Question on Protected Resources

During a game I played the Master card "Protected Resources" which states: If this card is in play, another Methuselah cannot bleed you for more than 2 pool. Burn this card if you successfully bleed another Methuselah. However, my prey said that was only meant that each Vampire could not bleed for more then 2, while I argued that the card used the word "methuselah" which meant the total bleed from that methuselah for their turn could not exceed 2 blood. Who is right? Paul Cecil Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <886jes$t41$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ceci...@my-deja.com wrote: > During a game I played the Master card "Protected Resources" which > states: > If this card is in play, another Methuselah cannot bleed you for more > than 2 pool. Burn this card if you successfully bleed another > Methuselah. > > However, my prey said that was only meant that each Vampire could not > bleed for more then 2, while I argued that the card used the word > "methuselah" which meant the total bleed from that methuselah for > their turn could not exceed 2 blood. Who is right? Unfortunately, your prey is correct. Methuselahs cannot bleed. The only official errata / ruling / clarification on PR appears below: Protected Resources - Master (2) All cards which modify the bleed amount (Telepathic Counter, Threats, etc.) are applied before Protected Resources' effect. [TOM 19960413] But, Methuselahs cannot bleed. The effect of the card only allows each bleed to be no more than 2, but your predator can still bleed you with 10 minions for 2 each. The card really helps Vote decks defend against big bleed decks, but doesn't help any against weenie horde decks. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <886o71$de$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I disagree entirely. The card specifically states a Methuselah. While I agree that Methuselahs can not bleed they do direct the bleed. If the card was intended to do as you (Lasombra) say then the card would have been written to say a vampire or minion can not bleed you for more than two. This is yet another situation where people are reading their own meaning into the card and shaping the rules around their interpretation. It says Methuselah. Therefore it means Methuselah. Powerful yes. But that is what it was written as. If this seems too powerful then (though I hate errata) maybe it should be. I see the logic you are trying to use to validate your point I just think that if they meant what you are saying they would have written that way. Ravnos_Shadow [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Before you buy. > > > I disagree entirely. The card specifically states a Methuselah. While > I agree that Methuselahs can not bleed they do direct the bleed. If > the card was intended to do as you (Lasombra) say then the card would > have been written to say a vampire or minion can not bleed you for more > than two. This is yet another situation where people are reading their > own meaning into the card and shaping the rules around their > interpretation. It says Methuselah. Therefore it means Methuselah. > Powerful yes. But that is what it was written as. If this seems too > powerful then (though I hate errata) maybe it should be. I see the > logic you are trying to use to validate your point I just think that if > they meant what you are saying they would have written that way. > > Ravnos_Shadow > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. As I understand the interpretation of the card it is that no vampire may bleed you for more than two and all bleeds in excess of 2 are reduced to two. The card would be clearly overpowered if you could lose no more than two pool per turn from bleeds. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <889960$mts$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > As I understand the interpretation of the card it is that no vampire may > bleed you for more than two and all bleeds in excess of 2 are reduced to > two. The card would be clearly overpowered if you could lose no more > than two pool per turn from bleeds. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > X_Zealot > Archon of the Swamp > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > I am sorry, but in turn I have to disagree. The problem is that the card uses the term 'methusela'. If the card meant to say that a minion or ally could only bleed for no more then 2 blood it should have been written as such. Therefore I can only interpret it to mean that for that action phase the methusela can bleed you for no more then 2 blood if this card is in play. Paul Cecil [ quoted text not captured ]

Quoth the ravnos...@my-deja.com: Protected Resources card text: "If this card is in play, another Methuselah cannot bleed you for more than 2 pool. Burn this card if you successfully bleed another Methuselah." > interpretation. It says Methuselah. Therefore it means Methuselah. > Powerful yes. But that is what it was written as. If this seems too > powerful then (though I hate errata) maybe it should be. I see the So, you mean that when I slap Protected Resources into play, you can only bleed me once for 2 pool or twice for one pool and that's it? Notice, that if you think that it means two pool in a turn, but no, it doesn't. Surely it would say "cannot bleed you for more than 2 pool in a turn". Now that's just plain silly and way overpowered. I think it's rather obvious that it means that another Methusaleh cannot bleed you for more than two pool at one time. -- Mikko Saari For you I even be a sunflower msa...@cc.jyu.fi Do you hear my enlightening laughter? 142 another reason to cut off an ear

