(D) Bleeds vs. non-prey ... Where is it written

In a game last night someone cross-table bled using a (D) action dominate card. They then showed me in print where it said this is legal. Where is this ruling overturned? I need to show them in print or I can forget it.

In article <4etvve$h...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, Mike Kelly <kelly_...@mm.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry. Officially, they are right. I am impartial over the state of this debate, but a long running "Are CTB (cross table bleeds) legal?" thread tends to come and go here. The CTB-OK camp: (D) overrides the idea that a bleed is directed at prey. The No-CTB camp: (D) is a directed action. Bleed is a (D) action at prey. (D) is a reminder, or else why would Cat Burglary be so explicit? In terms of Logic, I lean towards the No-CTB side. In game play, I play CTB, because I only tend to play house rules if they fix a hole in the rules (the Golden Tenets) or they fix misprints (Blythe) and misrulings (Rotschreck). You can always show them <http://www.math.sc.edu/%7Esjohnson/jyhad/DBleed.txt> for an arguement against (D)-bleed and see if they like it... "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960202162342.2341C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >In article <4etvve$h...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, Mike Kelly ><kelly_...@mm.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote: > >> In a game last night someone cross-table bled using a (D) action >dominate >> card. They then showed me in print where it said this is legal. Where >is this >> ruling overturned? I need to show them in print or I can forget it. > >Sorry. Officially, they are right. I am impartial over the state of >this debate, but a long running "Are CTB (cross table bleeds) legal?" >thread tends to come and go here. I've never heard of this & I can't find it in the rules. Would you be kind enough to give a reference? Thanks, Gary S.

schw...@math.uiuc.edu (Gary Schwartz) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] It isn't in the rules. It's in the RTR bounds-trodding interpretation of how the rules should have been: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: *NEW* Official FAQ for Jyhad, April 95 version Date: 13 Apr 1995 01:16:26 GMT Message-Id: <3mhu1a$h...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. However, this stance (an false assumption that (D) imparts omni-directability) leads to many false conclusions (proof by contradiction that (D) is just a reminder). From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: *NEW* Official FAQ for Jyhad, April 95 version Date: 15 Apr 1995 04:21:59 GMT Message-ID: <3mnhl7$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> >>p. 20, Section12.3.1. Bleed: Bleeding is a directed action. >So you can always bleed anyone on the table (since directed actions can be >directed at any Methuselah) No. Mentioning that it is directed does not remove the restriction that you can only bleed your prey (by default). <Note: the (D) symbol only means that an action is directed, so the above statement invalidates Cross-Table-Bleeds since all the (D) does is mention that the action is directed.> And the "better to define" / "Not a defining statement" dance: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: Tourney rules ruin Jyhad Date: 16 Oct 1995 07:24:50 GMT For these cases, it's better to simply define what (D) means, in the rulebook, and get it over with. From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Rules Team Rulings: 1/24/96 Date: 24 Jan 1996 21:40:18 GMT Message-ID: <4e6902$t...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> directed, regardless of what the action affects. The "definition" of directed actions in the rulebook ("...actions that directly affect another Methuselah, one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls") is really just our design notes as to when we normally describe (or don't And the 'No action can be directed and not-directed depending on who it's directed at' convolution (in direct opposition to the definition of 'Encounter Vampire in Torpor to Rescue/Diablerize' in every copy of the rulebook):: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: (D) Bleeds (Re: Tourney rules ruin Jyhad) Date: 8 Nov 1995 19:42:59 GMT Message-ID: <47r183$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >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. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >schw...@math.uiuc.edu (Gary Schwartz) writes: >>In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960202162342.2341C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter >><sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >>>In article <4etvve$h...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, Mike Kelly >>><kelly_...@mm.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In a game last night someone cross-table bled using a (D) action >>>dominate >>>> card. They then showed me in print where it said this is legal. Where >>>is this >>>> ruling overturned? I need to show them in print or I can forget it. >>> >>>Sorry. Officially, they are right. I am impartial over the state of >>>this debate, but a long running "Are CTB (cross table bleeds) legal?" >>>thread tends to come and go here. >>I've never heard of this & I can't find it in the rules. Would you >>be kind enough to give a reference? >It isn't in the rules. In Murk Dwellers of Duelist 6 Tom Wylie states: 'The official ruling is that the general rule for directed actions such as Computer Hacking overrides the implicit exception given for bleed actions.' Thus a (D) bleed can be used against any methuselah, but in the same article: 'The question is: Should you be able to direct (D) bleeds at any player? ... The Duelist invites your comments on this issue.' So *at the moment* (D) bleeds against any player are allowed. Richard. ----- Richard P. Scott, Lincoln, England. ric...@fortress.demon.co.uk

