Hi Netters,
I need answers on the following points:
- it is said in the rules that bleed does not require cards,
and is a D-action against your prey.
I want to use a Computer Hacking in a 8 players game.
may I bleed a Methuselah of my choise or only my prey.
Computer Hacking is an action notan action modifier.
same problem for :
- Legal manipulation
- Govern the Unaligned
- and all cards of that type.
- When a vampire commit Diablerie, a Methuselah calls the
BloodHunt.
- Do you have one vote for each Methuselah or
- is it a vote like a political action ( you have a number
of vote with 3 for justicars, 2 for princes an one for
primogen)
Please answer quickly.
Thanks.
--
- ()_() - Thierry Baillon a.k.a. Titi. (E-mail: bail...@epita.fr) - ()_() -
>- (_) - - - - - Mail: 6 rue Rodier 94700 Maisons-Alfort. - - - - - - (_) -<
- Quote: "Friends don't let friends use DOS." -
In article <BAILLO_T.95Feb20190802@xenon> baillo_t@xenon (thierry baillon) writes:
>
>Hi Netters,
>
> I need answers on the following points:
>
> - it is said in the rules that bleed does not require cards,
> and is a D-action against your prey.
> I want to use a Computer Hacking in a 8 players game.
> may I bleed a Methuselah of my choise or only my prey.
> Computer Hacking is an action notan action modifier.
> same problem for :
> - Legal manipulation
> - Govern the Unaligned
> - and all cards of that type.
I don't /want/ to answer this question. The official ruling
is that you can bleed any Methuselah with a (D) bleed
card, but IMO this ruling defeats the purpose of the
original rule limiting bleeds to your prey.
The problem is, the (D) bleed cards /had to/ have a (D) symbol
on them, even if they were not originally /intended/ to allow you to
bleed Meths other than your prey, because bleeding have to
be a directed action and it would cause as much confusion
if the (D) symbol is omitted.
If everyone in your playing group feels that the official
ruling is absolutely silly, by all means use your house
rule. On the other hand, if your playing group /loves/
the intricate (?) inter-player action generated by
those (D) bleeds at whoever-you-like, why not make it
a free-for-all and waive the "bleed-prey-only" rule
entirely.
> - When a vampire commit Diablerie, a Methuselah calls the
> BloodHunt.
> - Do you have one vote for each Methuselah or
> - is it a vote like a political action ( you have a number
> of vote with 3 for justicars, 2 for princes an one for
> primogen)
It's like a normal vote for a political action, except that
action modifier and reaction cards cannot be played.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
baillo_t@xenon (thierry baillon) wrote:
> - it is said in the rules that bleed does not require cards,
> and is a D-action against your prey.
> I want to use a Computer Hacking in a 8 players game.
> may I bleed a Methuselah of my choise or only my prey.
> Computer Hacking is an action notan action modifier.
> same problem for :
> - Legal manipulation
> - Govern the Unaligned
> - and all cards of that type.
The (D) [circle dee] actions can be directed at anyone, unless the card
explicitly states otherwise.
> - When a vampire commit Diablerie, a Methuselah calls the
> BloodHunt.
> - Do you have one vote for each Methuselah or
> - is it a vote like a political action ( you have a number
> of vote with 3 for justicars, 2 for princes an one for
> primogen)
It is a normal vote, BUT not an action, so no action modifiers or reaction
cards may be played. You count you title votes plus any vote cards you want
to burn.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
In article <1995Feb20.1...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>I don't /want/ to answer this question. The official ruling
>is that you can bleed any Methuselah with a (D) bleed
>card, but IMO this ruling defeats the purpose of the
>original rule limiting bleeds to your prey.
It also makes Cat Burglary even more useless than it already is. I
mean, the superior lets you bleed anyone at +1 stealth as a (D) action.
Actually, the house rule I play with is that you can bleed anyone,
anytime. It has only been called into play once, though.
--
-=-==-===-====-=====-========-====-==- "Don't tell me to control myself.
+=- Robin Lim AKA Leets -==+ I mean, you don't want me
+==- e-mail: lke...@io.org -=+ to control myself, do you?"