I searched back in Deja.com and found LSJ's response to a past question on Protected Resources. It was from a thread dated 4/27/99, I have repeated his answer in whole below. > Thread: [LSJ] Protected Resources >> Message 1 of 8 Subject: Re: [LSJ] Protected Resources Date: 04/27/1999 Author: LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> Save this thread "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > Card Text: Protected Resources > Card Text: Master - 2 pool > If this card is in play, another Methuselah may not > bleed you for more than 2 pool. Burn this card if you > successfully bleed another Methuselah. > > Standing Errata/Rulings/Clarifications: > All cards which modify the bleed amount (Telepathic Counter, > Threats, etc.) are applied before Protected Resources' effect. > [TOM 960413] > > --------- > Now let me get to my point - I've read it several times in several > posts, a few of those by you I'm pretty sure, that this card is > interpreted that each bleed (action) is reduced to 2 after all > modifications/reactions are played. For example, using the above > interpretation, a minion bleeds for 6, it's prey's minion reduces > by 2 by whatever means then the PR kicks in making it a bleed of 2 > in the end. Is this correct in how the card is interpreted and my > example of that interpretation? Well, the bleed is still for the regular amount (4, in this case), but only 2 pool is burned for that bleed. > If so, I'm very curious how that interpretation was made. The card > says: "another Methuselah may not bleed you for more than 2 pool". > It doesn't say "another _*minion*_ may not bleed you for more than > 2 pool". However, a methuselah cannot bleed, only his minions can. > Since it does not reference a minon as an individual but instead > references a methuselah, who again, cannot bleed, it must mean the > bleed actions available to the methuselah as a collective. hmmm, > re-reading the above, I'm not sure it came out right. Right. It is possible to read it as the following: * Each other Methuselah, indiviually, cannot have her minions bleed you for more than 2 pool for the rest of the game (that is, you will lose no more than 2 pool, total, for all of the bleeds from each given Methuselah's minions' actions combined for the rest of the game). Burn this card if one of your minions successfully bleeds any Methuselah. > What I'm trying to say is this: > I as a methuselah, through my minions, bleed my prey who has PR in > play. Each of my bleeds, through my minions, are for 2. If I have > 3 minions, then I, another methuselah, bled my prey for 6 on that > one turn. However, the card text of PR strictly prohibits me, > another methuselah, for bleeding for more than 2. So either I > should not have been allowed to perform those other 2 bleeding > actions or they should have been reduced to 0. Since PR does not > say "another minion" or "each minion", then I don't see how it > could have been interpreted that 'each minion's bleed is reduced to > 2'. Because a meth controls all his minions and because the card > text specifically says 'another methuselah' it's pretty clear that > *all* a meth's minions can't bleed for more than 2 and not just > *each* of a meth's minions. It seems as if you're wondering why "per turn" isn't part of the official interpretation. That's easy: the card makes no reference to any turn. The only two options available for interpretation (as opposed to errata) are "for the rest of the game" (as above) and "for each bleed" (as the official interpretation goes). "For each bleed", besides being the "reasonable" option when compared to "for the rest of the game", is used in the official interepretaion as part of the idea of "bleeding for more than 2". That phrase carries the idea of the bleed action. See Archon Investigation (that is, you cannot play Archon Investigation on a minion who has bled you successfully thrice before and is now bleeding you again. This stems from the concept of a single actiong in "bleed for X.") Also, I suspect, the ruling/clarification came to explain what the card designers had intended when they wrote the card, even if the card failed to adequately describe the concept. Like the old "who is the prey of a minion?" question (Jyhad Fame) - sometimes the card writers introduce notation without realizing it (thinking that the notation is clear and unambiguous). -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own [ quoted text not captured ]

Clarified card text: Protected Resources Cardtype: Master Cost: 2 pool Master. If this card is in play, <you do not burn more than two pool when a minion bleeds you, regardless of the amount of the bleed>. Burn this card if you successfully bleed another Methuselah. This matches the actual card text: If this card is in play, another Methuselah may not bleed you for more than 2 pool. Burn this card if you successfully bleed another Methuselah. Since it doesn't say "per game" or "per turn", the implication is that the limit is "per bleed". -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > I disagree entirely. The card specifically states a Methuselah. However, it does not state a timescale. "If this card is in play, another Methuselah cannot bleed you for more than 2 pool. Burn this card if you successfully bleed another Methuselah." So, is that 2 pool in one bleed? Two pool per turn? Two pool *forever*? It does not state which. Clearly, any interpretation of it is just that - an interpretation. In this instance, where the card is wide open, any interpretation could be valid. It is the view of the Rules Team, from all previous comments, that the correct (officially) interpretation is per vampire. Indeed, were it to be anything else, any deck with bleed in it (be it weenie bleed, dominate bleed, presence bleed, computer hacking bleed, whatever) is *severely* curtailed. -- James Coupe

