(D) Bleeds (Re: Tourney rules ruin Jyhad)

AKA: Cross-Table-Bleeds (CTBs) Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >>As written/intended (from all reliable sources), the (D) symbol was a >>_reminder_, although the rules were a little vague about this. The RT >>decided that the (D) _overrode_ the regular rules for actions (i.e. can >>only bleed prey) and changed the meaning of this symbol (breaking a few >>cards in the process). Now VTES rules come out, and (apparently) are >>quite clear that (D) doesn't override anything, but serves as a reminder only. > >I read the Jyhad section on this last week, and it seemed rather clear to >me that the rules were defining what the (D) symbol meant. And when you >think about it, they sort of have to: otherwise, what are players supposed to >do to figure out whether something is directed, read our minds? While it's >generally possible to guess whether an action should or shouldn't be directed >by looking it at, there will always be corner cases where the line blurs. >For these cases, it's better to simply define what (D) means, in the rulebook, >and get it over with. > >Now, it's true that the line blurs a little bit in the VTES card texts. >Certain of the rules in the rulebook are constantly stuck into the card >texts as brief reminders. But to me, "Cards involve directed actions >have a (D) in the card text" is not a rulebook reminder of what a directed >action is. It's a defintion of the (D) symbol; it's a definition of what >a directed action is. "Police Officers wear Badges." "Establishments allowed to sell hard liquor in America have Red Dots." "Cards describing directed actions have (D) symbols." Pretty clearly not a definition, which would instead read as follows: "People with Badges are to be granted law enforcement priviledges." "Stores with Red Dots in America are to be allowed to sell hard liquor." "Cards with (D) symbols are to be allowed to be directed at any Methuselah." Also, in another article, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>I call your bluff, Tom. *You* are the ones who know what the rulebook >>is supposed to say about Cross-Table Bleeds ([D] Bleeds) ? >I was not involved in the development or the documentation of Jyhad, >but from everything I'm told (including from Richard), D-bleeds were >always supposed to be directable at anyone, just like other D actions. You once said that the initial concept was that (D) text was to be reminder text, but that this was changed before the initial cards went to print. Hence the screwed-up Cat Burglary card. (No one who intended (D) symbols to grant the power that they now do could have written Cat Burglary the way it is). Has history changed? -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Now, it's true that the line blurs a little bit in the VTES card texts. >>Certain of the rules in the rulebook are constantly stuck into the card >>texts as brief reminders. But to me, "Cards involve directed actions >>have a (D) in the card text" is not a rulebook reminder of what a directed >>action is. It's a defintion of the (D) symbol; it's a definition of what >>a directed action is. >"Police Officers wear Badges." >"Establishments allowed to sell hard liquor in America have Red Dots." >"Cards describing directed actions have (D) symbols." False analogy. Not everyone who wears a badge is a police officer. Not every establishment with a red dot sells hard liquor. However, all actions with the (D) symbol are directed. >Pretty clearly not a definition, which would instead read as follows: >"People with Badges are to be granted law enforcement priviledges." >"Stores with Red Dots in America are to be allowed to sell hard liquor." >"Cards with (D) symbols are to be allowed to be directed at any Methuselah." We can quibble about how the definition ought to have been phrased all day, but the fact remains that the rulebook is defining what a (D) action is. >>>I call your bluff, Tom. *You* are the ones who know what the rulebook >>>is supposed to say about Cross-Table Bleeds ([D] Bleeds) ? >>I was not involved in the development or the documentation of Jyhad, >>but from everything I'm told (including from Richard), D-bleeds were >>always supposed to be directable at anyone, just like other D actions. >You once said that the initial concept was that (D) text was to be reminder >text, but that this was changed before the initial cards went to print. > >Hence the screwed-up Cat Burglary card. >(No one who intended (D) symbols to grant the power that they now do could >have written Cat Burglary the way it is). > >Has history changed? I don't remember ever having thought that the (D) symbol was reminder text at any point. The change that pertained to Cat Burglary was that putting the (D) symbol on a bleed wasn't always considered to override you who could bleed. A bleed action that didn't have the (D) symbol would be undirected. