Card Text:
Card Title: Protected Resources
Pool: 2 pool
Clan/Discip.: n/a
Card Type: Master
Card Text: Master
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.
Artist: Richard Thomas
Rarity: Rare
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?
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.
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.
I hope I made sense. Sleep dep sucks in a big way.
Sorrow
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
> It seems as if you're wondering why "per turn" isn't part of the official
> interpretation.
Kind of, but not really.
>That's easy: the card makes no reference to any turn.
and this is why 'not really'.
> "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.")
You put forth a really good argument. However, in using your own
example, Archon Investigation says: 'Only usable when a minion
attempts to bleed you for more than 3 pool', specifically referrencing
a minion while PR states '...another methuselah may not bleed you...'.
specifically referrencing a methuselah. If the original intent was meant
to be 'each bleed action' it would have instead had 'minion' in the text.
(see Archon Investigation, as you pointed out, released in the same set)
Now, since it does say 'methuselah' as opposed to 'minion', it's not that
far a stretch to interpret that to mean the set of actions performed by the
meths minion for either that turn or the rest of the game. As you point
out, the 'rest of the game' option is clearly broken. However, I don't
believe that the 'rest of the turn' option is and it seems to me that this
is/was part of the original intent based on the fact that they used
'methuselah' instead of 'minion'.
A methuselah is the player, yes, but moreso is really the sum of all that
s/he controls. If a meth is ousted, all that s/he currently controls is
gone
as well. Taking that one step further - when a minion bleeds, it is just
the bleed action but when a methuselah bleeds (which s/he really can't
perform the physical action) it is the sum of all the bleeding actions
peformed by his/her minions.
Is my logic faulty in any way?
> 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.
The interpretation/clarification I included in my original post was one made
from memory. I did not see it on your site anywhere.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> 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.
This card becomes *very* valuable in combat decks, if I'm reading this
correctly. Wow. Wow.
I can see the Gangrel/Army of Rats deck now.
p.
Note: Sorry about the message to your e-mail, LSJ; fingers moving too fast -
clicked the wrong button.
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
> > "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.")
>
> You put forth a really good argument. However, in using your own
> example, Archon Investigation says: 'Only usable when a minion
> attempts to bleed you for more than 3 pool', specifically referrencing
> a minion while PR states '...another methuselah may not bleed you...'.
> specifically referrencing a methuselah. If the original intent was meant
> to be 'each bleed action' it would have instead had 'minion' in the text.
In a perfect world, maybe. But here and now, it "should" have instead
had 'minion' in the text.
> (see Archon Investigation, as you pointed out, released in the same set)
> Now, since it does say 'methuselah' as opposed to 'minion', it's not that
> far a stretch to interpret that to mean the set of actions performed by the
> meths minion for either that turn or the rest of the game. As you point
> out, the 'rest of the game' option is clearly broken. However, I don't
> believe that the 'rest of the turn' option is and it seems to me that this
> is/was part of the original intent based on the fact that they used
> 'methuselah' instead of 'minion'.
Sure. But they said it wasn't.
The used Methuselah instead of Minion for "No Good Reason" (I said that -
not them). For the same reason that the templates for cards with similar
effect differ.
> A methuselah is the player, yes, but moreso is really the sum of all that
> s/he controls. If a meth is ousted, all that s/he currently controls is
> gone
> as well. Taking that one step further - when a minion bleeds, it is just
> the bleed action but when a methuselah bleeds (which s/he really can't
> perform the physical action) it is the sum of all the bleeding actions
> peformed by his/her minions.
> Is my logic faulty in any way?
No. But it is not the only logic available:
A minion can bleed more than once. A Methuselah can bleed more than
once. Each bleed is for some amount. The effect of each bleed is
limited by Protected Resources.
Is that logic inherently flawed?
> > 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.
>
> The interpretation/clarification I included in my original post was one made
> from memory. I did not see it on your site anywhere.
