Card text first and then the question, which might be out of the realm
of the bleeding obvious, but it would be nice o hve it clarified.
Extremis Boon
Master: out-of-turn.
Only usable when you are being ousted. Other Methuselahs may bid pool
to keep you in the game. If one does, put this card in play. as a
master phase action, the high bidder may steal up to 2 pool from you.
You may burn this card by giving that Methuselah 6 pool during your
master phase.
So, the question ... or statements really. Presumably you get the
amount of pool bid from the highest bidder rather than just being left
in the game without any pool. Or do you get the pool from everyone's
bid but only the highest bidding Methuselah get's the benefit?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:32:31 +1100, shawn stanley
<sta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Card text first and then the question, which might be out of the realm
>of the bleeding obvious, but it would be nice o hve it clarified.>Extremis Boon
>Master: out-of-turn.
>Only usable when you are being ousted. Other Methuselahs may bid pool
>to keep you in the game. If one does, put this card in play. as a
>master phase action, the high bidder may steal up to 2 pool from you.
>You may burn this card by giving that Methuselah 6 pool during your
>master phase.>So, the question ... or statements really. Presumably you get the
>amount of pool bid from the highest bidder rather than just being left
>in the game without any pool.
Correct.
>Or do you get the pool from everyone's bid but only the highest bidding Methuselah get's the benefit?
Nope.
Card text could be clearer.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:02:50 -0500, The Lasombra
<TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
it sure could. it doesn't even say the bids come from the bidder's
pool.
'if one does' could mean if one methuselah bids pool, you put this
card in play. if some number other than one bids pool, you don't put
the card in play.
i mean, we all know how it _should_ work, but that doesn't mean it's
how it will work with it's written text.
sloppy. But a neat card none-the-less. :)
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
>'if one does' could mean if one methuselah bids pool, you put this
>card in play. if some number other than one bids pool, you don't put
>the card in play.
If some positive integer other than one number of Methusalehs bid, then you
still meet the "if one does." If three Methusalehs bid pool, that doesn't
change the fact that one did (though not exactly one did).
Halcyan 2
salem wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:02:50 -0500, The Lasombra
> <TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled:
>
>>>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:32:31 +1100, shawn stanley
>><sta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Card text first and then the question, which might be out of the realm
>>>of the bleeding obvious, but it would be nice o hve it clarified.>>>>>Extremis Boon
>>>Master: out-of-turn.
>>>Only usable when you are being ousted. Other Methuselahs may bid pool
>>>to keep you in the game. If one does, put this card in play. as a
>>>master phase action, the high bidder may steal up to 2 pool from you.
>>>You may burn this card by giving that Methuselah 6 pool during your
>>>master phase.>>>>>So, the question ... or statements really. Presumably you get the
>>>amount of pool bid from the highest bidder rather than just being left
>>>in the game without any pool.>>
>>Correct.
Correct.
>>>Or do you get the pool from everyone's bid but only the highest bidding Methuselah get's the benefit?>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>Card text could be clearer.
Correct. But hopefully, card text is sufficient.
> it sure could. it doesn't even say the bids come from the bidder's
> pool.
Actually, it says they bid pool.
> 'if one does' could mean if one methuselah bids pool, you put this
> card in play. if some number other than one bids pool, you don't put
> the card in play.
That would require the presence of an "only" that isn't there.
> i mean, we all know how it _should_ work, but that doesn't mean it's
> how it will work with it's written text.
>
> sloppy. But a neat card none-the-less. :)
Clear, complete, unambiguous, unstilted rewordings for the next
reprinting welcome, for this and any other cards, as always.
--
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/
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right. It doesn't say what happens to the pool though, that's what is really
ambiguous about it.
>> 'if one does' could mean if one methuselah bids pool, you put this
>> card in play. if some number other than one bids pool, you don't put
>> the card in play.>
>
> That would require the presence of an "only" that isn't there.