On 3 Feb 1996, Gary Schwartz wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960202162342.2341C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > > >In article <4etvve$h...@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, Mike Kelly > ><kelly_...@mm.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote: > > > >> In a game last night someone cross-table bled using a (D) action > >dominate > >> card. They then showed me in print where it said this is legal. Where > >is this > >> ruling overturned? I need to show them in print or I can forget it. > > > >Sorry. Officially, they are right. I am impartial over the state of > >this debate, but a long running "Are CTB (cross table bleeds) legal?" > >thread tends to come and go here. > > I've never heard of this & I can't find it in the rules. Would you > be kind enough to give a reference? > > Thanks, > Gary S. > > If by cross table bleed you mean bleed somone who is not your prey. The way it's always been palyed in my group as been that a D action can be done to any methuselah be it predetor or prey as noted in rule 13.3.1 actions thatdirectly affect another methuselah are called directed actions and can only be blocked by that methuselahs minions. But while examing this item you pose i not an intresting twist which is why i see ppl saying hmm to this. To get technical the rule 13.3.1 also states that the only directed action that doesnt require a card is a bleed and encountering a vamp in torpor. Then i say rule 12.3.1 about bleed no card required and t states "you may attempt to bleed the layer who is your prey by decalring a bleed action. Afte looking this over i have come to a new conclusion that a directed action means only this. The methuselah being bleed or other by a D action and this includes normal bleed and ecounter vamp in torp. Is the only person who can tryto stop you no oter methuselah is allowed to try to stop it if you decline the block and take the bleed. Also the only person you can bleed is your prey. So that is all a D action is good for. Keeping meddling Methuselahs out of your business of killing burning buildings bleeding and so forth of your prey. Methuselah Midnght P.S. I must thank youthis makes the game play much more intresting when limited like such and places a whole new value on D action cards.

On Sat, 3 Feb 1996, Richard P. Scott wrote: > >schw...@math.uiuc.edu (Gary Schwartz) writes: > >>I've never heard of this & I can't find it in the rules. Would you > >>be kind enough to give a reference? > > >It isn't in the rules. > > In Murk Dwellers of Duelist 6 Tom Wylie states: > > 'The official ruling is that the general rule for directed actions > such as Computer Hacking overrides the implicit exception given for > bleed actions.' > > Thus a (D) bleed can be used against any methuselah, but in the same > article: > > 'The question is: Should you be able to direct (D) bleeds at any > player? ... The Duelist invites your comments on this issue.' > > So *at the moment* (D) bleeds against any player are allowed. > > Richard. > ----- > Richard P. Scott, Lincoln, England. > ric...@fortress.demon.co.uk > > > This is very intresting then if that is true then any normal bleed can be done acros the table with out a D action card as stated in rul 13.3.1 the only Directed actions that do not require a card are bleed and encounter a vamp in torpor. page 27 of the little jyahd manual forthose intrested paragrah one. Methesulah Midnght

