Bleeding yourself

The rules state that you can never bleed yourself. Kindred Spirits says "bleed any Methuslah". Card text supersedes rules, right? Does this mean you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then I've got a wicked deck in mind. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

David Cherryholmes wrote: > The rules state that you can never bleed yourself. Kindred Spirits says > "bleed any Methuslah". Card text supersedes rules, right? Does this mean > you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then I've got a > wicked deck in mind. No. Kindred Spirits doesn't say that you can bleed yourself. Similarly, Kindred Spirits wouldn't get around a Minor Boon restriction. -- 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:3EA44287...@white-wolf.com... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > The rules state that you can never bleed yourself. Kindred Spirits says > > "bleed any Methuslah". Card text supersedes rules, right? Does this mean > > you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then I've got a > > wicked deck in mind. > > No. Kindred Spirits doesn't say that you can bleed yourself. > > Similarly, Kindred Spirits wouldn't get around a Minor Boon restriction. Ah fooey, there goes the idea Dave. Too bad, would have been hilarious to see. Peteo

Peter Oh wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>David Cherryholmes wrote: >>>you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then I've got >>No. Kindred Spirits doesn't say that you can bleed yourself. > Ah fooey, there goes the idea Dave. Too bad, would have been hilarious to > see. Is there something to be had there other than the standard Major Boon angle? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EA44287...@white-wolf.com... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > The rules state that you can never bleed yourself. Kindred Spirits says > > "bleed any Methuslah". Card text supersedes rules, right? Does this mean > > you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then I've got a > > wicked deck in mind. > > No. Kindred Spirits doesn't say that you can bleed yourself. You're saying that to break this rule, it would have to say "bleed any Methuselah, even if you would not otherwise be allowed to"? I thought the Golden Rule of cards usually meant that cards do what they say, even if normally it wouldn't be possible. I'm not saying that I think Kindred Spirits *should* be usable to bleed yourself. But I do see the argument that it would require errata to prohibit that use. Josh

Similar question: if I equip my Gargoyle Tremere Slave with a Stone Dog, but I don't control any Tremere master vampire, can he enter combat with any minion? Does the card text overrules the general rule for Gargoyle Slaves? Thanx [ quoted text not captured ]

cartman wrote: :: Similar question: :: if I equip my Gargoyle Tremere Slave with a Stone Dog, but I don't :: control any Tremere master vampire, can he enter combat with any :: minion? Does the card text overrules the general rule for Gargoyle :: Slaves? the gargoyle slave can't take a D action without you controlling a tremere. So the answer is no. see : Secure haven + Haven uncovered on the same vampire...

> :: Similar question: > :: if I equip my Gargoyle Tremere Slave with a Stone Dog, but I don't > :: control any Tremere master vampire, can he enter combat with any > :: minion? Does the card text overrules the general rule for Gargoyle > :: Slaves? > > the gargoyle slave can't take a D action without you controlling a tremere. And this is the general rule, but the "golden rule" of the game is that card text replaces the general rule: eg: Any tapped minion cannot take actions Force of Will: choose any tapped minion you control ... > So the answer is no. I guess so, but I still didn't catch why exactly > see : Secure haven + Haven uncovered on the same vampire... These are 2 different cards in play, it's not the same case

cartman wrote: ::: the gargoyle slave can't take a D action without you controlling a :: tremere. If a vampire is not allowed to do D actions and you put a card on him that allows him to enter combat as a D action, it is intuitive (at least for me) that he can't enter combat anyway. :: And this is the general rule, but the "golden rule" of the game is :: that card text replaces the general rule: :: eg: Any tapped minion cannot take actions :: Force of Will: choose any tapped minion you control ... :: ::: So the answer is no. I guess so, but I still didn't catch why ::: exactly force of will explicitely states that only a tapped minion can do the action. I don't understand what bugs you here ? you want to know how the line is drawn between rules and card text when one should override the other ? Just read the card, plain logic applies. That's all. for the purpose of the Kindred Spirits stuff, i think that the card which says bleed any methuselah prohibits you bleed yourself because the rulebook says you may never bleed yourself. It's like entering combat with your own vampire, it's also prohibited because the game mechanics don't allow it.

LSJ wrote: :: Peter Oh wrote: ::: "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message :::: David Cherryholmes wrote: ::::: you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then ::::: I've got :::: No. Kindred Spirits doesn't say that you can bleed yourself. ::: Ah fooey, there goes the idea Dave. Too bad, would have been ::: hilarious to see. :: :: Is there something to be had there other than the standard Major :: Boon angle? I guess this is not possible. V:tes works on some axioms : you can't bleed yourself, a minion you control may never enter combat with another minion you control, and so on. If you suspect there is any loophole, just think about the logic of the game and stick to it.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3EA44287...@white-wolf.com... > >>David Cherryholmes wrote: >> >>>The rules state that you can never bleed yourself. Kindred Spirits says >>>"bleed any Methuslah". Card text supersedes rules, right? Does this mean >>>you can bleed yourself with Kindred Spirits? If you can, then I've got a >>>wicked deck in mind. >> >>No. Kindred Spirits doesn't say that you can bleed yourself. > > > You're saying that to break this rule, it would have to say > "bleed any Methuselah, even if you would not otherwise be > allowed to"? I'm saying that Kindred Spirits' card text doesn't say anything about overcoming a prohibition that limits your bleeding targets. All it does is does is overcome the default targeting rule. > I thought the Golden Rule of cards usually meant that cards > do what they say, even if normally it wouldn't be possible. The Golden Rule means that when card text contradicts the rules, the card text wins out. [ quoted text not captured ]