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:21:46 GMT, ceci...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article <889960$mts$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >> >> As I understand the interpretation of the card it is that no vampire >may >> bleed you for more than two and all bleeds in excess of 2 are reduced >to >> two. The card would be clearly overpowered if you could lose no more >> than two pool per turn from bleeds. > >I am sorry, but in turn I have to disagree. The problem is that the card >uses the term 'methusela'. If the card meant to say that a minion or >ally could only bleed for no more then 2 blood it should have been >written as such. Therefore I can only interpret it to mean that for that That's what clarifications from the Rules Team are for - to CLARIFY what the card meant to say. In some cases, that's what ERRATA is for, to make even more clear what the card meant to say. There is a clarification out for PR that states "2 per bleed action." >action phase the methusela can bleed you for no more then 2 blood if >this card is in play. Methuselahs cannot bleed at all, so your interpretation will always be valid. However, the VAMPIRES that do the bleeding may bleed for no more than 2 at a time. Well, they MAY, but it will only remove 2 pool per bleed action. THINK, man. If you could not be bled for more than 2 per turn, would you ever be ousted? Not if you built the deck properly. Let's see - Justicar with OBF/DOM is a good start. Minion Tap/5th for blood gain, and with OBF you'll never be caught on the 5th. That gives you about 6-8 pool gain PER minion/5th, which will last you 3-4 turns. A 10-cap with DOM can play Kindred Coercion at will, so you can forget about ever ousting the guy with votes. Combat defense can be Obedience, since he's older than any Rush deck. With OBF/DOM he bleeds for 6 per turn himself at +3 stealth, assuming it's not a +bleeder. I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to argue that PR meant "no more than 2 per turn" - it so obviously makes the card broken. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 ceci...@my-deja.com wrote: > I am sorry, but in turn I have to disagree. The problem is that the card > uses the term 'methusela'. Yes, but it still could have been written in three ways: 1) This methuselah may not be bled for more than 2 per action. 2) This methuselah may not be bled for more than 2 per turn. 3) This methuselah may not be bled for more than 2 per game. The ruling is consistent with 1). If you wish to assert the supremacy of the word Methuselah, may I ask why you are limiting to it "per turn" (example 2). If one limits it in that fashion, option 3) is more intuitive by card text - and clearly the most powerful, by far. -- James Coupe

Okay, I see where we have gone with this. The "time limit" is the question now. Not what does "Methuselah" mean. If you impose a per vamp rule that is a time limit. If you invoke a per turn rule that is a time limit. And, if you invoke a as long as the card is in play rule that is a time limit. Either way you have rewritten the card. Per turn works just as easy as per vamp. Also, you will note that Bribes seems to spell out what "Methuselah" is meant to say. Any "Methuselah" that votes for the action gains one blood. However, a "Methuselah" does not bleed and a "Methuselah" does not vote. Therefore no one else can gain any blood. Wrong. Therefore, if I have Five vamps with vote power each one can vote one for and I gain five blood. (If we use the rule that is trying to be imposed on Protected Resources now this would be the case). Or, as the card says a "Methuselah" has to cast at least one vote for and none against. This tells me that when the term "Methuselah" is used they want us to understand that all minions are included in this. Does this make since to any one else? I agree if the card was in effect until the card holder bleed and could lose no more than two pool, this would be a very over powered card. However, as you have it interpretted it becomes very weak. It does nothing to protect from the hated "winnie hoard" decks. I bleed you fifteen times for one each. I really don't see how you can say that it means per bleed. It doesn't say that any where on it. So, how do you interpret it? I think the inerpretation that is being imposed is just as wrong as any other. Per turn, per bleed or for as long as the card is in play? Last I would like to apologize to Mr Coupe I re-read my first message and it sounded like an attack. Bad day and I wasn't feeling well. I didn't mean to take it out towards you. That wasn't even what I really did it just sounded that way to me. In article <88a21m$9rb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <480AAB377D3E3DC5.815DD4E9...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:21:46 GMT, ceci...