Silly question maybe, not likely to appear in a game but anyway :)
If i get bleed for 4, i decide i will bounce the blled but as i need to
cycle i first play a telepathic counter and decrease the bleed to 2 and then
i bounce it to my prey.
The question is will i bleed my grand-prey for 4 or has the Telepathic
Counter decreased the bounced bleed to 2?
--
Daniel Eriksson
Karlskrona
Sweden
E-Mail: wal...@nr1.nu
MSN: walkert...@hotmail.com
ICQ: 15819557
Daniel Eriksson wrote:
>
> Silly question maybe, not likely to appear in a game but anyway :)
>
> If i get bleed for 4, i decide i will bounce the blled but as i need to
> cycle i first play a telepathic counter and decrease the bleed to 2 and then
> i bounce it to my prey.
>
> The question is will i bleed my grand-prey for 4 or has the Telepathic
> Counter decreased the bounced bleed to 2?
The latter.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3DBD359B...@white-wolf.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
So is it possible to bounce a 0 bleed? I.e. Night moves, T. Counter and then
bounce?
Daniel Eriksson wrote:
> So is it possible to bounce a 0 bleed? I.e. Night moves, T. Counter and then
> bounce?
Yes. Bounce cards (currently in print) do not make any restriction on the
amount of the bleed.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Daniel Eriksson wrote:>> So is it possible to bounce a 0 bleed? I.e. Night moves, T. Counter and then
>> bounce?> Yes. Bounce cards (currently in print) do not make any restriction on the
> amount of the bleed.
So you can bounce a 0 bleed, verifying that it was "successful",
but you can't Spying Mission a 0 bleed?
That seems a little inconsistent to me.
(Sorry, beating an undead horse, but still, I wanted to make this point...)
Jozxyqk wrote:
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Daniel Eriksson wrote:
> >> So is it possible to bounce a 0 bleed? I.e. Night moves, T. Counter and then
> >> bounce?
>
> > Yes. Bounce cards (currently in print) do not make any restriction on the
> > amount of the bleed.
>
> So you can bounce a 0 bleed, verifying that it was "successful",
? How did you jump to successful?
A bounced bleed of zero is still a bleed of zero (and therefore will
still not be a successful bleed when it resolves).
[ quoted text not captured ]
There was a question about this resently.
TC text says a bleed against 'you' is reduced by 1/2.
Why does the bleed remain 'reduced' if it is bounced to another player?
The other player is not you by any means. Can you explain this
discrepancy?
Raille
On 2 Jan 2005 19:35:25 -0800, rai...@yahoo.com scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
we had some questioning of this too recently, and i sort of thought of
it this way:
the wording:
"Reduce a bleed against you by 1"
tells you _when_ you can play it, and what the effect is. you are
allowed to only play it when the bleed is against you, but it reduces
the bleed amount, for the duration of the action, by 1.
compare to, say, Matthias's text:
"While Matthias is ready, Baali and Followers of Set get
-1 bleed when bleeding you."
This text doesn't reduce the bleed amount of the action, per se, just
those specific clan's vampire's bleed amount when they are bleeding
you.
i think.
if the Matthias case carried over after a bounce, then if it got
bounced back, it'd be reduced by -1 again. maybe.
ok, so i am still a little fuzzy on it myself. :)
glad you asked the question, raille. i hope lsj can give a clearer
answer than i!
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
[ quoted text not captured ]
AFAIK because the reaction card did what is written on it: It reduced
the bleed by 1/2. Period. Whatever comes next the bleed stays modified
by that.
The wording "against you" is used because you can't reduce any bleed
like you can with Folderol.
That well could be, however TC was printed years before Folderol, as it
was
in the Jyahd set.
And like Salem said, I'll wait for a clearer Answer from LSJ. Card
text
indicates otherwise, so a clear explaination is a must.
Raille
One of those times that Google's news reader is pretty spiffy. The
answer is given by LSJ in a thread of the same name from Daniel
Eriksson dated Oct 28 2002. I'm sure a little search on Google would
have given you what you need.
Jeff
[ quoted text not captured ]
jeff_kuta wrote:
> One of those times that Google's news reader is pretty spiffy. The
> answer is given by LSJ in a thread of the same name from Daniel
> Eriksson dated Oct 28 2002. I'm sure a little search on Google would
> have given you what you need.