Midnght <mid...@web2.calweb.com> wrote: >This is very intresting then if that is true then any normal bleed can be >done acros the table with out a D action card as stated in rul 13.3.1 the >only Directed actions that do not require a card are bleed and encounter >a vamp in torpor. page 27 of the little jyahd manual forthose intrested >paragrah one. > Methesulah Midnght Not quite, in summary: 1) Bleeding is a directed action, which means it can only be blocked by the methuselah that is the target. 2) Bleeding is a special exception to the directed action rule, in that it can only be targeted on your prey. 3) All (D)-rated directed actions can be tageted at any methuselah. 4) If a bleed modifier is played (eg computer hacking, (D) bleed +1), which is a (D) action, then condition 3 applies. If no cards are played which say the action is (D), then condition 2 applies. In either case, condition 1 applies. I hope this is clearer, but read the article if possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <823693...@fortress.demon.co.uk>, ric...@fortress.demon.co.uk wrote: > Midnght <mid...@web2.calweb.com> wrote: > >This is very intresting then if that is true then any normal bleed can be > >done acros the table with out a D action card as stated in rul 13.3.1 the > >only Directed actions that do not require a card are bleed and encounter > >a vamp in torpor. page 27 of the little jyahd manual forthose intrested > >paragrah one. > > Methesulah Midnght > Not quite, in summary: > 1) Bleeding is a directed action, which means it can only be blocked > by the methuselah that is the target. > 2) Bleeding is a special exception to the directed action rule, in > that it can only be targeted on your prey. > 3) All (D)-rated directed actions can be tageted at any methuselah. A bleed can be argued to fit into 3, above. > 4) If a bleed modifier is played (eg computer hacking, (D) bleed +1), > which is a (D) action, then condition 3 applies. If no cards are > played which say the action is (D), then condition 2 applies. > In either case, condition 1 applies. But it can easily be argued that since (D) actions have the symbol, and since bleeds are cardless and yet are still directed (and hence (D) actions) that they can be directed at anyone. As of now, (D) bleeds allow CTB, but whether or not that is what was intended or what should be is unclear. IMHO, the game itself doesn't suffer in either avenue. If (D) bleeds are written to allow CTB, the rulebook needs to be rewritten, and if CTB is not allowed, this needs to be clarified (i.e., the rulebook needs to be rewritten). > I hope this is clearer, but read the article if possible. This issue has never been clear. I have always played CTB, because that seemed most intuitively obvious. However, after reading numerous articles on CTB, playing without CTB seems far more logical as the rules are written. In any case, I hope things improve. This will only happen if the rulebook is rewritten to logically included CTB or if the DTR reverses its ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

Please hear me out. I would like to know what the OFFICIAL WOtC standpoint on Directed Bleeds is -- ie. how did the designers INTEND it to work? Can you bleed anyone with a Computer Hacking, Govern The Unaligned, et al? Or are you restricted to your prey as target, except in those cases where the card says otherwise (Cat Burglary, Night Moves)? All I've seen on this NG is debate and (outright) bickering. Can we get an answer from THE AUTHORITY on Jyhad/V:TES? Thanks. -- For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals Then something happened that unleashed the power of our imagination We learned to talk - Dr. Stephen J Hawking

Ubermensch <kfin...@netshop.net> writes: >Please hear me out. >I would like to know what the OFFICIAL WOtC standpoint on Directed >Bleeds is -- ie. how did the designers INTEND it to work? Can you bleed >anyone with a Computer Hacking, Govern The Unaligned, et al? Or are you >restricted to your prey as target, except in those cases where the card >says otherwise (Cat Burglary, Night Moves)? The official standpoint and how the designers intended for it to be are two different things. When the game was being developed, the (D) symbols was a reminder. At some point (arguably before the game was released), the Design Team changed it to be omni-directability-granting, thus allowing Computer Hacking to target any /other/ Methuselah while breaking cards like Cat Burglary and making Night Moves slightly less useful in comparison. >All I've seen on this NG is debate and (outright) bickering. Can we get >an answer from THE AUTHORITY on Jyhad/V:TES? Every debate has started with an acknowledgement of the official WayOfTheWorld (WOTW). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Smith & Wesson: the original http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | "point and click" interface. [ quoted text not captured ]

I would have to agree that (D) bleed cards were intended to be used only against the prey. There are no cards that allow bleeds that do not have the directed action symbol, and Cat burglary (I think that's the one) specifies that it Can be used to bleed any methuselah. I'd think WotC would have fixed this in V:TES, this issue must have come up before it came out. Not that I think allowing bleeds of non-prey is a problem. It is only rarely useful, but adds an extra bit of mystery to the game. (Can I trust that John won't bleed me just because I'm not his prey, or should I leave an extra Vamp untapped as protection?) If they ever do make a ruling against it, I think they need to put out more cards like Cat burglary (maybe just one), a little more common. I don't think I've managed to aquire a Cat Burglary. Chad Lubrecht lubr...@udel.edu

The Corrupter wrote: > But it can easily be argued that since (D) actions have the symbol, and > since bleeds are cardless and yet are still directed (and hence (D) > actions) that they can be directed at anyone. > No. Cardless bleed actions can definatly only be targeted at the methuselah's prey. This is stated specifically in the rulebook.