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >You say that the sentence construct > "Cards involve directed actions have a (D) in the card text" >clearly implies a definition. I give you example (of which there are many) >of that sentence structure doing what it "clearly" does - describe an >identifying mark. > > "Things of type Noun1 have a Noun2" > >is not a definition, but a method of identification. > > "A Noun1 is a Noun2 with Property1" > >is a definition, which (given the reflexive property of the verb "to be") can >be written as > > "A Noun2 with Property1 is a Noun1" > >Which is why I can't write "A person with a badge is a Police Officer" >even though "Police Officers wear Badges" is correct. > >Similarily, "Directed action cards have (D) symbols" means that directed >actions described on cards have (D) symbols. The action, because it is >directed, is given a (D) symbol. If the action describes a bleed, then it >is directed. Therefore, it is given a (D) symbol to indicate that. "Cards that involve directed actions have a D in the card text" means the same thing as "Cards that have a D in the card text involve directed actions." You never have a case where only one of these statements describes (or excludes) a given card. Therefore, under your definition of definition (which has more to do with a 'commutative' meaning than the verb "to be"), the rulebook is defining what the (D) symbol is. And it's doing it in the paragraph defining what a directed action is. The (D) symbol must define an action as directed, since without the paragraph on directed actions you'd have no idea what the (D) meant, and without the (D) symbol, people would have to read our minds (or be really good guessers) to know exactly which actions were directed, and which weren't. While it's generally obvious from the backstory of a card whether or not an action should be directed, there's no way to reliably guess that information. For example, without the guidance of the (D) symbol, someone might guess superior Govern the Unaligned to be directed at oneself, since after all it is affecting you, and not another player. [ quoted text not captured ]

[... Discussion amongst Tom, LSJ, Me ...] The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> >>Whether or not CTB is legitimate, I'm not sure. >>However, it _is_ obvious one of two things happened: >>Cross Table Bleeds were never meant to be >>and the (D)-symbol was a poorly thought out reminder, >>or CTB were changed to being allowed, and Cat Burglary >>snuck through the mix.[...] > > In article <47naa4$7r8...@leeds.ac.uk>, GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) wrote: > is it not pretty stupid a tactic to perform cross table > bleeds?? I cannot think of any situation where it would > be more advantageous to yourself than any of the other > players except possibly night moves etc. against someone > who can't intercept you, if your prey has a smart > intercept deck (although why they would want to waste +3 > or perhapes even +6 intercept against a poxy 1 bleed is > beyond me). > There are situations in which it is useful. In a game I played in recently, my predator used a huge (4! Huge for a non-Prey bleed anyway) Cross Table Bleed (CTB) on his tapped out grandprey (a tuned Malk. deck played by a newbie) to put LOTS of pressure on that Malkavian from the Malkavian's predator. The Malkavian was so low, and not close enough to finishing off his own prey that he was forced to play defense. Without that pressure, the Malkavian would have ignored the Nosferatu deck behind him and finished off his prey before going on to my predator's vote deck. My predator held off what would have been a predator he couldn't handle. I still am not convinced one way or the other if CTB is legitimate. I tend to play however the group I am with plays. > Cat burglary is worded like it is because the superior > version of the card has not been printed in bold. Excuse me? What does that mean? > It is not a (D) action because there is a difference between > the inferior and superior. the superior is affectively a > (D) action. So are you saying that (D) bleeds are reminders (as I think they _might_ be) and that cat burglary can be directed at anyone at superior (as the text). Maybe you didn't understand that I feel that Cat Burglary (superior) might be the ONLY card able to bleed anyone. If it isn't, it needs new text. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>" # $ sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu -<insert name of those quoted here> @ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ GAT/CS/O/WS d-(---) h++ s: a--- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ P+ L E- W+>++ N++(+) o?> K+>++++ w--->? O? M++ V-->? PS+(-+) PE&++&- Y+>++ PGP(--) t 5->? X++&-- R+++&* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ DI D(+)&--- G+>+++ e+*>++++ h(+) r(+) y*+? /* Version 3.1 */ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ Spoutingly yours 8^)

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >A Directed action directed at oneself violates the definition of a directed >action, despite the Rampage (mis-)ruling. You're absolutely right. Cards break the rules, remember? >13.3.1: Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are called >*directed actions* and... [emphasis WotC's] > >It is very clear which actions are directed and which aren't. >If it's not, simply look for the (D) reminder symbol. If it weren't for the (D) symbol or not, and actions rigidly followed the "directed if played on another Methuselah", then whether an action was directed or not would depend on who you pointed it at. >Obviously, Computer Hacking (and all other bleed actions) are directed, >as indicated by the (D) symbol and by the fact that the action is >clearly directed. And, since there's no overriding card text, the action >can only be directed at your Prey (definition of a bleed). There is overriding card text on Computer Hacking the (D) symbol. By contrast, there is no overriding text on Bonding: it does not, in and of itself, let you bleed someone other than your prey. Yes, it is logical that whoever Computer Hacking was affecting would be able to block it. This does not tell you whether you can only bleed your prey with it, or bleed anyone you want. The (D) symbol tells you you