> ::: the gargoyle slave can't take a D action without you controlling a > :: tremere. > > If a vampire is not allowed to do D actions and you put a card on him that > allows him to enter combat as a D action, it is intuitive (at least for me) > that he can't enter combat anyway. > > :: And this is the general rule, but the "golden rule" of the game is > :: that card text replaces the general rule: I don't understand what bugs you here ? Nothing is bugging me here, but if a rule states that A cannot perform any D action and a card on her states on the contrary that she can actually do it, it's not so obvious. > you want to know how the line is drawn between rules and card text when one > should override the other ? Just read the card, plain logic applies. So my Gargoyle can enter combat as the card states :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

cartman wrote: > Nothing is bugging me here, but if a rule states that A cannot perform any D > action and a card on her states on the contrary that she can actually do it, > it's not so obvious. > > So my Gargoyle can enter combat as the card states :-) Your Gargoyle has another action option, yes. He could bleed (a cardless action option open to all minions), hunt (a cardless action option open to all vampires), diablerize a vampire in torpor, or enter combat. And he also cannot perform any directed action. Which means he can't bleed, diablerize someone else's vampire, or enter combat with someone else's minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3ea51c4e$0$1076$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... > cartman wrote: > > ::: the gargoyle slave can't take a D action without you controlling a > :: tremere. > > If a vampire is not allowed to do D actions and you put a card on him that > allows him to enter combat as a D action, it is intuitive (at least for me) > that he can't enter combat anyway. > > :: And this is the general rule, but the "golden rule" of the game is > :: that card text replaces the general rule: > :: eg: Any tapped minion cannot take actions > :: Force of Will: choose any tapped minion you control ... > :: > ::: So the answer is no. I guess so, but I still didn't catch why > ::: exactly > > force of will explicitely states that only a tapped minion can do the > action. I don't understand what bugs you here ? > What I see here is not something that is bugging him, but an instance where the rules loop in upon itself. Current rules state that Rule Text governs game play until Card Text overrides it. The above is just an example of this... Rule Text alludes that only untapped minions can take actions (6.2) and actually states that untapped minions are able to take any actions (6.2.1). This rule is disregarded with Force of Will text which states Only Usable By A Tapped Vampire. > > you want to know how the line is drawn between rules and card text when one > should override the other ? Just read the card, plain logic applies. That's > all. > But logic in the case of Kindred Spirits does not work. Which is why the Prince of Washington DC stated that there should be some Errata on this. The rules state that By default, your minions bleed actions can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force you to bleed Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however. (6.1.1) But the text of Kindred Spirits state Bleed Any Methuselah. This could override the Rules text. > for the purpose of the Kindred Spirits stuff, i think that the card which > says bleed any methuselah prohibits you bleed yourself because the rulebook > says you may never bleed yourself. It's like entering combat with your own > vampire, it's also prohibited because the game mechanics don't allow it. I disagree. The rules has this built into the game as part of its mechanics. Here I see mechanics opposing each other. It either works all the time or it doesn't work at all. It it works all the time, then the game continues with only a minor tweek required (errata maybe?). If it does not work at all, the game will come to a grinding halt as card text no longer overrides rules text. I am all for the minor tweek and a continuation of play. Michael Eichler Prince of Spangdahlem

Ramsteiner wrote: > But logic in the case of Kindred Spirits does not work. Which is why > the Prince of Washington DC stated that there should be some Errata on > this. The rules state that By default, your minions bleed actions can > be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or > force you to bleed Methuselah other than your prey. You can never > bleed yourself, however. (6.1.1) But the text of Kindred Spirits > state Bleed Any Methuselah. This could override the Rules text. It does. It overrides the default. It allows you to direct the bleed at Methuselahs who are not your prey, but who are otherwise legal targets for the bleed. It doesn't overcome any prohibition against bleeding certain targets, however. So a Minor Boonee could still not use Kindred Spirits to bleed his benefactor, since he is not allowed to bleed his benefactor and card text on Kindred Spirits doesn't have any text to override that. And he cannot bleed his controller, since he is not allowed to bleed his controller and card text on Kindred Spirits doesn't have any text to override that. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EA557EF...@white-wolf.com... > Ramsteiner wrote: > > But the text of Kindred Spirits > > state Bleed Any Methuselah. This could override the Rules text. > > It does. It overrides the default. It allows you to direct the bleed > at Methuselahs who are not your prey, but who are otherwise legal > targets for the bleed. > > It doesn't overcome any prohibition against bleeding certain targets, > however. So a Minor Boonee could still not use Kindred Spirits to > bleed his benefactor, since he is not allowed to bleed his benefactor > and card text on Kindred Spirits doesn't have any text to override > that. And he cannot bleed his controller, since he is not allowed to > bleed his controller and card text on Kindred Spirits doesn't have > any text to override that. The impression I'm getting here is that prohibitions are "stronger" than any permission that doesn't explicitly and specifically say it's breaking that prohibition. That is, since the rules say you can't bleed yourself, a card would have to say "you can bleed yourself" to override that; to overcome the Slave no-D-action restriction, a card would have to say "even if this vampire is a Slave" or something along those lines. Kindred Spirits doesn't *say* that the only prohibition it's lifting is the "bleeds target your prey" restriction, but since it also doesn't say that it's making *all* Methuselahs into legal targets, it doesn't beat other "can't target me" effects or rules. Is that right? Josh questioning legality