-==-====-========-=====-====-===-==-=- - MLWTTKK
In article <3ijf00$e...@ionews.io.org>, Robin Lim <lke...@io.org> wrote:
>In article <1995Feb20.1...@cs.cornell.edu>,
>Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:>>I don't /want/ to answer this question. The official ruling
>>is that you can bleed any Methuselah with a (D) bleed
>>card, but IMO this ruling defeats the purpose of the
>>original rule limiting bleeds to your prey.>
>It also makes Cat Burglary even more useless than it already is. I
>mean, the superior lets you bleed anyone at +1 stealth as a (D) action.
>
>Actually, the house rule I play with is that you can bleed anyone,
>anytime. It has only been called into play once, though.
Cat Burglary has official errata, not only here on the net, but
also in the Duelist #3 (and probably #4 when it comes out). The card
should read as follows:
+1 Stealth
Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is bled with this
action, ignore the excess.
(BOLD) (D): Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is
bled with this action, ignore the excess. (END BOLD)
As to the house rule: You may want to try it the offical way,
and put together a deck with things like Comp. Hacking, Enchant Kindred,
and other such cards, and see how they affect things and how the game
works.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3it64k$e...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
> Cat Burglary has official errata, not only here on the net, but
>also in the Duelist #3 (and probably #4 when it comes out). The card
>should read as follows:
>
> +1 Stealth
> Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is bled with this
> action, ignore the excess.
> (BOLD) (D): Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is
> bled with this action, ignore the excess. (END BOLD)
>
Does the errata specifically states that my PREDATOR
can or cannot block the normal version? The rules
says that any action on a card which does not have
the (D) action is undirected, so Cat Burglary (normal)
is undirected and can be blocked by my predator, can't it?
If I can't bleed my prey for a while (for some reason),
then I don't want him to have the edge and gain blood
and stop me from winning.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1995Feb28.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <3it64k$e...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>> Cat Burglary has official errata, not only here on the net, but>> Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is bled with this
>> action, ignore the excess.
>> (BOLD) (D): Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is
>> bled with this action, ignore the excess. (END BOLD)>
>Does the errata specifically states that my PREDATOR
>can or cannot block the normal version? The rules
>says that any action on a card which does not have
>the (D) action is undirected, so Cat Burglary (normal)
>is undirected and can be blocked by my predator, can't it?
I would assume that since 'bleed' is defined as a directed
action against your prey that the normal vesion of CB would fall under
that definition and be directed against your prey. The bleed action
implies a direct against your prey, which would override the rules in
this case.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> Does the errata specifically states that my PREDATOR
> can or cannot block the normal version? The rules
> says that any action on a card which does not have
> the (D) action is undirected, so Cat Burglary (normal)
> is undirected and can be blocked by my predator, can't it?
Peace Alan,
I don't believe that your predator can block bleeds directed
at your prey. I believe that the rulebook states that bleeds are
considered (D) actions, therefore only your prey may block [barring
Anneke or Eagle Sight(?)].
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Does the errata specifically states that my PREDATOR
> can or cannot block the normal version? The rules
> says that any action on a card which does not have
> the (D) action is undirected, so Cat Burglary (normal)
> is undirected and can be blocked by my predator, can't it?
Yep - the rules on directed actions are conflicting.
I think it's clear that any bleed attempt is supposed to be considered
to be directed, and that normal bleed attempts (i.e. bleed without a
card, or a bleed with Cat Burglary) may only be directed at your prey.
papillo the linear
In article <3j1tn6$9...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>>
>> Does the errata specifically states that my PREDATOR
>> can or cannot block the normal version? The rules
>> says that any action on a card which does not have
>> the (D) action is undirected, so Cat Burglary (normal)
>> is undirected and can be blocked by my predator, can't it?>
>Peace Alan,
>
> I don't believe that your predator can block bleeds directed
>at your prey. I believe that the rulebook states that bleeds are
>considered (D) actions, therefore only your prey may block [barring
>Anneke or Eagle Sight(?)].
The Bleed action done without an action card is a directed
action at your prey, as said in the rules. When I do a
"bleed" with an action card, the card text takes precedence,
and the normal rules that says that Bleed is an action
directed at your prey is overridden by whatever that is
written on the card. Computer Hacking says (D) Bleed at +1,
and because there is a (D) symbol the action can be directed
at anybody. Cat Burglary (Normal) (in the errata) says
Bleed without a (D) symbol, so this overrides the normal
rules and the action is undirected.