Chad Lubrecht <lubr...@udel.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] >Chad Lubrecht >lubr...@udel.edu There are 2 cards that do it. Cat Burglery (cel) and Night Moves(obf). Since they have 2 cards that specifically say they do it and both are limited to 1 pool no matter what modifiers you play I consider this a good example of what the original game design was meant to be. Rory

Ubermensch <kfin...@netshop.net> wrote: >I would like to know what the OFFICIAL WOtC standpoint on Directed >Bleeds is -- ie. how did the designers INTEND it to work? Can you bleed >anyone with a Computer Hacking, Govern The Unaligned, et al? Or are you >restricted to your prey as target, except in those cases where the card >says otherwise (Cat Burglary, Night Moves)? The intent varied during intital playtest, which is why a card or two like Cat Burglarly had odd wordings when the game was released. But by the time it was released, it was decided that (D) bleed cards could be directed against any player. >All I've seen on this NG is debate and (outright) bickering. Can we get >an answer from THE AUTHORITY on Jyhad/V:TES? This is the authoritative answer. Much of the bickering results from people reading thing like the Cat Burglarly text and coming to their own conclusions of what the "real intention" is. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well thats true enough (speaking as someone who read the card). Remember though that many of the players don't have access to this group (I for instance have only been here a month or so) and since you don't publish errata in a consistent place we have to do that. So when is the book "Darkness Unveiled" coming out? Steve Jackson Games offers erratta for the price of a SASE on all thier products. I'm not trying to be grouchy here but this is one of my two big gripes with your company. The other being your DS ticking so many off that my group among others won't play it. As one put it he doesn't feel he can trust you not to support your customers in the future based on your poor playtesting of DS and the change in card backs. I don't fully agree but it is hard to refute his views. Rory Fansler over $1000 invested.

In article <311BBF...@udel.edu>, Chad Lubrecht <lubr...@udel.edu> wrote: [I wrote] [ quoted text not captured ] Of course it is specifically stated in the rulebook [13.3.1], but it can be argued that since (D)-bleeds can be directed at anyone, how come cardless bleeds can't. The basic idea of this post is that the two bleeds (both cardless and Computer Hacking) are directed actions (as per card text or rules). Since Computer Hacking allows you to bleed anyone, so should cardless bleeds. After all, they are both directed actions. Note that in 13.3.1, bleeds are only directable at your prey and are directed. Since Computer Hacking has been ruled to break this, I try to show the absurd in this by saying by the same logic so should cardless bleed. It doesn't make any sense, but then again neither do the rules as currently interpreted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Midnght wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Chad Lubrecht wrote: > > > The Corrupter wrote: > > > > > > > But it can easily be argued that since (D) actions have the symbol, and > > > since bleeds are cardless and yet are still directed (and hence (D) > > > actions) that they can be directed at anyone. > > > > > > > No. Cardless bleed actions can definatly only be targeted at the > > methuselah's prey. This is stated specifically in the rulebook. > > > > > Yes and if that is so specific then read the rules on D actions. Whichc > state a bleed is a D action. There fore meaning D actions can only be > done to prey. But what does it matter most ppl play CTB's it's more fun! > Methuselah MidnghtI think you're getting your logic mixed up here. The rulebook states that bleeding can only be done to your prey. It also states that bleeding is a directed action. This does not mean that all directed actions can only be done to prey. And by the way, I find bleeds against non-prey to add a little extra to the game too. I just don't think that was the original intention of most of these cards. Cat burglary obviously Was meant to be used this way and I wish there were more like it, (I think someone said there was one more, I don't remember what it is.) Either way, the cards could have been made more specific in this case.

Midnght (mid...@web1.calweb.com) wrote: : That's why what makes sense is that directed actions are only directed at : your prey which in the rules state directed actions cannot be blocked by : any other methuselah'minoins except the methesulah being attacked. If you : look at it like that this puts d action cards at a strong point. Being if : you use only those to bleed and or do anything else no one can block your : action save your prey. It makes sense this and is who it is written. If you can only perform directed actions on your prey, what about all those cards that say "may be burned with a (D) action?" If you say that, then only the predator of the person playing it can do anything about it. That doesn't make sense. In addition, combat decks become almost useless. Sure you can put your prey in topor, but you can't attack your predator directally (Bum's Rush is directly, as are Haven Uncovered and Blood Hunt). And if a predator has nothing to fear from his prey as long as he's not blocked, he would be best off using Malkavian S&B, and pretty soon, everyone is using Malkavian S&B. No, only being able to perform directed actions on your prey makes no sense what so ever. -- Modest, industrious, benevolent, temperate: is that how you would have men? Good men? But to me that seems only the ideal slave, the slave of the future. Modesty, industiousness, bevevolence, temperance are just so many hinderances to a sovereign disposition, great inventiveness, heroic purposefullness, noble being-for-oneself. --Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power" /------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | You don't get what you deserve, | Good people are good because they | | You get what you take. | are not strong enought to be evil.| |-----------------------------------+------------------------------------| | Conflicts between right and wrong | 'Conscience' is nothing more than | | are a sickness of the mind. | the fear of being caught. | \------------------------------------------------------------------------/