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Kindred Spirits doesn't *say* that the only prohibition it's > lifting is the "bleeds target your prey" restriction, but since > it also doesn't say that it's making *all* Methuselahs into > legal targets, it doesn't beat other "can't target me" effects > or rules. Is that right? It doesn't beat *any* "can't target me" effects, for that reason, right. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <b83m2d$5ucvf$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >The impression I'm getting here is that prohibitions are "stronger" >than any permission that doesn't explicitly and specifically say >it's breaking that prohibition. Basically, yes. Consider Absolution of the Diabolist. (Removed from the current exchanges.) "This card is playable during your minion phase." This breaks [1.6.2.3]: "You may play an out-of-turn master card whenever appropriate during another player's turn. " However, it doesn't break another bit of [1.6.2.3]: "You may not play a second out-of-turn card against the same master phase - you'll have to wait until you square away the debt you owe on the first one." It simply gives you more /options/ on when to play it. The text "This card is playable..." doesn't mean you get to break the normal rules against one card's debt per master phase - though you could argue "But it says it's playable now, so that over-rides the rules, doesn't it?" Also, specifically regarding Kindred Spirits. It is arguable that it doesn't actually over-ride the rules. [6.1.1] notes: "Some cards or effects may allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however." and it is arguable that Kindred Spirits is simply operating within that statement - some cards let you bleed other Methuselahs. It's one of them. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> Kindred Spirits doesn't *say* that the only prohibition it's >> lifting is the "bleeds target your prey" restriction, but since >> it also doesn't say that it's making *all* Methuselahs into >> legal targets, it doesn't beat other "can't target me" effects >> or rules. Is that right? > > It doesn't beat *any* "can't target me" effects, for that reason, > right. Maybe KS could be made clearer with a small errata: "D bleed any *other* methuselah...." etc just to avoid such potential confusion :-) my 2 cents Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<t+U+jaPQ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... [ quoted text not captured ] Understood. I do have a concern on the LSJ ruling covering allies receiving damage from discipline cards they play in exactly the same manner as a vampire would when 6.4.6 states - Allies and retainer treat aggravated damage the same as normal damage. For each point of damage (regular or aggravated) inflicted on an ally or retainer, he burns one life counter. Until a new rule book comes forth to clarify the difference, this could be viewed as a blanket statement as well (IMO). Will the Anarchs rule book cover this or will we still be governed by the errata? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <b85i9b$5n8tb$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >Maybe KS could be made clearer with a small errata: >"D bleed any *other* methuselah...." etc I don't think errata is necessary, but if it gets reprinted (either if a TCE reprint happens, or a later set with a Malkavian starter or whatever), I'd certainly support a quick addition. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2927fda6.03042...@posting.google.com>, Ramsteiner <michael...@spangdahlem.af.mil> writes: >I do have a concern on the LSJ ruling covering allies receiving damage >from discipline cards they play in exactly the same manner as a >vampire would when 6.4.6 states - Allies and retainer treat aggravated >damage the same as normal damage. For each point of damage (regular or >aggravated) inflicted on an ally or retainer, he burns one life >counter. >Until a new rule book comes forth to clarify the difference, this >could be viewed as a blanket statement as well (IMO). This was dealt with some time back, and rewritten in the current rules: [1.6.3] "If the ally gains life in excess of his capacity, it doesn’t drain off, and if the effect inflicts aggravated damage on the ally, he burns life as normal. However, if the effect would send the ally to torpor, then he is burned instead." I believe the ruling you're thinking of was an attempt to resolve the issue with the rules *as they stood then*. (I recall pointing out one of the inconsistencies with the situation which resulted in a difficult ruling - but the only one that made sense with the rules at the time.) The new rules now stop the bizarre "Shadow Court Satyr in torpor" situations. If that's not what you're thinking of, let us know. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > I do have a concern on the LSJ ruling covering allies receiving damage > from discipline cards they play in exactly the same manner as a > vampire would when 6.4.6 states - Allies and retainer treat aggravated > damage the same as normal damage. For each point of damage (regular or > aggravated) inflicted on an ally or retainer, he burns one life > counter. > Until a new rule book comes forth to clarify the difference, this > could be viewed as a blanket statement as well (IMO). Will the > Anarchs rule book cover this or will we still be governed by the > errata? There's no errata on how an ally takes damage, nor on how a vampire takes damage. [ quoted text not captured ]