In article <4gs45u$cig...@leeds.ac.uk>, CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P.
Hammersley) wrote:
[Darius Styx trying to get weapons from his own hand.]
> And second, your idea is not legal as you cannot do a direct action
against
> yourself.
How do people feel about allowing (D) actions against oneself, thus
making them undirected? For example, Rampage:
Card Text
Rampage Action Potence
Normal: (D) Burn any location. This action is at +1
Stealth
if you choose a location you control.
Superior: None.
Since one cannot (D) action at oneself (by RTR), the card makes no
sense. If, however, one defines a self-(D) action as undirected, the
card works. Do note, that it is still not possible to Bum's Rush oneself
(not an "opponent" as per card text), but things like Cryptic Mission
could be performed on your own controlled cards (to get rid of Charnas,
for example).
Opinions?
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# 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 <4h0r0u$d...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:
> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
> >Rampage:
> >Card Text
> > Rampage Action Potence
> > Normal: (D) Burn any location. This action is at +1
> > Stealth if you choose a location you control.
> > Superior: None.
> >Since one cannot (D) action at oneself (by RTR), the card makes no> >sense...> It should be assumed to break the rules, and allow you to take that
> particular (D) action against yourself. This should not be extrapolated
> to let you play (D) actions on yourself in general.
Unfortunately, the text of the card does not have any override in it.
The "if you choose" does not give the ability to choose, but tells what
happens if you do. If you could choose, that would be one thing, but
speaking logically, the if does not give any new assertions. Unless it
said, "You may choose, and if you do so..."
Though (as LSJ implied), it's likely too late to change things, don't you
think it would make more sense to reverse the ruling on what (D) actions
mean.
My take (short version):
You point an action at yourself or nobody, it is undirected (a la
Rampage).
You point an action at another Meth., it is directed (a la Charnas).
'Course, this being done by the DTR is likely a pipe dream... :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Later, some members of the Rules Team imparted a peculiar power to the
>(D) symbol under the assumption that the rules-writers couldn't have
>beleived that directedness is an inferrable trait. They were wrong
>in that assumption, but it's too late to change it back now.
There is no reason that directedness couldn't be inferred. However, 1) it
seems better to put rules on cards where possible, rather than making people
guess results from what's in the rulebook, and 2) occasionally we do want
an action that would normally be directed not to be, and in those cases
we would just have to add something like "This action is not directed" to the
card texts. Thus, people are going to have to look at the card texts in at
least a few cases to find out whether an action is directed, so it seems
simpler to have them always look at the card, especially if we can give them
the answer with a simple element like the (D) symbol.
>Since 1. there are no actions that are directed in some cases and undirected
>in others [TOM 951108] and 2. encountering a vampire in torpor (to rescue or
>diablerize) is an action:
>
>Is Encountering a vampire in torpor directed or undirected?
First, my statement that there are no actions that are directed in some cases
and undirected in others is not an unbreakable metarule; as always, cards
can break the rules.
Second, whether a rescue action is directed or not depends on whose vampire
you are attempting to rescue (section 19). Note that you don't actually
take "rescue from torpor" actions, but take "rescue so-and-so from torpor"
actions, so this isn't actually an example of an action being directed
only part of the time.
The same applies to committing diablerie.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>Since 1. there are no actions that are directed in some cases and undirected
>>in others [TOM 951108] and 2. encountering a vampire in torpor (to rescue or
>>diablerize) is an action:
>>
>>Is Encountering a vampire in torpor directed or undirected?>First, my statement that there are no actions that are directed in some cases
>and undirected in others is not an unbreakable metarule; as always, cards
>can break the rules.
You indicated that it was an unbreakable metarule (such action could
not exist because they were not mentioned in 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.>Second, whether a rescue action is directed or not depends on whose vampire
>you are attempting to rescue (section 19). Note that you don't actually
>take "rescue from torpor" actions, but take "rescue so-and-so from torpor"
>actions, so this isn't actually an example of an action being directed
>only part of the time.
That isn't the paradigm used in either rulebook. Both describe it (rescue)
as an action which is directed based on the target.
>The same applies to committing diablerie.
Yes, it does.
>Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A titanic intellect...
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | In a world full of icebergs.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960226155930.691C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter
<sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes:
>How do people feel about allowing (D) actions against oneself, thus>making them undirected? For example, Rampage:>Card Text
> Rampage Action Potence
> Normal: (D) Burn any location. This action is at +1
>Stealth
> if you choose a location you control.
> Superior: None.
>
>Since one cannot (D) action at oneself (by RTR), the card makes no>sense. If, however, one defines a self-(D) action as undirected, the
>card works. Do note, that it is still not possible to Bum's Rush oneself>(not an "opponent" as per card text), but things like Cryptic Mission
>could be performed on your own controlled cards (to get rid of Charnas,
>for example).
>
>Opinions?
I find it a very natural interpretation. It's the only way Rampage makes
sense. Plus a Methuseleh sending its minions against eash other to their
detriment (but its benefit) perfectly fits the WoD sense of manipulation
and trickery. I'm aware of no Jyhad cards that cause problems with this
interpretation, altho Mr. Styx from DS might cause trouble.
Also, if this isn't the case, why does Bum's Rush need to specify "other
menthuseleh's minion?"
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>First, my statement that there are no actions that are directed in some cases
>>and undirected in others is not an unbreakable metarule; as always, cards
>>can break the rules.>You indicated that it was an unbreakable metarule (such action could
>not exist because they were not mentioned in the rulebook):
If I said that, then it was a rash overstatement.