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : : Note that in 13.3.1, bleeds are only directable at your prey and are : directed. Since Computer Hacking has been ruled to break this, I try to : show the absurd in this by saying by the same logic so should cardless bleed. Does anyone argue that there would be no confusion if things were worded in the following way: A directed action is one which only the targeted Methusaleh may block. A cardless bleed is a special directed action which may only be taken against one's prey. It has been my belief that this was the original intent. If WoTC changed the rules to read the above, would this discussion still exist? The above actually DEFINES directed actions (let's get away from all of this "the (D) symbol is just a reminder" jazz) AND explains why cardless bleeds only affect your prey while ALLOWING cross-table bleeds. Discussion? -James

I have always thought that the (D) actions may be directed at any methusula(D) was only a very general rule, which was uasualy superceeded by other things. e.g. somthing which says '(D) - bleed at +1' i.e. computer hacking, would be goverened by the 'you can only bleed your prey' rule, and cards which say 'any minion can burn this card as a (D) action' e.g. army of rats require the (D) action to be made against the methusula controlling the card. They would be almost useless if one could say to your grand predator 'I do a directed action at you to remove your preys army of rats'. Clearly then the '(D) actions may be directed at any methusula' rule means somthing else. Why should it cover bleed cards? Ben Sanders

jam...@gw.digibd.com (James Puzzo) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] It does not allow CTB, except by omission. Why can computer hacking be directed at any Methuselah? No part of the suggested rules nor card text says who you can bleed (compared to every non-bleed directed action, which have valid targets expressly named in card text). Actually, with the parameters of Bleed given in the rulebook (i.e., Prey-only), all directed actions specify who you can target: Non Bleed actions - by card text. Bleed actions (except Cat Burglary and Night Moves) - by parameters of Bleed. Cat Burglary and Night Moves - by card text. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | My neurons must have tenure - http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | none of them can be fired. [ quoted text not captured ]

elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) writes: >In article <4g09d4$3...@gw.dgii.com>, James Puzzo <jam...@gw.digibd.com> wrote: >>The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: >>: >>: Note that in 13.3.1, bleeds are only directable at your prey and are >>: directed. Since Computer Hacking has been ruled to break this, I try to >>: show the absurd in this by saying by the same logic so should cardless bleed. >> >>Does anyone argue that there would be no confusion if things were worded >>in the following way: >> >>A directed action is one which only the targeted Methusaleh may block. >If we're defining it, how about: >A directed action is one which may be targeted at any other Methuselah, >and only the targeted Methuselah may block. >>A cardless bleed is a special directed action which may only be taken >>against one's prey. >I like it. >>It has been my belief that this was the original intent. If WoTC changed the >>rules to read the above, would this discussion still exist? >> >>The above actually DEFINES directed actions (let's get away from all of this >>"the (D) symbol is just a reminder" jazz) AND explains why cardless bleeds >>only affect your prey while ALLOWING cross-table bleeds. >If you add who the directed action can be targeted at into the >definition, then yes, it looks good, and would probably eliminate debate. So, the action to burn the Army of Rats (a directed action) can be directed at any Methuselah? Not so good. [ quoted text not captured ]

> If you can only perform directed actions on your prey, what about all > those cards that say "may be burned with a (D) action?" If you say that, > then only the predator of the person playing it can do anything about > it. That doesn't make sense. > > In addition, combat decks become almost useless. Sure you can put your > prey in topor, but you can't attack your predator directally (Bum's Rush > is directly, as are Haven Uncovered and Blood Hunt). And if a predator > has nothing to fear from his prey as long as he's not blocked, he would > be best off using Malkavian S&B, and pretty soon, everyone is using > Malkavian S&B. > > No, only being able to perform directed actions on your prey makes no > sense what so ever. > It makes perfect sense (D) actiuons are meant to keep your predator or any other methuselah from interfereing in your (D) actions which is exactly what the rule states. Making (D) action cards very strong. Methuselah Midnght