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >In article <889960$mts$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > >> > >> As I understand the interpretation of the card it is that no vampire > >may > >> bleed you for more than two and all bleeds in excess of 2 are reduced > >to > >> two. The card would be clearly overpowered if you could lose no more > >> than two pool per turn from bleeds. > > > >I am sorry, but in turn I have to disagree. The problem is that the card > >uses the term 'methusela'. If the card meant to say that a minion or > >ally could only bleed for no more then 2 blood it should have been > >written as such. Therefore I can only interpret it to mean that for that > > That's what clarifications from the Rules Team are for - to CLARIFY > what the card meant to say. In some cases, that's what ERRATA is for, > to make even more clear what the card meant to say. There is a > clarification out for PR that states "2 per bleed action." > > >action phase the methusela can bleed you for no more then 2 blood if > >this card is in play. > > Methuselahs cannot bleed at all, so your interpretation will always be > valid. However, the VAMPIRES that do the bleeding may bleed for no > more than 2 at a time. Well, they MAY, but it will only remove 2 pool > per bleed action. > > THINK, man. If you could not be bled for more than 2 per turn, would > you ever be ousted? Not if you built the deck properly. Let's see - > Justicar with OBF/DOM is a good start. Minion Tap/5th for blood gain, > and with OBF you'll never be caught on the 5th. That gives you about > 6-8 pool gain PER minion/5th, which will last you 3-4 turns. A 10-cap > with DOM can play Kindred Coercion at will, so you can forget about > ever ousting the guy with votes. Combat defense can be Obedience, > since he's older than any Rush deck. With OBF/DOM he bleeds for 6 per > turn himself at +3 stealth, assuming it's not a +bleeder. > You gotta remember the card only stays in effect until you bleed. Once you bleed the card goes bye bye. Not quite so powerful now is it. Vote deck makes it work. > I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to argue that PR meant "no more > than 2 per turn" - it so obviously makes the card broken. > > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > Also, you will note that Bribes seems to spell out what "Methuselah" is > meant to say. Any "Methuselah" that votes for the action gains one > blood. However, [...] a "Methuselah" does > not vote. Therefore no one else can gain any blood. Wrong. A Methuselah does vote. She gains votes from a PA card, the Edge, ready titled vampires she controls, and miscellaneous other effects. She can then cast these votes. [6.3.3] -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Okay, I see where we have gone with this. The "time limit" is the > question now. Not what does "Methuselah" mean. If you impose a per > vamp rule that is a time limit. If you invoke a per turn rule that is > a time limit. And, if you invoke a as long as the card is in play rule > that is a time limit. Either way you have rewritten the card. Per > turn works just as easy as per vamp. > [...] > I really don't see how you can say that it means per bleed. It doesn't > say that any where on it. So, how do you interpret it? I think the > inerpretation that is being imposed is just as wrong as any other. Per > turn, per bleed or for as long as the card is in play? Reading "per bleed" doesn't involve rewriting the card. The card speaks of a bleed amount limit ("...bleed you for more than 2 pool..."). Each time you a being bled, ask "is this Methuslah bleeding me for more than two pool?". If yes, then you'll burn just two pool for the successful action. If no, then Protected Resources has no effect. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:57:18 GMT, ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: >You gotta remember the card only stays in effect until you bleed. Once >you bleed the card goes bye bye. Not quite so powerful now is it. >Vote deck makes it work. Hideously, hideously powerful. Vote deck. Anarch Revolt deck. Army of Rats, for god's sake. Fame. There are TONS of ways to get someone to lose pool. And obviously you wouldn't put a PR in a bleed deck (don't know why I mentioned that above), but OK, just shovel 15+ KRC's in. *shrug* If you can't be bled for more than 2 per turn, you will never be ousted unless you're a complete incompetent. The whole game depends on the fact that there is no way to defend against ALL strategies. Protected Resources meaning "turn" instead of "action" provides a one-card defense against one of the three major strategies in the game - bleeding. The other 89 cards in your deck can provide defense against rush and votes, while providing plenty of offense. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > You gotta remember the card only stays in effect until you bleed. Once > you bleed the card goes bye bye. Not quite so powerful now is it. It's *hugely* powerful. You can effectively neuter all but a political deck's way of removing pool from you, if played like that. -- James Coupe

In article <4ACE8963F83D33AD.CC8CBBD7...