Correct.
> Jeff
>
> rai...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>That well could be, however TC was printed years before Folderol, as>
> it
>>>was
>>in the Jyahd set.
>>
>>And like Salem said, I'll wait for a clearer Answer from LSJ. Card
>>text
>>indicates otherwise, so a clear explaination is a must.
>>
>>Raille>
>[ quoted text not captured ]
which is the source of my post, and failes to address in any sort of
clear terms why card text that indicated *you* becomes *any* if a bleed
is bounced.
If anyone had bothered to even glance at the Thread they would have
seen this was the point at which I entered to thread.
And Peter calls me thick headed. :)
Anyhow, to jump back to the original Question I have, that needs a bit
more clarification, and the question which salem would like additional
clarification.
Why does the card text of reduce a bleed against *you* carry over to a
bleed that is no longer against you?
This contradicts the statement LSJ makes that its card text. Applying
the follow card text ruling voids his post 2 years ago, and nothing
further was ever made in the groups (AFAIK) and nothing has been added
to errata, ect. to give any player starting the game any reason to
listen to me or any one else, that TC effects another player, victim of
a bleed bounce that had been previously reduced.
I need clear and defined arguments to support rulings.
Raille
"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104857717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> which is the source of my post, and failes to address in any sort of
> clear terms why card text that indicated *you* becomes *any* if a
bleed
> is bounced.
>
> If anyone had bothered to even glance at the Thread they would have
> seen this was the point at which I entered to thread.
You're looking down instead of up. Google-beta is showing your thread
conjoined with the 2002 thread where Daniel Eriksson asked a similar
question. Look at the first message in this thread.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/5d01e4631eff5c65#03f919f37be8513a> Anyhow, to jump back to the original Question I have, that needs a bit
> more clarification, and the question which salem would like additional
> clarification.
>
> Why does the card text of reduce a bleed against *you* carry over to a
> bleed that is no longer against you?
Because once the amount of the bleed is reduced, it stays reduced, even
if the bleed is no longer against "you". If the bleeding vampire played
Conditioning, the amount of the bleed would stay increased even if the
bleed isn't against the same Methuselah anymore. The restriction on
Telepathic Counter that the bleed be against "you" just restricts when
you can play the card, not when the reduction in the bleed amount
applies. The reduction is applied to the bleed amount itself, not to
"you".
Josh
unaccountably random
Raille wrote:
> Why does the card text of reduce a bleed against *you* carry over to
a
> bleed that is no longer against you?
Okay, I'll take a shot at it.
Telepathic Counter has an instant, immediate effect: Reduce the amount
of a bleed when you play it.
Let's say you TC a bleed from 3 to 1. Nobody counters this card. Your
predator and you play 65 intercept and stealth cards back and forth
before you decide to bounce it to your prey.
At the point where you bounce the bleed to your prey, there is no
Telepathic Counter card in play and/or waiting to resolve; the effect
'reduce a bleed against you' has already been resolved, and the card
has immediately burned into the ash heap by the rules.
Working backwards through the bounce and the 65 stealth and intercept
cards, at no point will you find a time when the TC's reduce is waiting
to resolve, all the way back to when all players agreed that nothing
was cancelling the play of TC (like, say, a Direct Intervention.) At
the point the card is played and not cancelled, it gets resolved, and
that resolution is 'reduce this bleed targeting me by 1/2, right now.'
There's nothing on TC that says 'wait to resolve this until the bleed
is successful' or 'the bleed is determined to be at you' like for
instance Spying Mission. When TC is played, the effect happens: a bleed
targeting you is reduced. (It isn't worded as 'bleeds that target me do
1/2 less bleed for the remainder of the action', which would function
as a person-specific reduction. As would 'the acting vampire gets -1
bleed against you for the duration of the action.')
The fact that that bleed might later have its target changed does not
override the fact that it has been reduced by a previous,
immediately-applied effect that lasts for the duration of the action by
default. There's no text on Telepathic Counter that indicates that its
effect will back-check out of the ashheap to see if the condition that
allowed it to be played is still valid.
