Hope you had a pleasant coupl'a days away from our hounding, Tom :-)
Just before you left, the question came up:
How can an undirected action (Blood Bond) have a target (e.g., Anvil)?
It is either directed, and its effects will cease when the "target" Anvil
is burned (so that a lemon-fresh, non-bonded Anvil may be brought out),
Or
It is undirected, and its effects will cease when the Acting vampire is
burned - continuing to affect any copy of the vampire named.
Or (more likely)
The DT will stonewall this one and say that it is an undirected action
with an external target (flying in the face of the definition of undirected).
How now?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. | are subject to card text.
I was reading all the notes back and forth on the Blood Bond dilemma,
and went to read my card. (Unfortunately, this was on Mon. or Tues. so
I'm working from memory now.) When I read what the card actually says, as
opposed to what I thought it said, it was clear to me that the card could
not remain in effect. I don't know for sure, so I can't really argue the
point, not to mention I _don't_ have the card right now. Anyways, from what
I remember, it wasn't "name" a vamp; and thus that _Name_ cannot block.
Rather it was "choose" (I think); and so you pick one of the vamps that is
out on the table. When that vamp goes away, all is said and done. Now if
people are reading "choose" as "naming" then there is nothing to be done
about that. (Most people do not change their minds around here.) Ta Ta.
Remy
leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault!
Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball!
| - Han Solo
"I don't want the world, I just want your half."
"Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped."
In article <Pine.A32.3.91j.95051...@homer13.u.washington.edu>,
James Bowes <leb...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I was reading all the notes back and forth on the Blood Bond dilemma,
>and went to read my card. (Unfortunately, this was on Mon. or Tues. so
>I'm working from memory now.) When I read what the card actually says, as
>opposed to what I thought it said, it was clear to me that the card could
>not remain in effect. I don't know for sure, so I can't really argue the
>point, not to mention I _don't_ have the card right now. Anyways, from what
>I remember, it wasn't "name" a vamp; and thus that _Name_ cannot block.
>Rather it was "choose" (I think); and so you pick one of the vamps that is
>out on the table. When that vamp goes away, all is said and done. Now if
>people are reading "choose" as "naming" then there is nothing to be done
>about that. (Most people do not change their minds around here.) Ta Ta.
>
Yes, it does say choose. But it also does not say (D). The two don't
jive, so one is in error (one of: choose, (D), or DT :-)
I understand the meaning of the word choose, but I also understand
the meaning of the term "undirected action".
You can't "Bond" with a vampire if you don't go to the chosen vampire.
People don't change there minds around here because no logical reason is
presented to do so, and we grew accustomed to thinking for ourselves.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text
Blood Bond certainly looks like it should be directed. I'll throw it into
the design team hopper to see if we want to issue errata for it. In the
meantime, just remember that there's nothing wrong with house rules ;)
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.