>>> i mean, we all know how it _should_ work, but that doesn't mean it's
>> how it will work with it's written text.
>>
>> sloppy. But a neat card none-the-less. :)>
>
> Clear, complete, unambiguous, unstilted rewordings for the next
> reprinting welcome, for this and any other cards, as always.
>
Extremis Boon
Master: out-of-turn.
Only usable when you are being ousted. Other Methuselahs may bid pool
to keep you in the game. Move the winning bid (if any) to your pool, and put
this card in play. (While this card is in play) the high bidder may steal up
to 2 pool from you as a master phase action.
You may burn this card by giving that Methuselah 6 pool during your
master phase.
I think it's unnecessary to try to prevent the card from being put in play
if there are no bids (like the current text does), because the player is
ousted by then and so the card is burned with no effect anyway.
While we're at it: is the '...to keep you in the game' text binding, ie,
must any bid be at least enough to keep you in the game? Or is it possible
(for example) to bid 1 when at least 3 pool is necessary to keep the player
in the game? (Obviously the player would be ousted anyway and the pool is
lost, but I'm sure someone will come up with a situation where it's
advantageous.)
Flux
Flux wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> salem wrote:>>> it sure could. it doesn't even say the bids come from the bidder's
>>> pool.>>
>> Actually, it says they bid pool.>
> Right. It doesn't say what happens to the pool though, that's what is
> really ambiguous about it.
I wasn't disputing that. I agreed that card text could be clearer, but
was sufficient. "To keep her in the game" leads to the conclusion that
the pool must go to her (else she would not be kept in the game).
>> Clear, complete, unambiguous, unstilted rewordings for the next
>> reprinting welcome, for this and any other cards, as always.>
> Extremis Boon
> Master: out-of-turn.
> Only usable when you are being ousted. Other Methuselahs may bid pool
> to keep you in the game. Move the winning bid (if any) to your pool, and
> put this card in play. (While this card is in play) the high bidder may
> steal up to 2 pool from you as a master phase action.
> You may burn this card by giving that Methuselah 6 pool during your
> master phase.
>
> I think it's unnecessary to try to prevent the card from being put in
> play if there are no bids (like the current text does), because the
> player is ousted by then and so the card is burned with no effect anyway.
That doesn't seem much more unambiguous than the current, esp. for the
"where does the pool come from?" question.
There's always someone who will contest the clarity or unambiguity of
a given card text.
> While we're at it: is the '...to keep you in the game' text binding, ie,
> must any bid be at least enough to keep you in the game? Or is it
Yes. Card text.
> possible (for example) to bid 1 when at least 3 pool is necessary to
> keep the player in the game? (Obviously the player would be ousted
> anyway and the pool is lost, but I'm sure someone will come up with a
> situation where it's advantageous.)
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Flux wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:> I agreed that card text could be clearer, but
> was sufficient. "To keep her in the game" leads to the conclusion that
> the pool must go to her (else she would not be kept in the game).
I agree it is sufficient, but only barely. A number of other interpretations
could be made, but I'll concede that is the easiest/most obvious one.
>>> Clear, complete, unambiguous, unstilted rewordings for the next
>>> reprinting welcome, for this and any other cards, as always.>>
>>
>> Extremis Boon
>> Master: out-of-turn.
>> Only usable when you are being ousted. Other Methuselahs may bid pool
>> to keep you in the game. Move the winning bid (if any) to your pool,
>> and put this card in play. (While this card is in play) the high
>> bidder may steal up to 2 pool from you as a master phase action.
>> You may burn this card by giving that Methuselah 6 pool during your
>> master phase.
>>
>> I think it's unnecessary to try to prevent the card from being put in
>> play if there are no bids (like the current text does), because the
>> player is ousted by then and so the card is burned with no effect anyway.>
>
> That doesn't seem much more unambiguous than the current, esp. for the
> "where does the pool come from?" question.
