the no-stealth-unless-needed
rule?"
So there it is, for the three of you still reading this thread,
my working theory as to why I can't seem to play nice with
Pat. To the extent that there is a problem, it will pretty
much solve itself. First, because I think I know what's
getting under my skin. Second because I can't find a
Jyhad game to save my life with everyone back at
school, work, or whatever so I don't have many new
rules questions. And third because basketball season
starts soon, and the basketball newsgroup will hopefully
come back to life, so I'll have another group of people
who don't want to read anything I have to write.
- Jason Bell