Rules quote:
13.3.1 /Who May Block Whom/
... on action cards ... If the (D) does not appear, it
is not a directed action.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>I believe that the rulebook states that bleeds are
>>considered (D) actions, therefore only your prey may block [barring
>>Anneke or Eagle Sight(?)].
The rule book states that:
12.3.1 ... Bleeding is one of the most fundamental directed
actions of the game.
The rule book states that:
13.3.1 ... Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are
called directed actions and can only be blocked by that
Methuselah's minions.
>... Computer Hacking says (D) Bleed at +1,>and because there is a (D) symbol the action can be directed
>at anybody.
The rule book states that:
13.3.1 ... Directed actions are noted on action cards with a D
in the card text and allow you to direct the action against any
Methuselah.
Thus I see three different uses of the term 'Directed Actions'. To wit,
(1) A directed action is an action taken against another Methuselah, as
opposed to an undirected action which is not taken against another
Methuselah (e.g., equiping a minion).
(2) A directed action is an action taken against any Methuselah of your
choice.
(3) A directed action is an action which may only be blocked by
the Methuselah who is receiving the action.
These three interpretation's are sometimes allowed to exist
harmoniously, but other times not. The most obvious conflict is
"Bleeding". "Bleeding" is more commonly known as "Bleeding your prey"
because in section 12.3.1 it is stated:
"You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by
declaring a bleed action."
This is a modification to the definition of "Directed Action" for in a
directed action I can direct that action toward ANY METHUSALEH (e.g., I
could bleed myself). By stating a specific object of the action, the
rules call into question what a directed action is. Besides the fact
that a bleed is called a directed action it is not one by interpretation
1 and 2, only by 3, and perhaps should just be called a "Bleed Action".
The other side of the coin is that, of course, "Directed Actions"
determine who can block the action (number 3). In this case it is
obvious that the intent of a "Bleed" being a "Directed Action" has it's
origins in the third consideration, i.e. who can block the action.
There are other examples as well, but in the interest of keeping this
post short ... I shall turn to the cards themselves.
ARSON: (D). Burn a location. Can be directed at any Methuselah.
First off the card is specifically noted as a "Directed Action" card by
the (D) symbol. Then why does it go on to say that it can be directed
at any Methuselah? That is the definition of a (D) action (redundancy
and confusion). Also, this implies that I can direct this action
against myself (as a Methuselah).
BUM'S RUSH: (D). Attack an opponent's minion. (...)
This card is noted as a "Directed Action" card but modifies itself by
precluding the chance for the acting minion to attack an allied minion
(under control of the same Methuselah, therefore not an opponent.) The
directed action in this case then can only refer to 'who can block'.
COMPUTER HACKING: (D) Bleed at +1.
This card is noted as a "Directed Action" for a "Bleed" at +1. And yet
a bleed is already a "Directed Action" by definition (12.3.1) (but
really only under interpretation 3). Also, under that same section it
is stated (quoted above) that you may only attempt to bleed your prey.
Thus the rules conflict with themselves (are internally incoherent)
depending on which version (1,2 or 3) of "Directed Action" you
subscribe, i.e. who is affected and who can block. I say this because
it has been ruled (?) that computer hacking can be directed at any
Methuselah, apparently under interpretations 1 and 2, ignoring the rule
that states that bleeding is only the bleeding of your prey.
CRYPTIC MISSION: (D) Remove 1 blood from any vampire or do 1 damage to
any ally or retainer.
This card does not conflict with any of the interpretations presented
above and is one I use in my own deck.
SOAPBOX MODE ON >>>>
It is a shame that this game has so many logical inconsistencies. (I
will defend that later if need be). I do understand the rule, Section
10 "The Golden Rule for Cards" and what it implies. Unfortunately when
the rules themselves are inconsistent and a card can modify the meaning
of a critical term that is poorly defined to begin with, it is unclear
which meaning of said critical term the card is modifying. If this
is the case then it turns out you don't have a very well structured
(integrated) gaming environment. From reading many posts and articles
about Jyhad, I have heard that Jyhad appeals to an older (than MTG) and
more sophisticated crowd (Gamers). The kind of crowd that decades
earlier would have played bridge, or some other deeply involved game.