Well, you did a fine job remembering it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Patrick Harris <alp...@alpinetaxi.com> wrote:
> > Right. It is possible to read it as the following:> [snip misleading quote]>
> This card becomes *very* valuable in combat decks, if I'm reading this
> correctly. Wow. Wow.
> I can see the Gangrel/Army of Rats deck now.
The section you quoted was taken out of context and it not official.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorrow wrote in message <7g50jr$inm$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> It seems as if you're wondering why "per turn" isn't part of the official
>> interpretation.>
>Kind of, but not really.
>>>That's easy: the card makes no reference to any turn.>
>and this is why 'not really'.
>>> "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.")>
>You put forth a really good argument. However, in using your own
>example, Archon Investigation says: 'Only usable when a minion
>attempts to bleed you for more than 3 pool', specifically referrencing
>a minion while PR states '...another methuselah may not bleed you...'.
>specifically referrencing a methuselah. If the original intent was meant
>to be 'each bleed action' it would have instead had 'minion' in the text.
That assumes a lot on the part of WotC in the Dept. of Quality Control. If
you really want to split hairs like this, then you can probably do it with
each card. Strict wording templates aren't even a part of V:TES yet, you
know (if they ever will be).
>(see Archon Investigation, as you pointed out, released in the same set)
>Now, since it does say 'methuselah' as opposed to 'minion', it's not that
>far a stretch to interpret that to mean the set of actions performed by the
>meths minion for either that turn or the rest of the game.
By your own words, that is an interpretation (and a stretch). I think we
can all see that the likelihood of the intent of PR being to reduce all the
bleed actions for the game to a total of 2 pool can also be classified as a
non-sensical interpretation, and discarded promptly.
>As you point
>out, the 'rest of the game' option is clearly broken. However, I don't
>believe that the 'rest of the turn' option is and it seems to me that this
>is/was part of the original intent based on the fact that they used
>'methuselah' instead of 'minion'.>A methuselah is the player, yes, but moreso is really the sum of all that
>s/he controls. If a meth is ousted, all that s/he currently controls is
>gone
>as well. Taking that one step further - when a minion bleeds, it is just
>the bleed action but when a methuselah bleeds (which s/he really can't
>perform the physical action) it is the sum of all the bleeding actions
>peformed by his/her minions.
>Is my logic faulty in any way?
>
Your logic falls over in the interpretation of "when a methuselah bleeds".
You add up all of the individual minion bleeds and call it the "methuselah's
bleed for the turn". It's arbitrary to decide whether to equate it to the
set of all actions, or to each individual action. Just as easy to interpret
is that a "methuselah's bleed" is any individual minion's bleed action that
_originates_ from a methuselah. Since, for now, this encompasses all
bleeds, "minon bleed" and "methuselah bleed" are equivalent.
1 = 1.
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)
> Your logic falls over in the interpretation of "when a methuselah bleeds".
> You add up all of the individual minion bleeds and call it the
"methuselah's
> bleed for the turn". It's arbitrary to decide whether to equate it to the
> set of all actions, or to each individual action. Just as easy to
interpret
> is that a "methuselah's bleed" is any individual minion's bleed action
that
> _originates_ from a methuselah. Since, for now, this encompasses all
> bleeds, "minon bleed" and "methuselah bleed" are equivalent.
> 1 = 1.
Except that again, they used "methuselah" instead of "minion". This is the
crux of my argument. The design team clearly new the difference between
the two. Just look at all the cards that reference both in the text.
Sorrow
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <37260D95...@alpinetaxi.com>, Patrick Harris
<alp...@alpinetaxi.com> writes
>
>This card becomes *very* valuable in combat decks, if I'm reading this
>correctly. Wow. Wow.
>I can see the Gangrel/Army of Rats deck now.
Perhaps, but not overly so. How do you propose to oust them when you've
got rid of all their vampires? Can you afford all those actions on Army
of Rats? Can you afford the slots for the Army of Rats?
If you're not playing an Animalism/Gangrel deck, what do you do? It
would not be of so much use to the Brujah, say. What if you needed to
get rid of Sabbat Threats? Or Curse of Nitocris?