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:57:18 GMT, ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >You gotta remember the card only stays in effect until you bleed. Once > >you bleed the card goes bye bye. Not quite so powerful now is it. > >Vote deck makes it work. > > Hideously, hideously powerful. Vote deck. Anarch Revolt deck. Army > of Rats, for god's sake. Fame. There are TONS of ways to get someone > to lose pool. And obviously you wouldn't put a PR in a bleed deck > (don't know why I mentioned that above), but OK, just shovel 15+ KRC's > in. *shrug* If you can't be bled for more than 2 per turn, you will > never be ousted unless you're a complete incompetent. The whole game > depends on the fact that there is no way to defend against ALL > strategies. Protected Resources meaning "turn" instead of "action" > provides a one-card defense against one of the three major strategies > in the game - bleeding. The other 89 cards in your deck can provide > defense against rush and votes, while providing plenty of offense. > > >> I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to argue that PR meant "no more > >> than 2 per turn" - it so obviously makes the card broken. > > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > I never said it was not powerful. I am just saying the way it is worded it references the "methuselah" (player). It reads plain turn to me. By the way, the guy that played it and we used the 2 per turn rule was ousted. He had a combat deck in front of him and a combat/bleed deck behind him. Both his vamps he pulled up got put in torpor and he set there for quite some time. Getting bled for two consistently. I think the card would be great for those winnie decks that bleed for one about 10 times. I see every ones point. But it reads to me more like a per turn thing since it references the Methuselah and not vamps. If it said vamps or minions I would agree with per action. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38A94D07...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Also, you will note that Bribes seems to spell out what "Methuselah" is > > meant to say. Any "Methuselah" that votes for the action gains one > > blood. However, [...] a "Methuselah" does > > not vote. Therefore no one else can gain any blood. Wrong. > > A Methuselah does vote. > She gains votes from a PA card, the Edge, ready titled vampires she controls, > and miscellaneous other effects. She can then cast these votes. [6.3.3] > Then you could say a Methuselah does bleed from his vamps as well. The Edge okay I could see that. > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38A9509E...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > Okay, I see where we have gone with this. The "time limit" is the > > question now. Not what does "Methuselah" mean. If you impose a per > > vamp rule that is a time limit. If you invoke a per turn rule that is > > a time limit. And, if you invoke a as long as the card is in play rule > > that is a time limit. Either way you have rewritten the card. Per > > turn works just as easy as per vamp. > > [...] > > I really don't see how you can say that it means per bleed. It doesn't > > say that any where on it. So, how do you interpret it? I think the > > inerpretation that is being imposed is just as wrong as any other. Per > > turn, per bleed or for as long as the card is in play? > > Reading "per bleed" doesn't involve rewriting the card. > To me reading per turn on a card that effects the player (Methuselah) makes a lot more sense than reading per action. > The card speaks of a bleed amount limit ("...bleed you for more than 2 > pool..."). > > Each time you a being bled, ask "is this Methuslah bleeding me for > more than two pool?". If yes, then you'll burn just two pool for > the successful action. If no, then Protected Resources has no effect. > Why not ask has this Methuselah bleed me for 2 pool already? Yes, then he can't bleed me any more. If not then he can bleed you for up to two. A card that references the player should be read that way. How can you just skip over the per turn aspect. To me and at least one other (okay a small amount) it makes since. Actually I should say two others because another member of our group agreed with our interpretation. And the last member on that night was convinced by us to play it that way even though he wasn't in agreement. And it did make for a long game with 3 combat decks and 1 vote deck. > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > Reading "per bleed" doesn't involve rewriting the card. > > > To me reading per turn on a card that effects the player (Methuselah) > makes a lot more sense than reading per action. After some time of newsgroup absence, I take the chance and jump right into this discussion. :) When this card (PR) first made appearance in my group, all players animonously (sp?) read, interpreted and played it "per turn", without dispute going on. It made perfect sense, and it was intuitvively. However, in our league final that year, a clever Methuselah exploited it to the full extend: He played Toreador with Masika, Alexandra, Anneke and others. He put a PR in play; he also had HG-Blood Doll combo and Art museum. So he could be bled for 2, but got them back during his turn, net result: he was immune to bleeds. Next came Toreador Grand Balls, and he called votes, namely KRC and Conservative Agitation. His votes couldn't be blocked, and he had the political upper hand. Not one of the other decks (bleed, stealth and bleed, vote) could stop him. This led us to believe that "per turn" is too powerful. What is the point of this story? Simple: I strongly believe that PR was invented with "per turn" in mind. It meant to stop weenie bleeds, during the change from Jyhad to VTES a number of anti-bleed changes has been made (Archon Investigation, Elder Intervention, Justicar Retribution and Protected Resources). By the time the card came out, it was intuitively played "per turn", I believe not only in our group (which was really large), but all around the world. Even now, new players stumbling over PR play it that way. After some time it was recognised that the card was broken. *But*, to say now that it's always been meant to say "per bleed", and that that's the most intuitively way to interpret it, is simply wrong. So, the wording on PR now is errata, and not a clarification actually. Why is it so difficult to