To this type of crowd, logical inconsistencies in a gaming environment
that leads to valid arguments about rules/card interpretations is a
reason not to play that game. Of course, WotC may have already decided
to retool Jyhad to appeal to the MTG crowd. If that is not the case,
then I hope that WotC's game developer's will be careful not to define
critical terms in haphazard ways (i.e., three definitions for one term,
e.g., directed action). Perhaps they will consider a glossary of
critical terms and then abide by them as the game is revised
(overhauled)?
SOAPBOX MODE OFF >>>>>
*CACKLE*
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> The Bleed action done without an action card is a directed
> action at your prey, as said in the rules. When I do a
> "bleed" with an action card, the card text takes precedence,
> and the normal rules that says that Bleed is an action
> directed at your prey is overridden by whatever that is
> written on the card. Computer Hacking says (D) Bleed at +1,
> and because there is a (D) symbol the action can be directed
> at anybody. Cat Burglary (Normal) (in the errata) says
> Bleed without a (D) symbol, so this overrides the normal
> rules and the action is undirected.
>
> Rules quote:
>
> 13.3.1 /Who May Block Whom/
>> .... on action cards ... If the (D) does not appear, it> is not a directed action.
Peace Alan,
OK, so they goofed. Its supposed to be like a normal bleed against
your prey (only s/h/it may block). I understand what you are saying,
but I believe that what was intended is what should be played.
[ quoted text not captured ]
To those who corrected me in private e-mail and in public:
I screwed up on EK.
When referring to the 'rules' on bleeding, I meant the DTR corrected
rules, not the original rules.
In general, this was the worst thought-out argument I ever remember
putting forward; my only defence was that I wrote it while under the
influence of Neo-Citran and without my cards or rules handy.
Teach me to do _that_ again! :-)
Shane Travis | There are two kinds of men who never amount to
sht...@duke.usask.ca | very much: those who cannot do what they are told,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | and those who can do nothing else.
| -- Cyrus H.K. Curtis
[ quoted text not captured ]
Bleeding with Cat Burglary is not a "normal" bleed attempt;
it is a bleed with an action card that indicates that the
action is undirected (by the absence of the (D) symbol).
If the action is indeed directed at your prey, we need
an official clarification (on the official errata).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Just posting to say that while I'm probaby too out of touch with Jyhad
to comment on design issues threads like this one about directed actions,
I've been forwarding the main posts in the thread to the lead Jyhad designer.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Frank Kusumoto (FKUS...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[ ... some interesting insights, but based on some incorrect assumptions
and thus they led him to incorrect conclusions.]
: Thus I see three different uses of the term 'Directed Actions'. To wit,: (1) A directed action is an action taken against another Methuselah, as
: opposed to an undirected action which is not taken against another
: Methuselah (e.g., equiping a minion).
This is only partially correct. Undirected actions may be taken against
other methuselahs (c.f. Enchant Kindred) or not (equipping minions,
encountering your own vampire in Torpor, etc.)
: (2) A directed action is an action taken against any Methuselah of your: choice.
: (3) A directed action is an action which may only be blocked by
: the Methuselah who is receiving the action.
Taken together, 2 and 3 comprise the sole restrictions on a Directed Action:
- It may be against any Methuselah (unless specifically restricted from
doing so)
- It may only be blocked by the Methuselah at which it is directed.
: These three interpretation's are sometimes allowed to exist: harmoniously, but other times not. The most obvious conflict is
: "Bleeding". "Bleeding" is more commonly known as "Bleeding your prey"
: because in section 12.3.1 it is stated:: "You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by
: declaring a bleed action.": This is a modification to the definition of "Directed Action"
Not at all. Think of it this way: You may only bleed your prey unless
you have an action card which allows a bleed, in which case you may bleed
any Methuselah EXCEPT YOURSELF (Design Team Ruling/Errata). All bleeds
are Directed Actions.
When looked at that way, I think it makes more sense; the restriction is
on who you can bleed, but the rules of a Directed Action (as I stated,
not as you stated) do not get modified.
: ARSON: (D). Burn a location. Can be directed at any Methuselah.: First off the card is specifically noted as a "Directed Action" card by
: the (D) symbol. Then why does it go on to say that it can be directed
: at any Methuselah? That is the definition of a (D) action (redundancy
: and confusion).