Compare to something like Matthias' special, where the -1 bleed from
Followers of Set is a conditional effect on the vampires (not on the
bleed itself) that is not a card-play effect that gets resolved.
Also keep in mind: the 'against you' phrase distinguishes Telepathic
Counter from effects like superior Folderol; it restricts the legal
target of playing Telepathic Counter, not dictates a conditional
effect.
(I imagine the card would be clearer if it were worded 'only playable
on a bleed targeting you: Reduce the bleed by 1 // Reduce the bleed by
2'.)
Another slightly more oblique attempt: when cards refer to 'you', they
typically mean the controller of the card. At the point the bleed
resolves, there is still a 'reduce a bleed against you by X' effect on
the bleed - but the card itself, being in your ashheap, is not
controlled nor is it being played, and cards have no memory in the
ashheap; the card in your ashheap is exactly the same as if your
predator had swiped it with Erciyes Fragments and played it himself. So
the 'you' in Telepathic Counter's effect has no meaning at the point
the bleed resolves and no ongoing causal link to the person who played
it; the card has already been played and the effect has already
resolved.
> Raille
-John Flournoy
"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1104742124....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
That well could be, however TC was printed years before Folderol, as it was
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1104742124....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>[ quoted text not captured ]
That well could be, however TC was printed years before Folderol, as it was
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1104742124....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>[ quoted text not captured ]
That well could be, however TC was printed years before Folderol, as it was
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:20:43 -0500, "Joshua Duffin"
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
ok, but compare and contrast with foreshadowing destruction.
in this post:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a2c223f0ecc1f194
lsj says:
"See also Foreshadowing of Destruction - if you are deflected to a
Methuselah with more than 9 pool, you don't get the bonus, even though
you may have played the card "while" you were bleeding a Methuselah
who had only 5 pool."
[ quoted text not captured ]
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104867432....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Raille wrote:
>>> Why does the card text of reduce a bleed against *you* carry over to> a>> bleed that is no longer against you?>
> Okay, I'll take a shot at it.
>> At the point where you bounce the bleed to your prey, there is no
> Telepathic Counter card in play and/or waiting to resolve; the effect
> 'reduce a bleed against you' has already been resolved, and the card
> has immediately burned into the ash heap by the rules.
>> -John Flournoy
That point seems to cover it nicely.
"The effect has been already resolved."
Thanks. At least some one has a clue. ;)
Raille
[ quoted text not captured ]
Although I don't really see the difference of the above to my statement
I'm glad you found a definition that suits you ;o).
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:usvmt0l3j6vdgbpls...@4ax.com...
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:20:43 -0500, "Joshua Duffin"
> <jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled:> >"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1104857717....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> >> Why does the card text of reduce a bleed against *you* carry over
to a
> >> bleed that is no longer against you?
> >
> >Because once the amount of the bleed is reduced, it stays reduced,
even
> >if the bleed is no longer against "you". If the bleeding vampire
played
> >Conditioning, the amount of the bleed would stay increased even if
the
> >bleed isn't against the same Methuselah anymore. The restriction on
> >Telepathic Counter that the bleed be against "you" just restricts
when
> >you can play the card, not when the reduction in the bleed amount
> >applies. The reduction is applied to the bleed amount itself, not to
> >"you".
>
> ok, but compare and contrast with foreshadowing destruction.
>
> in this post:
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a2c223f0ecc1f194>
> lsj says:
> "See also Foreshadowing of Destruction - if you are deflected to a
> Methuselah with more than 9 pool, you don't get the bonus, even though
> you may have played the card "while" you were bleeding a Methuselah
> who had only 5 pool."
Interesting point. As far as I know the main justification for treating
Telepathic Counter differently than Foreshadowing Destruction (and Aire
of Elation, etc) is precedent - you're right that the wordings aren't
too dissimilar. But I think the precedent may have been set for all
"acting-side" bleed modifiers by the old old ruling that vampires with
inherent +bleed against certain targets could have their bleed amount
vary during an action depending on whether or not the current target
controlled the right target (Constanza Vinti, for example, with her +2
bleed against Meths controlling Ventrue).
Or to argue it a little differently, I could say that like Telepathic
Counter's effect, Foreshadowing Destruction's effect is applied to the
bleed action itself; you just don't know whether it's going to be active
or not until the bleed resolves (since unlike Telepathic Counter it has
a variable component).