just state that: PR was broken, the errata fixed it. As it is now, PR is a *bit* too weak. I wouldn't bother to make use of it, and frankly, it's really no great use at all. It doesn't stop weenies, you get ousted at the same pace. However, I agree that the original version was too strong (broken) and needed fixture. (snipped) > > Why not ask has this Methuselah bleed me for 2 pool already? Yes, then > he can't bleed me any more. If not then he can bleed you for up to > two. A card that references the player should be read that way. How > can you just skip over the per turn aspect. To me and at least one > other (okay a small amount) it makes since. Actually I should say two > others because another member of our group agreed with our > interpretation. And the last member on that night was convinced by us > to play it that way even though he wasn't in agreement. And it did > make for a long game with 3 combat decks and 1 vote deck. Well, I like the idea of having a good and solid set of rules for international and tournament play. LSJ is doing a good job here. However, I seldom agree with individual rulings and errata, but I accept them, because it's played the same by everyone then. (At least in official events.) I will never stop shaking my head about some of the erratas (Wake,RtI,...hey that's all I can think off at the moment; I must have taken to like the others! : ), and some other I find totally ok after some thinking about it (Fame, Pulled Fangs, ToRIII, etc.). Players will always dislike some of the rules/erratas. That's ok, it's the overall game-balance and playability that counts. Thanks for giving me the opinion to voice my thoughts once more, Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.10002152108220.22157- 100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > You gotta remember the card only stays in effect until you bleed. Once > > you bleed the card goes bye bye. Not quite so powerful now is it. > > It's *hugely* powerful. You can effectively neuter all but a political > deck's way of removing pool from you, if played like that. > I see I didn't quite say that the way I wanted to. I agree, it does make it hugely powerful. Makes for a very strong defense. A deck with other means to take people off the table would walk. I am not arguing it to make it that way. What I am arguing is, that seems to be the way it reads. I don't see stating Methuselah on the card to limit each vamp to 2 bleed. That would have been much more easily stated as no Vamp can bleed for more than 2. I am not trying to be an @$$. But, when you use a word that is associated with the player then you it should limit the player not each of the minions individually. Does anybody understand what I am trying to say or am I in left field all by myself? > -- > > James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <88e96c$7i0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Thank you very much. This is exactly what I have been saying. I agree that the card becomes very powerful played with per turn. I also shake my head at a lot of errata. But, every one was trying to tell me I interpreted it wrong. I didn't think so. And I am glad to see others were doing the same. If it has been errataed then I, like you, will accept this and play it that way. But, nobody said that. I appreciate your taking the time to send this. [ quoted text not captured ]

ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > Also, you will note that Bribes seems to spell out what > "Methuselah" is > > > meant to say. Any "Methuselah" that votes for the action gains one > > > blood. However, [...] a "Methuselah" does > > > not vote. Therefore no one else can gain any blood. Wrong. > > > > A Methuselah does vote. > > She gains votes from a PA card, the Edge, ready titled vampires she > controls, > > and miscellaneous other effects. She can then cast these votes. > [6.3.3] > > > Then you could say a Methuselah does bleed from his vamps as well. The > Edge okay I could see that. Well, there's a difference between what the rules say (see cited section above) and what one "could" say. But, OK. Some cards refer to Methuselah's actions, so it would not be too much of a stretch to say that a Methuselah bleeds, and one could easily figure out what that phrase means. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > > Okay, I see where we have gone with this. The "time limit" is the > > > question now. Not what does "Methuselah" mean. If you impose a per > > > vamp rule that is a time limit. If you invoke a per turn rule that > is > > > a time limit. And, if you invoke a as long as the card is in play > rule > > > that is a time limit. Either way you have rewritten the card. Per > > > turn works just as easy as per vamp. > > > [...] > > > I really don't see how you can say that it means per bleed. It > doesn't > > > say that any where on it. So, how do you interpret it? I think the > > > inerpretation that is being imposed is just as wrong as any other. > Per > > > turn, per bleed or for as long as the card is in play? > > > > Reading "per bleed" doesn't involve rewriting the card. > > > To me reading per turn on a card that effects the player (Methuselah) > makes a lot more sense than reading per action. Since "turn" and "Methuselah" are not related to each other any closer than "action" and "Methuselah" or "game" and "Methuselah" or "duration of this Master card" and "Methuselah", I'll have to disagree. The card says nothing of "turns" but, like Archon Investigation, talks of bleed amounts. "bleed" is an action, so "bleed" and "action" are related. That, coupled with