This is (IMHO) one of those 'helpful reminders' that WotC is fond of
putting on their cards. They really should stop doing that, as it often
leads to confusion when someone looks at the rulings the way you did.
: Also, this implies that I can direct this action: against myself (as a Methuselah).
AFAIK, you can. Nothing stopping you, at which point the only person
able to blockl you would be you (or someone with Eagle's Sight or
Anneke.) This is why everyone who wants a card like this in their decks
uses Arson instead of Rampage. (Which stated that it is not a (D) action
if used against a location you control. SNAFU, I'm afraid...)
: BUM'S RUSH: (D). Attack an opponent's minion. (...): This card is noted as a "Directed Action" card but modifies itself by
: precluding the chance for the acting minion to attack an allied minion
: (under control of the same Methuselah, therefore not an opponent.) The
: directed action in this case then can only refer to 'who can block'.
Correct. Again, attack anyone's minions you want EXCEPT YOURS; same as
with a Bleed. It is still a directed action...
: COMPUTER HACKING: (D) Bleed at +1.
[...]
:I say this because
: it has been ruled (?) that computer hacking can be directed at any
: Methuselah, apparently under interpretations 1 and 2, ignoring the rule
: that states that bleeding is only the bleeding of your prey.
This ruling (and yes, it was ruled this way) that you can use a card to
bleed anyone does _not_ ignore the rule about bleeding - it modifies it.
Many cards out there modify fundamental rules of the game:
Praxis: Solomon - modifies the rule about yielding contested cards
Movement of the Slow Body - modifies the 'getting out of Torpor' rules
Cloak the Gathering - modifies the 'who can play action modifiers' rule
Anson/Romurs of Gehenna - modifies the '1 master per phase' rule
I could go on, but I think the point is made. If the cards never
modified the rules, then we might as well go and play Hearts, or Bridge
where the cards I hold only modify the way I play the game, not the basic
rules of the game itself. (No flames please - I _love_ both Hearts and
Bridge... :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Notice: this article contains disputes against the DTR, and is
in no way an answer to a rules query. The interpretations
supported by this discussion are not necessarily official
unless explicitly stated to be so.
In article <3j5q94$9...@tribune.usask.ca> you write:
>Frank Kusumoto (FKUS...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>
>: Thus I see three different uses of the term 'Directed Actions'. To wit,
>
>: (1) A directed action is an action taken against another Methuselah, as
>: opposed to an undirected action which is not taken against another
>: Methuselah (e.g., equiping a minion).
>
>This is only partially correct. Undirected actions may be taken against
>other methuselahs (c.f. Enchant Kindred) or not (equipping minions,
>encountering your own vampire in Torpor, etc.)
Frank was trying to point out the inconsistencies in the rules
using the rules quotations. You reinforced his point,
/if/ your example is indeed valid:
by pointing out that the quoted rules is "only
partially correct", i.e. incorrect as a universal rule.
BTW, how can Enchant Kindred (Superior) be taken against other
methselahs? How do I know that /his/ uncontrolled vampire
is younger?
>You may only bleed your prey unless
>you have an action card which allows a bleed, in which case you may bleed
>any Methuselah EXCEPT YOURSELF (Design Team Ruling/Errata). All bleeds
>are Directed Actions.
That is a DTR. The cards themselves have nothing to
indicate that a (D) bleed can be directed at anybody.
See argument below.
>: (2) A directed action is an action taken against any Methuselah of your
>: choice.>: (3) [...]>
>Taken together, 2 and 3 comprise the sole restrictions on a Directed Action:
>
>- It may be against any Methuselah (unless specifically restricted from
>doing so)>- [...]
Wrong. Look at the Rack:
"A vampire controlled by another Methuselah can steal the
rack for its Methuselah as a (D) action."
The card nowhere states that the action must be directed at
the current controller of the Rack. According to your
interpretation, the action to steal the Rack can be
Directed at anybody, including the stealing minion's
Methselah, since there is no specific restriction as to
whom the action should be directed at. However, every player
I know of plays that the action must be directed at the
controller of the Rack, and this is because of Frank's
"use #1", quoted from the rules, which you wrote off casually.
>
>: ARSON: (D). Burn a location. Can be directed at any Methuselah.