Since it's the other methuselahs that bid from their pool, and that bid is
explicitly moved to you pool, it seems clear enough for me. But you can
improve that with another small change:
'... Move the winning bid (if any) from the winner's pool to your pool, ...'
It does become somewhat stilted though.
Another option:
'...Other Methuselahs may bid from their pool to keep you in the game. ...'
> There's always someone who will contest the clarity or unambiguity of
> a given card text.
Agreed. :)
>> While we're at it: is the '...to keep you in the game' text binding,
>> ie, must any bid be at least enough to keep you in the game? Or is it>
>
> Yes. Card text.
Ok.
That means this text serves two functions: it identifies where the bidding
pool goes to and it places a minimum on the bids.
IMO it's best to avoid such text, because many people will only look for one
meaning to the text and stop at that. If/when they identify the secondary
meaning, they'll then be left wondering if this secondary meaning is
intended or accidental. At least I did. :)
Flux
> I think it's unnecessary to try to prevent the card from being put in play
> if there are no bids (like the current text does), because the player is
> ousted by then and so the card is burned with no effect anyway.
No it´s not. Someone could play a Life Boon. Or a Major Boon.
--
johannes walch
v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/
Johannes Walch wrote:
>>I think it's unnecessary to try to prevent the card from being put in play
>>if there are no bids (like the current text does), because the player is
>>ousted by then and so the card is burned with no effect anyway.>
>
> No it´s not. Someone could play a Life Boon. Or a Major Boon.
>
True, good catch.
But it wouldn't be much of a problem, the card would then remain in play but
with no effect since there is no 'high bidder'.
Flux
Flux expounded:
> >> While we're at it: is the '...to keep you in the game' text binding,
> >> ie, must any bid be at least enough to keep you in the game? Or is it
> > Yes. Card text.
> Ok.
> That means this text serves two functions: it identifies where the bidding
> pool goes to and it places a minimum on the bids.
> IMO it's best to avoid such text, because many people will only look for one
> meaning to the text and stop at that. If/when they identify the secondary
> meaning, they'll then be left wondering if this secondary meaning is
> intended or accidental. At least I did. :)
And people like me will think that negative pool is clearly impossible
so when the bleed resolves the Meth in question hits 0 pool and any
extra bleed is lost. Then the Boon comes in (as the Meth's pool hits 0 -
otherwise it can't be played) and it only takes 1 pool to keep them in
the game.
From LSJ's comments it's clear he doesn't view it this way but I still
contend that this is a reasonable interpretation (of card text alone).
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:30:22 -0000, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
a Prior Ruling on Life Boon would provide a foundation for the
Negative Pool is Possible idea.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:31:13 +0000, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
except maybe the guy who bid 0.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:31:13 +0000, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> scrawled:
>
>>>Johannes Walch wrote:
>>>>>>I think it's unnecessary to try to prevent the card from being put in play
>>>>if there are no bids (like the current text does), because the player is
>>>>ousted by then and so the card is burned with no effect anyway.>>>
>>>
>>>No it´s not. Someone could play a Life Boon. Or a Major Boon.
>>>>>
>>True, good catch.
>>
>>But it wouldn't be much of a problem, the card would then remain in play but
>>with no effect since there is no 'high bidder'.>
>
> except maybe the guy who bid 0.
That's impossible anyway by LSJ's post (the bids must be at least enough to
'save' the player).
Flux
LSJ wrote:
> I wasn't disputing that. I agreed that card text could be clearer, but
> was sufficient. "To keep her in the game" leads to the conclusion that
> the pool must go to her (else she would not be kept in the game).
>
Actually I already had a discussion about this.
One take is that other meth's bid pool and the pool bid goes to the
blood bank, while the person being ousted simply treats the ousting
effect as having been canceled.
So a 6 bleed against a player with 6 or less pool remains at the pool
they started that action with. Its kind of link playing a DI after the
fact and the other meths get to pay the cost.
So yea. The card text could use a refinement.
Raille