original intent, is the basis for the ruling. > > The card speaks of a bleed amount limit ("...bleed you for more than > 2 > > pool..."). > > > > Each time you a being bled, ask "is this Methuslah bleeding me for > > more than two pool?". If yes, then you'll burn just two pool for > > the successful action. If no, then Protected Resources has no effect. > > > > Why not ask has this Methuselah bleed me for 2 pool already? Yes, then Because there's no indication on the card that "already" is to be used. It says "bleed you for more than two pool", so you should as "is this bleed for more than two pool?". No additional spin should be applied without cause. > he can't bleed me any more. If not then he can bleed you for up to > two. A card that references the player should be read that way. How > can you just skip over the per turn aspect. To me and at least one Because it's not there. > other (okay a small amount) it makes [sense]. Actually I should say two > others because another member of our group agreed with our > interpretation. And the last member on that night was convinced by us Well, there are others (notably the members of the former Rules Team as well as the members of the current Rules Team, not to mention others on this NewsGroup) that agree with the current (official) interpretation. > to play it that way even though he wasn't in agreement. And it did > make for a long game with 3 combat decks and 1 vote deck. Hopefully you can be convinced to play it the official way, even though you aren't in agreement. If not, of course, feel free to use your rule as a house rule. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > Then you could say a Methuselah does bleed from his vamps as well. The > Edge okay I could see that. No, the rules specifically state that vampires generate votes which Methuselahs cast (as LSJ stated). There is no such statement about bleeding. -- James Coupe

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > Why not ask has this Methuselah bleed me for 2 pool already? Because there are very few cards in V:TES which require such retroactive remembering. Those which do tend to perform such things with counters e.g. the number of votes I can cast from an Alamut, based on the amount of previous bleed I've done, the number of previous Corruption attempts I've made is added up wtih counters, similarly with Dominique. Beyond that sort of thing, as far as I can tell, most cards work on what happens now, not what has happened before. LSJ will be able to correct me if this is not the case. -- James Coupe

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > I see I didn't quite say that the way I wanted to. I agree, it does > make it hugely powerful. Makes for a very strong defense. A too strong defence, in some people's opinions. > I am not arguing > it to make it that way. That is not the overall impression you tend to convey. > What I am arguing is, that seems to be the way > it reads. I don't see stating Methuselah on the card to limit each > vamp to 2 bleed. That would have been much more easily stated as no > Vamp can bleed for more than 2. I am not trying to be an @$$. But, > when you use a word that is associated with the player then you it > should limit the player not each of the minions individually. Card text writers are not known for their ability to be consistent, especially when there are a group of them doign it. See the arguments in DejaNews about Cat Burglary. -- James Coupe

ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > I don't see stating Methuselah on the card to limit each > vamp to 2 bleed. That would have been much more easily stated as no > Vamp can bleed for more than 2. More precisely: no *minion* can bleed for more than two pool (per bleed action). But it is equivalent with the concept of what a "Methuselah's action" is (i.e., an action taken by one of the minions under the control of that Methuselah). The fact that the information could have been conveyed in a more readily understood format doesn't change the situation. Many cards could've been worded better. > I am not trying to be an @$$. But, > when you use a word that is associated with the player then you it > should limit the player not each of the minions individually. Does > anybody understand what I am trying to say or am I in left field all by > myself? It is limiting the (other players): each of their bleeds against you can cause no more than a loss of two pool. The alternative (involving limiting the player) would be to limit all of each players bleed to a total of two pool for as long as PR stays in play. Adding an artificial "per turn" to the effect is only possible via errata, and such errata has not been (and will not be) issued. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] None of the cards requires you to remember the extent to which events have accumulated, no. Some cards require you to remember whether such-and-such has (as a single event) happened (typically "since your last turn"): Compel the Spirit, Donatien, Lextalionis, Sixth Tradition, and The Treatment. And some cards require you to remember "state" information without the use of counters or other in-play indicators: Ablative Skin, Betrayer, Praxis Seizure: X, etc. But none require you to remember if such-and-such has happened to such-and-such a degree. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