>
>: First off the card is specifically noted as a "Directed Action" card by
>: the (D) symbol. Then why does it go on to say that it can be directed
>: at any Methuselah? That is the definition of a (D) action (redundancy
>: and confusion).
>
>This is (IMHO) one of those 'helpful reminders' that WotC is fond of
>putting on their cards. They really should stop doing that, as it often
>leads to confusion when someone looks at the rulings the way you did.
Ever wondered why the only (D) bleed card (Cat Burglary) on which
this same "helpful reminder" appeared got an errata (as if it
needed one)?
>: COMPUTER HACKING: (D) Bleed at +1.
>[...]
>:I say this because
>: it has been ruled (?) that computer hacking can be directed at any
>: Methuselah, apparently under interpretations 1 and 2, ignoring the rule
>: that states that bleeding is only the bleeding of your prey.
>
>This ruling (and yes, it was ruled this way) that you can use a card to
>bleed anyone does _not_ ignore the rule about bleeding - it modifies it.
... without saying so on the card. The card has a (D) symbol,
which means, according to your interpretation, that the action
can be directed against any Methuselah, unless specifically
restricted from doing so. The card also says "Bleed",
and 12.3.1 says "You may attempt to bleed the player
who is your prey by declaring a bleed action."
This effectively restricts a bleed action to your prey;
the rules nowhere stated that "the word 'Bleed' appearing
on an action card refers to a bleed action that can be
directed at anybody".
Since Computer Hacking says "Bleed" and in the rules it
is stated that Bleeds are directed at your prey, it
follows that Computer Hacking has to be directed at
your prey. Note that, according to your interpretation,
the (D) symbol on the card does not always means that
the action can be directed against any Methuselah; it
means the action can be directed against any Methuselah
only if not "specifically restricted from doing so".
In this case, the word "Bleed" does create such a
specific restriction. Looking at the card, since
the (D) symbol on the card does not constitute
an exception to the general rule restricting a
bleed action to be directed at your prey, as I just
explained using your interpretation, and there is
no other word or phrase either on the card or in
the rules indicating that Computer Hacking is
an exception, it follows that Computer Hacking
is not an exception to the general rules,
barring an official ruling which states the contrary
(in this case there is one).
>Many cards out there modify fundamental rules of the game:
>Praxis: Solomon - modifies the rule about yielding contested cards
>Movement of the Slow Body - modifies the 'getting out of Torpor' rules
>Cloak the Gathering - modifies the 'who can play action modifiers' rule
>Anson/Romurs of Gehenna - modifies the '1 master per phase' rule
However, these cards carries text which specifically,
unambiguously (ideally) states in which ways the rules
are modified. There are also bleed action cards which
do the same, but the current official interpretation
of the rules deemed one of them in need of an errata.
/Real/ problems occur when we have cards, lots of them,
modifying the rules WITHOUT explicitly stating so on
the card.
>
>I could go on, but I think the point is made. If the cards never
>modified the rules, then we might as well go and play Hearts, or Bridge
>where the cards I hold only modify the way I play the game, not the basic
>rules of the game itself. (No flames please - I _love_ both Hearts and
>Bridge... :-)
If the cards modify the rules /without stating so on the card/,
we might as well be playing with cards with nothing but
name and illustration on them, and print all the rules
on another rules sheet. BTW, how would that be different
from Trump cards in Bridge?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jn4i3$d...@hermes.louisville.edu>,
James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Peace heathen, 8^)
heh. and peace to you and yours.
>I was saying that the inferior version of Cat Burglary was supposed to
>work against your prey and the superior version could be used against any
>one. I can't play the card as written (I don't have one).
right. i understand now; thanks for clearing that up.
heckler
--
Would you like a slice
of his liver so nice?
-Bryan O'Sullivan
In article <3j4ipn$b...@hermes.louisville.edu>,
James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Peace Alan,
Goddess light your path, James,
>OK, so they goofed. Its supposed to be like a normal bleed against
>your prey (only s/h/it may block). I understand what you are saying,
>but I believe that what was intended is what should be played.
What rationale do you have for saying this? I see no problems with
playing the card as written. I fail to understand how you abstract
a different intention from the card, but that may be because i've joined
the discussion late.
[ quoted text not captured ]