>>Second, whether a rescue action is directed or not depends on whose vampire
>>you are attempting to rescue (section 19). Note that you don't actually
>>take "rescue from torpor" actions, but take "rescue so-and-so from torpor"
>>actions, so this isn't actually an example of an action being directed
>>only part of the time.>That isn't the paradigm used in either rulebook. Both describe it (rescue)
>as an action which is directed based on the target.
If you look at rulings such as the following, each rescue/diablerie action
is distinct:
/* Sept. 24, 94 rulings */
10) OK, so if Obedience is used, then the vampire which was blocked cannot
perform the same action again that turn.
- -> Is each type of bleed considered a different action? For example, if
a vampire was blocked from Computer Hacking and Obedience was then used,
would it be able to use Social Charm later that turn?
Each type of Bleed is a different action.
- -> Suppose the blocked vampire was trying to rescue a vampire from torpor.
I assume the actual action here was "encounter a vampire in torpor",
not "rescue a vampire from torpor" or "rescue vampire V from torpor", and
thus it couldn't try to rescue or diablerize anything else that turn?
You can try to rescue a different vampire. Each action is very
specific, ie rescue "Rikki" from torpor.
----
This has been reiterated in other rulings.
[ quoted text not captured ]
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Also, if this isn't the case [ that you can't take (D) actions against
>yourself], why does Bum's Rush need to specify "other menthuseleh's minion?"
Because the approach to (D) in the templates hasn't been very scientific.
[ quoted text not captured ]
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>>First, my statement that there are no actions that are directed in some cases
>>>and undirected in others is not an unbreakable metarule; as always, cards
>>>can break the rules.>>You indicated that it was an unbreakable metarule (such action could
>>not exist because they were not mentioned in the rulebook):>If I said that, then it was a rash overstatement.>>>Second, whether a rescue action is directed or not depends on whose vampire
>>>you are attempting to rescue (section 19). Note that you don't actually
>>>take "rescue from torpor" actions, but take "rescue so-and-so from torpor"
>>>actions, so this isn't actually an example of an action being directed
>>>only part of the time.>>That isn't the paradigm used in either rulebook. Both describe it (rescue)
>>as an action which is directed based on the target.>If you look at rulings such as the following, each rescue/diablerie action
>is distinct:
[Ruling that the action is "Rescue V from Torpor" deleted.]
>This has been reiterated in other rulings.
So it is. So?
Is "Rescue V=Lucian from Torpor" directed or not?
If your Bianca attempts to rescue your prey's Lucian and gets blocked, but
uses Change of Target to untap, then
Donal grave robs Lucian, bringing him to your control,
Can Bianca attempt "Rescue Lucian from Torpor" a second time, this
time as an undirected action? No, because Rescue Lucian from Torpor
is the exact action she is forbidden from undertaking by the
Change of Target text.
The *exact same* action is now undirected, based soley on the owner of
the target.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | All generalizations are false.
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson |
[ quoted text not captured ]
It's been awhile, and I'm sorry if I missed the response, but has WotC
figured out a way out of this (D) action hole that they've dug?
Notably: Is the action "Rescue Vampire 'V' From Torpor" a directed action?
WotC says that this is the complete definition of this action (i.e., each
different vampire 'V' that may be rescued makes a different action, just
like calling a KRC is a different action than calling Consan. Boon).
They also say that no action (Govern the Unaligned, for example) can be
directed in some cases and undirected in others, based on the target.
(Since they've ruled that GtU can be used by some feat of telepathy on
vampires in *other* Methuselah's uncontrolled regions.)
So this one action ("Rescue Vampire 'V' From Torpor") must either be
directed or undirected. This directedness cannot vary based on who
controls the target, even though explicit rules text says otherwise.
---
When is WotC going to clear this fiasco up? (hopefully by acknowledging
that directedness is based on who the action is directed towards, although
that is counter to everything they've ever said on the topic.)
---
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Friends help you move.
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Real friends help you move bodies.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Notably: Is the action "Rescue Vampire 'V' From Torpor" a directed action?
>
>WotC says that this is the complete definition of this action (i.e., each
>different vampire 'V' that may be rescued makes a different action, just
>like calling a KRC is a different action than calling Consan. Boon).
>
>They also say that no action (Govern the Unaligned, for example) can be
>directed in some cases and undirected in others, based on the target.
>(Since they've ruled that GtU can be used by some feat of telepathy on
>vampires in *other* Methuselah's uncontrolled regions.)
I thought I had already posted that I'd overstated the case when I said
it would be impossible for an action to be directed in some cases and
undirected in others. It just happens very rarely.
>So this one action ("Rescue Vampire 'V' From Torpor") must either be
>directed or undirected. This directedness cannot vary based on who
>controls the target, even though explicit rules text says otherwise.
It is, in fact, directed or not depending on whether you control the
vampire being rescued.
[ quoted text not captured ]
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>>So this one action ("Rescue Vampire 'V' From Torpor") must either be
>>directed or undirected. This directedness cannot vary based on who
>>controls the target, even though explicit rules text says otherwise.>It is, in fact, directed or not depending on whether you control the
>vampire being rescued.
Great!.
Now, is Govern the Unaligned (superior) directed when attempted (through
some feat of telepathy which I don't fully understand) on your Prey's
uncontrolled vampire?
And why not?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | We have enough youth,
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | how about a fountain of SMART?
[ quoted text not captured ]