In article <38AA9E32...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > > ravnos...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Okay, I see where we have gone with this. The "time limit" is the > > > > question now. Not what does "Methuselah" mean. If you impose a per > > > > vamp rule that is a time limit. If you invoke a per turn rule that > > is > > > > a time limit. And, if you invoke a as long as the card is in play > > rule > > > > that is a time limit. Either way you have rewritten the card. Per > > > > turn works just as easy as per vamp. > > > > [...] > > > > I really don't see how you can say that it means per bleed. It > > doesn't > > > > say that any where on it. So, how do you interpret it? I think the > > > > inerpretation that is being imposed is just as wrong as any other. > > Per > > > > turn, per bleed or for as long as the card is in play? > > > > > > Reading "per bleed" doesn't involve rewriting the card. > > > > > To me reading per turn on a card that effects the player (Methuselah) > > makes a lot more sense than reading per action. > > Since "turn" and "Methuselah" are not related to each other any closer than > "action" and "Methuselah" or "game" and "Methuselah" or "duration of this > Master card" and "Methuselah", I'll have to disagree. > > The card says nothing of "turns" but, like Archon Investigation, > talks of bleed amounts. "bleed" is an action, so "bleed" and "action" > are related. That, coupled with original intent, is the basis for > the ruling. > > > > The card speaks of a bleed amount limit ("...bleed you for more than > > 2 [ quoted text not captured ] As always I will play the card the official way. I just wish the official way made more since. However, I guess since the errata for Wake made no sense then I should never have expected this one to make since either. Just glad I got to voice my opinion and see that others (carlos Giovanni) made the same interpretation we did. Is the official interpretation posted anywhere or do you expect every one to come to this rather obscure interpretation on their own. All that said I will now voice my true opinion of the card for all of you thinking that I was for the two per turn rule. No, I wasn't. Two per turn makes the card terribly powerful and would sway the game a great deal towards the vote deck. I do love the fact that it would kick a winnie bleed in the @$$. I like many of you are not for all powerful cards. I just wanted everyone to see that new players, which my group mostly is, will interpret this card more often then naught the same way we did. I also agree with Carlos Giovanni in the fact that with the "official interpretation" it becomes a very weak card. I hope that Mr Coupe and Mr LSJ do not take offense at my (what I consider) valid arguments. Though I was not convinced by their arguments I will play the card by official rules. > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp [ quoted text not captured ]

carlos_...@my-deja.com writes: >When this card (PR) first made appearance in my group, all players >animonously (sp?) read, interpreted and played it "per turn", without >dispute going on. It made perfect sense, and it was intuitvively. It's not particularly intuitive to me. I have to say, when I first saw the card, it never crossed my mind that it meant anything except a limit of 2 pool per bleed. The word "turn" doesn't appear anywhere on the card! I've noticed a lot of players (myself included) have a tendency at times to read into a game rule or card what we want it to say. I can sympathize when it happens to someone else. It does tend to make for some annoyance when the mistake is pointed out and folks still cling to the thing they want, advancing all manner of arguments in its support. In most cases, I suspect that if someone who knew better had illuminated the point for these people when they first encountered the rule or the card, it wouldn't have provoked _nearly_ as much resistance as it does after they'd gotten used to it. Fred

In article <88fhek$l38$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > carlos_...@my-deja.com writes: > I've noticed a lot of players (myself included) have a tendency at times > to read into a game rule or card what we want it to say. I can > sympathize when it happens to someone else. It does tend to make for > some annoyance when the mistake is pointed out and folks still cling to > the thing they want, advancing all manner of arguments in its support. > In most cases, I suspect that if someone who knew better had illuminated > the point for these people when they first encountered the rule or the > card, it wouldn't have provoked _nearly_ as much resistance as it does > after they'd gotten used to it. I agree here. If a ruling (or errata) would be available to players early on in their VTES-career, they'd just say "oh, I guess I played it wrong last night, let's play it the right way from now on." It's only when things are being played for years (wrong or right), and then suddenly changed, that players say "how stupid, we play it this way for years, and there has never been a problem." It's not a matter if something is right or wrong, it's about how to implement changes in a smooth way so that all can understand the reasons. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The official clarification of the printed card text is available at the Rulmonger web site: just search for "Protected". http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/9876/ Carl (os Giovanni) did not say that it is a "very weak" card under the printed text. He said that it is "a *bit* too weak" (his emphasis). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, LSJ wrote: > None of the cards requires you to remember the extent to which events > have accumulated, no. erm, except for Taste of Vitae, right?