In article <elfholmeD...@netcom.com>, elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: > In article <4g09d4$3...@gw.dgii.com>, James Puzzo <jam...@gw.digibd.com> wrote: > >Does anyone argue that there would be no confusion if things were worded > >in the following way: > >A directed action is one which only the targeted Methusaleh may block. > If we're defining it, how about: > A directed action is one which may be targeted at any other Methuselah, > and only the targeted Methuselah may block. A good wording for what this definition seems to want to do. > >A cardless bleed is a special directed action which may only be taken > >against one's prey. This works in the context of your changes (as long as we ignore whether CTB is valid or not). > I like it. > >It has been my belief that this was the original intent. If WoTC changed the > >rules to read the above, would this discussion still exist? If they changed it to the above, the discussion would basicly be over. I have two requests of WotC, either change the current ruling to make sense with the rules as written (i.e., no CTB), or change the rules to allow CTB. > >The above actually DEFINES directed actions (let's get away from all of this > >"the (D) symbol is just a reminder" jazz) AND explains why cardless bleeds > >only affect your prey while ALLOWING cross-table bleeds. Getting away from (D) as a reminder... Well, whether or not that is a good thing, the jury is out. > If you add who the directed action can be targeted at into the > definition, then yes, it looks good, and would probably eliminate debate. See above. If I had my way (if only :), I think I would change the whole of (D)-actions. Note that these are contradictory to "real" rulings. "Controlled": Not to be confused with controlled region, all of the cards/counters that the Methuselah has direct power over. 1) Any action that exclusively affects another Methuselah or the cards "controlled" by that Methuselah is a directed action. Note that votes call a referendum and are thus not directed, while putting Charnas on an opposing vampire would be. (I.e., If you point an action at someone, it is directed) 2) Any action that affects the acting Methuselah or not any single Methuselah is undirected. (I.e., If you point at yourself or no _one_ Methuselah, it is undirected) 3) (D) actions can be performed against oneself (if not explicitly disallowed such as by Night Moves or Bum's Rush), and thus become undirected. I feel these rules work with one of the following (depending on your view of CTB). 4a) Cards that allow (D) actions allow you to target any Methuselah, limited by card text. (Pro-CTB) 4b) Cards that allow (D) actions explicitly tell you who can be targetted, or if they don't are governed by normal rules for that action. (No-CTB) Though some might think otherwise, every card that describes a (D) action (with the exception of bleeds) describes who the action may be directed against, so 4b is as viable with the cards as 4a. Any thoughts? [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >It does not allow CTB, except by omission. Why can computer hacking be >directed at any Methuselah? No part of the suggested rules nor card text >says who you can bleed (compared to every non-bleed directed action, which >have valid targets expressly named in card text). >Actually, with the parameters of Bleed given in the rulebook (i.e., Prey-only), >all directed actions specify who you can target: >Non Bleed actions - by card text. >Bleed actions (except Cat Burglary and Night Moves) - by parameters of Bleed. >Cat Burglary and Night Moves - by card text. >-- >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | My neurons must have tenure - >http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | none of them can be fired. >Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | Darn straight! Rory

[ quoted text not captured ] >Any thoughts? This is nearly perfect (ObQual). It can be summed up as (the original, RCG, intent): 1. All actions have explicit targets, by rules text or card text. 2. If an action targets another (single) Methuselah (any permanents she controls - pool, minion, locations, etc.) then it is directed. 3. If not, then it is not directed. To make the game work the way the RTR tries to wring out of the rules which do not support them, add: 4. An action card decribing a bleed may target any other Methuselah ((D)-symbol-as-overriding-card-text) unless further card text (or errata) restricts this (Cat Burglary, Night Moves). This overriding card text only overrides rules text, and will not override other card text (Minor Boon). Micro-sum: 1. All actions can only target valid targets. 2. Actions are directed or not based on whether they target another Meth. These two rules are so obvious to be almost circular definitions. But the Rules Team doesn't agree with the simplicity. (cf. Shackles of Endiku, The Treatment). Optional (CTB): 3. Carded bleeds can target otherwise invalid targets. ---- Note that no action targets more than one Methuselah, except some (actually, all) votes - which target all Methuselahs (calling them to the quorum) and therefore cannot be considered directed (that, and explicit rules text :-). [ quoted text not captured ]