Josh
counting the detectives
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:342qgaF...@individual.net...
> Interesting point. As far as I know the main justification for treating
> Telepathic Counter differently than Foreshadowing Destruction (and Aire
> of Elation, etc) is precedent - you're right that the wordings aren't
> too dissimilar.
They're different enough to result in different effects.
TC isn't "the bleed gets -1/2 bleed if you are the Methuselah being bled."
FoD isn't "increase a bleed against a Methuselah with fewer than 10
pool by 3".
They do what they say they do. TC reduces the bleed. The bleed must
be one against you in order for you to play it. FoD applies a
conditional bleed enhancement ("+3 if X") to the action.
See also Aranthebes for an example of conditional bleed reduction.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104952160....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the clarifications, all is clear as day.
> Bet you thought you'd never hear me say that!
Correct. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:54:02 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
> FoD applies a
>conditional bleed enhancement ("+3 if X") to the action.
does this mean it won't kick in until the bleed is resolving, and thus
possibly squeezing past the window of opportunity for Archon
Investigation?
or, at the least, i have to wait until after all block attempts are
finished and other action modifiers/reactions are done with before i
can play the AI, so that we know the bleed does have the +3?
or, does the bleed amount jiggle around during the action depending on
the pool level of the current target, and any time that the FoD (sup)
is "active" means you can AI?
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:54:02 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:>>FoD applies a
>>conditional bleed enhancement ("+3 if X") to the action.>
> does this mean it won't kick in until the bleed is resolving, and thus
> possibly squeezing past the window of opportunity for Archon
> Investigation?
No. You "are bleeding" someone even before it resolves.
> or, at the least, i have to wait until after all block attempts are
> finished and other action modifiers/reactions are done with before i
> can play the AI, so that we know the bleed does have the +3?
No.
> or, does the bleed amount jiggle around during the action depending on
> the pool level of the current target, and any time that the FoD (sup)
> is "active" means you can AI?
Yes, assuming the "activation" means that AI is valid (the bleed hasn't
been further reduced to less than 4).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:48:06 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> salem wrote:>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:54:02 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> scrawled:>>> FoD applies a
>>> conditional bleed enhancement ("+3 if X") to the action.>>
>> does this mean it won't kick in until the bleed is resolving, and thus
>> possibly squeezing past the window of opportunity for Archon
>> Investigation?>
> No. You "are bleeding" someone even before it resolves.
I think that FoD's +3 bleed is either there or not there, but it
immediately appears/disappears when the condition is altered.
Like, bleeding for 2, playing FD. It is now a bleed for 2 when bleeding
a Methuselah with 10 or more pool, and a bleed for 5 when bleeding a
Methuselah with 9 or less pool. Meaning, that the bleed for 5 immediately
becomes a bleed for 2 if bounced to a Meth with 10 or more pool. Also, if
the Methuselah you are bleeding spends pool mid-action and gets below 10
in this fashion, the +3 bleed immediately triggers.
--
Bye,
Daneel
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Wx2Dd.70242$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> salem wrote:>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:54:02 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> scrawled:>>>FoD applies a
>>>conditional bleed enhancement ("+3 if X") to the action.>>
>> does this mean it won't kick in until the bleed is resolving, and thus
>> possibly squeezing past the window of opportunity for Archon
>> Investigation?>
> No. You "are bleeding" someone even before it resolves.
>>> or, at the least, i have to wait until after all block attempts are
>> finished and other action modifiers/reactions are done with before i
>> can play the AI, so that we know the bleed does have the +3?>
> No.
>>> or, does the bleed amount jiggle around during the action depending on
>> the pool level of the current target, and any time that the FoD (sup)
>> is "active" means you can AI?>
> Yes, assuming the "activation" means that AI is valid (the bleed hasn't
> been further reduced to less than 4).
Our group was talking about this. Can AI be played on a bleed that was 4+,
but was reduced to 3 or less?
Raille
"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105008224.548a37def8505e77d3a33f47b15da19e@teranews...
> Our group was talking about this. Can AI be played on a bleed that was
4+,
> but was reduced to 3 or less?
No. Card text: "Only usable when a minion is attempting to bleed you for
more than 3."
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]