can bleed whoever you want (other than yourself). >The only cards which can get confused are certain Votes (Parity Shift, >Upheaval, Disputed Territory, etc.) since players (including your >playtesters, by the looks of the rulebook) might overlook that the target >of the action is all of the Methuselahs, not simply the one affected >by the outcome of a successful vote. How is Parity Shift's effect any more or less directed than Legal Manipulation's? They both do the same thing: someone loses pool, and someone else gains pool. The only real difference is the amount of pool being gained (and lost), and the fact that you can spread it around a little. Under your argument, it's just as likely that people would figure the vote to be directed at whoever was gaining or losing pool. >Does it directly affect another Methuselah's pool or cards? If yes, >then the action is directed, if no then it is not. No mind reading >necessary. Under this rule of thumb, actions such as superior Govern the Aligned are non-directed when affecting you, but directed in all other cases. This is a contradiction, since the rulebook makes no mention of actions that are directed in some cases, but non-directed in others. [ quoted text not captured ]

B.D. Redmond (GEN...@leeds.ac.uk) wrote: : is it not pretty stupid a tactic to perform cross table : bleeds?? I cannot think of any situation where it would : be more advantageous to yourself than any of the other : players No. If you've got a heavy bleed deck, late in the game it allows you to alter the ousting sequence. That can be tremendously advantageous. Heavy cross-table bleeds also make a tremendous threat. >Cat burglary is worded like it is because the superior >version of the card has not been printed in bold. It is >not a (D) action because there is a difference between >the inferior and superior. the superior is affectively a >(D) action. Cat Burglary is worded like it is because when it was written you could only bleed your prey. There's no disagreement on that. Tom claims that was changed as a concious design decision by a knowledgeable person, and that they just missed Cat Burglary. Many on this group believe it was either a mistake or that the change was performed by somebody not involved with the design of the game.

In article <47r183$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >13.3.1: Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are called > >*directed actions* and... [emphasis WotC's] > > > >It is very clear which actions are directed and which aren't. > >If it's not, simply look for the (D) reminder symbol. > > If it weren't for the (D) symbol or not, and actions rigidly followed > the "directed if played on another Methuselah", then whether an action > was directed or not would depend on who you pointed it at. Yes. Pointing an action at yourself or no one would be undirected. Pointing an action at another Methuselah is directed. > > >Obviously, Computer Hacking (and all other bleed actions) are directed, > >as indicated by the (D) symbol and by the fact that the action is > >clearly directed. And, since there's no overriding card text, the action > >can only be directed at your Prey (definition of a bleed). > > There is overriding card text on Computer Hacking the (D) symbol. By > contrast, there is no overriding text on Bonding: it does not, in and of > itself, let you bleed someone other than your prey. Probably because Bonding is a modifier. Computer hacking can be considered to have overriding text ("...the (D) symbol."). By supposing that, you avoid the arguement on whether or not CTB exists. LSJ's arguement is a) that the (D) is a reminder - b) that the bleed is a subset of directed actions. Hence, Computer Hacking can only hit your prey. This supposition does not break the rules as written. Tom, your arguement is a) that (D) means at anyone - b) that (D) in card text overides the definition of a bleed. This supposition does not break the rules as written, but is weaker. >> Directed actions have (D)'s >> Directed actions can be directed at any Methuselah. >> Bleed is a directed action taken against your Prey. Personally, I'm not sure what to think, and I'm playing CTB for now (merely because everyone else here does), but I don't assume anyone new I play with is. No-CTB makes much better sense, logically. It doesn't greatly effect my decks. I'm not too concerned. But, I would appreciate (though most likely not receive) either an official rule rewrite to allow CTB (by changing the above text), or interpret the above text to mean no CTB. It only makes more sense. > Yes, it is logical > that whoever Computer Hacking was affecting would be able to block it. > This does not tell you whether you can only bleed your prey with it, or > bleed anyone you want. The (D) symbol tells you you can bleed whoever > you want (other than yourself). See above. That is what we are questioning. What is the reason, given the above rulebook definitions? [ quoted text not captured ]

tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) wrote: -> B.D. Redmond (GEN...@leeds.ac.uk) wrote: -> -> : is it not pretty stupid a tactic to perform cross table -> : bleeds?? I cannot think of any situation where it would -> : be more advantageous to yourself than any of the other -> : players except possibly night moves etc. against someone -> : who can't intercept you, if your prey has a smart -> : intercept deck (although why they would want to waste +3 -> : or perhapes even +6 intercept against a poxy 1 bleed is -> : beyond me). -> -> One has already been pointed out, and I can think of another... Yet another is when your prey is going to be ousted from an untap effect (e.g. Anarch Revolt) and your grand-prey is tapped out. CTB your grandprey. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Tom, Sorry if I missed your reply, could you kindly repost it? Most importantly, is Rescuing vampires from torpor allowed? And is that a directed or undirected action (or does it, in fact, depend on who you point it at)? ----------- From: lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: (D) Bleeds (Re: Tourney rules ruin Jyhad) Date: 9 Nov 1995 05:51:25 -0800 Message-ID: <47t10t$e...@crl.crl.com> In article <47r183$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>13.3.1: Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are called >>*directed actions* and... [emphasis WotC's] >> >>It is very clear which actions are directed and which aren't. >>If it's not, simply look for the (D) reminder symbol. > >If it weren't for the (D) symbol or not, and actions rigidly followed >the "directed if played on another Methuselah", then whether an action >was directed or not would depend on who you pointed it at. Right. >>Obviously, Computer Hacking (and all other bleed actions) are directed, >>as indicated by the (D) symbol and by the fact that the action is >>clearly directed. And, since there's no overriding card text, the action >>can only be directed at your Prey (definition of a bleed). > >There is overriding card text on Computer Hacking the (D) symbol. By No, the (D) symbols means that the action is directed, which we all know'that it is anyhow, since it directly affects *another* methuselah (namely, your prey). Since it is directed, it gets a (D) symbol to show this fact. >contrast, there is no overriding text on Bonding: it does not, in and of >itself, let you bleed someone other than your prey. Yes, it is logical Bonding is an action modifier, so obviously cannot be a directed action. It modifies a bleed, which is by definition a directed action, so I suppose you could call it a directed action modifier, but I don't know why you would want to. What is the point of this tangent? >that whoever Computer Hacking was affecting would be able to block it. >This does not tell you whether you can only bleed your prey with it, or >bleed anyone you want. The (D) symbol tells you you can bleed whoever >you want (other than yourself). Where does this come from? If you're basing this on the sentence in 13.3.1 of the "corrected" rulebook: Directed actions are noted on action cards with a D in the card text and allow you to direct the action against any Methuselah. then you'd better find some more capable rules-writers. That mis-guided sentence says that *all* directed actions are directable at any Methuselah (and *all* are marked with (D) symbols). It says nothing about the (D) meaning that you can direct the action at any methuselah. Directed actions have (D)'s Directed actions can be directed at any Methuselah. Bleed is a directed action taken against your Prey. As a directed action, a bleed gets the (D) symbol - no matter what restrictions are removed as to who you can bleed by other text. In the absence of additional text (Computer Hacking, e.g.) you can only direct the action to your Prey (definition of a bleed - which is a directed action - and therefore always gets a (D) symbol). Otherwise (if (D) grants the power you say it does), then Night Moves contradicts itself: It has a (D) symbol - which you says says: direct this action at any methuselah - and it has text that says Predator or Prey. So it can be directed at any Methuselah and at your Predator or Prey. Obviously - it means bleed (which is a directed action - and therefore gets a (D) symbol) which you can direct at your Predator or Prey (instead of only your Prey - not instead of any Methuselah). >>The only cards which can get confused are certain Votes (Parity Shift, >>Upheaval, Disputed Territory, etc.) since players (including your >>playtesters, by the looks of the rulebook) might overlook that the target >>of the action is all of the Methuselahs, not simply the one affected >>by the outcome of a successful vote. > >How is Parity Shift's effect any more or less directed than Legal >Manipulation's? They both do the same thing: someone loses pool, and Jeez. It is a *political action* it does not cause the loss of pool. It causes a vote. a successful vote causes the loss of a pool. Calling a vote is *always an undirected action* because your *are* calling a vote. This is a pretty basic concept. Call a vote - this is undirected because you are calling a vote among all methuselahs. the effect of the vote is immaterial because the action is simply calling a vote. >someone else gains pool. The only real difference is the amount of >pool being gained (and lost), and the fact that you can spread it around >a little. Under your argument, it's just as likely that people would figure >the vote to be directed at whoever was gaining or losing pool. You may want to re-read the argument. >>Does it directly affect another Methuselah's pool or cards? If yes, >>then the action is directed, if no then it is not. No mind reading >>necessary. > >Under this rule of thumb, actions such as superior Govern the Aligned are >non-directed when affecting you, but directed in all other cases. >This is a contradiction, since the rulebook makes no mention of actions >that are directed in some cases, but non-directed in others. Oh? So actions like "Encounter V in Torpor to Rescue" and "Encounter V in Torpor to Diablerize" aren't mentioned in the rulebook? That's an odd thing for a Net.Rep to say. [ quoted text not captured ]