It's a neat card, but not as powerful as people imagine.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.nethttp://www.obeah.demon.co.uk
> Perhaps, but not overly so. How do you propose to oust them when you've
> got rid of all their vampires? Can you afford all those actions on Army
> of Rats? Can you afford the slots for the Army of Rats?
I already have the Army of Rats cards in. And I'm not sure what you mean by
all those actions on Army of Rats. Put it out there and let it kill off
your prey since they have no minions to remove it. You have the animalism
untaps and retainers, plus some Wakes, to block your predator and any other
attempts to get rid of the Rats. Sure it's slow, but you can attack other
minions and not worry about your prey so much. I can see it working well
for the Tzimisce as well. They wouldn't have to concentrate so much on
bleeding/rush actions and could concentrate singly on blocking. It would
make for a strange deck, but I think an effective one could be built.
> If you're not playing an Animalism/Gangrel deck, what do you do? It would
> not be of so much use to the Brujah, say. What if you needed to get rid
> of Sabbat Threats? Or Curse of Nitocris?
Those are good examples. The only answers I can come up with for those two
examples are that I haven't seen either of those two cards in a tournament
ever. And while it's true that the Brujah wouldn't be able to use it in the
same way, they could use it until they had accomplished a few things: keep
the pool loss to a minimum to afford an intercept location or two (I don't
use 'em, but some people do), or keep it out until their prey had no
minions, then lay into him/her. Then you could put another out once you had
a new prey.
A clan that would be weird, but possibly effective, would be a Setite
Corruption deck. I know. Setites, not bleed?! But you could use the same
technique I think: get PR out until you had a few new minions, then bleed
away at your prey once you're set. Put another in place once he's ousted.
These ideas may be too slow for tourney play, but I'm sure there's a combo
out there that would clean up with it. Hell, I'll bet no one thought a
Malkavian OOT combat deck would be a good idea for a long time either. And
that thing is crazy now.
p.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
> Except that again, they used "methuselah" instead of "minion". This is the
> crux of my argument. The design team clearly new the difference between
> the two. Just look at all the cards that reference both in the text.
To sum up the crux of your argument:
Protected Resources uses the concept of a Methuselah bleeding.
Because it says Methuselah instead of Minion, you claim that it
must mean something different than a minion's bleed.
But this is not so. Elder Kindred Network refers to the Methuselah
calling the vote. By your standards, this is not possible - only
minions (vampires, in this case) can call a vote to which EKN could
react. But, in the usage of the card writers, they mean "Controller
of the minion who called the vote".
Similarly:
Enzo Giovanni can block political action attempted by any Methuselah.
Donatien can bleed Methuselahs who have attempted unsuccessful bleeding
actions.
In these cases (as in the case of Protected Resources) the "action of"
another Methuselah is another way of saying the "action of a minion
controlled by" another Methuselah.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorrow wrote in message <7g55ti$pc5$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> Your logic falls over in the interpretation of "when a methuselah
bleeds".
>> You add up all of the individual minion bleeds and call it the>"methuselah's>> bleed for the turn". It's arbitrary to decide whether to equate it to
the
>> set of all actions, or to each individual action. Just as easy to>interpret>> is that a "methuselah's bleed" is any individual minion's bleed action>that>> _originates_ from a methuselah. Since, for now, this encompasses all
>> bleeds, "minon bleed" and "methuselah bleed" are equivalent.
>> 1 = 1.>>Except that again, they used "methuselah" instead of "minion". This is the
>crux of my argument. The design team clearly new the difference between
>the two. Just look at all the cards that reference both in the text.
>
The problem is that methuselah bleed has been left undefined. As such,
you've decided on a particular interpretation. It's wrong. (See LSJ's post
re: Methuselah votes and EKN). Your argument is based on a definition of
your own creation, that being;
Methuselah bleed = set of all bleeds by a Meth for a round.
By comparison to terminology referencing votes "called by a Methuselah" your
definition is flawed...
[ quoted text not captured ]