Rising, The
Event. Gehenna. Do not replace until your prey is ousted. Requires at least two other Gehenna cards in play.
A Methuselah cannot gain pool during his or her own turn unless he or she has the Edge or at least one victory point. Any pool he or she would gain goes to the bank instead.
Kindred Spirits
Action. Dementation
Bleed any Methuselah. Gain 1 pool if this bleed is successful (for 1 or more).
As above, with +1 bleed.
Given there is The Rising in play, and I have no VP and do not control the Edge, and one of my minion's bleeds successfully with Kindred Spirits: Can I arrange the order of effects that way, that I can gain the one pool granted by Kindred Spirits, i.e. first taking the Edge and than "finish" the card text?
Thanks
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> Rising, The
> Event. Gehenna. Do not replace until your prey is ousted. Requires at least two other Gehenna cards in play.
> A Methuselah cannot gain pool during his or her own turn unless he or she has the Edge or at least one victory point. Any pool he or she would gain goes to the bank instead.
>
> Kindred Spirits
> Action. Dementation
> Bleed any Methuselah. Gain 1 pool if this bleed is successful (for 1 or more).
> As above, with +1 bleed.
>
> Given there is The Rising in play, and I have no VP and do not control the Edge, and one of my minion's bleeds successfully with Kindred Spirits: Can I arrange the order of effects that way, that I can gain the one pool granted by Kindred Spirits, i.e. first taking the Edge and than "finish" the card text?
>
> Thanks
>
The question has already been asked and answered:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/c2dda4b94257a112/c5111c8ca15a788b
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I think the answer is yes. You have two if/then statements to resolve:
If this bleed is successful gain one pool.
If this bleed is successful, you get the Edge. (section 6 of the rules, I think)
No doubt there's a ruling somewhere, but I don't see why you wouldn't be able to order these effects since they are both triggered by the same thing, namely a successful bleed.
Unless they happen at the same time...?
> Shard wrote:
> Do you even have the option not to gain the pool?
>
Well, if I were to choose the order of the effects caused by my successful bleed, I could be allowed to first resolve the text of Kindred Spirits, thus getting no pool due to the effect of The Rising, and then take the Edge ... B)
Same would be true if gaining the Edge was the last effect of a successful bleed by default (not taking action modifiers into consideration).
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
Ankha beat me, but you have to go to another link in his page to find the explicit ruling about Kindred Spirits:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3ee599d88db2e08d
> > - The Rising
> > The Rising is in play. I do not have the edge. I successfully bleed
> > with Kindred Spirits. Do I gain 1 pool from Kindred Spirits ?
>
> No. You have to resolve the bleed (resolve the action) in order to get
> the Edge.
>
Apparently everything about the bleed action, not just the bleed itself, has to resolve before you get the Edge.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> The question has already been asked and answered:
>
> groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/c2dda4b94257a112/c5111c8ca15a788b
>
Yes, but the answer is somewhat hidden there, so I quote it again here:
>
> > - The Rising
> > The Rising is in play. I do not have the edge. I successfully bleed
> > with Kindred Spirits. Do I gain 1 pool from Kindred Spirits ?
>
> No. You have to resolve the bleed (resolve the action) in order to get
> the Edge.
>
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
Correct.
If you don't have the Edge (or a VP), successfully bleeding with Kindred Spirits with The Rising in play won't give you pool (but it will give you the Edge).
In that link I don't understand the difference between the Unnamed and Kindred Spirits, under the Rising.
Gain pool if you bleed successfully" VS "if you bleed successfully, gain pool"
Scott says that one has to do the action card, but I don't see the difference.
Pascal?
Name: unnamed, The
[HttB:U]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Baali
Group: 6
Capacity: 10
Discipline: CEL DAI OBF PRE PRO
Independent: The unnamed may strike: 2R aggravated damage as a strike that costs 1 blood. If it successfully bleeds, you gain 2 pool. Infernal.
Using RTR 2DEC2011 and "successfully bleeds" on the Unnamed & Kindred Spirits...
I would assume that The Unnamed and Kindred Spirits would both function identically since they both require an "If [agent] successfully bleeds" clause while Andre LeRoux, Dis Pater, et al all have a "When [agent] successfully bleeds" clause.
Andre LeRoux
Clan: Toreador (group 5)
Capacity: 3
Disciplines: aus
Camarilla: When a vampire you control successfully bleeds, you may reduce the bleed amount by 1 to give Andre +2 bleed this turn.
Dis Pater
Type: Master
Requires: Giovanni
Unique master.
Put this card in play. Once each action, when a Giovanni you control successfully bleeds your prey, you may remove seven cards in your ash heap from the game to give that action +1 bleed.
Kindred Spirits
Type: Action
Requires: Dementation
[dem] Bleed any Methuselah. Gain 1 pool if this bleed is successful (for 1 or more).
[DEM] As above, with +1 bleed.
unnamed, The
Clan: Baali (group 6)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL DAI OBF PRE PRO
Independent: The unnamed may strike: 2R aggravated damage as a strike that costs 1 blood. If it successfully bleeds, you gain 2 pool. Infernal.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Couldn't the difference between Kindred Spirit and the Unnamed be that Kindred Spirit is an action (that must be resolved completely before gaining the edge) while the Unnamed trigger on the action, like gaining the edge trigger on a successful bleed ?
@Ohlmann:
I honestly can't see the difference between Kindred Spirits and The unnamed. They both require the bleed to be completely successful before the blood is gained ("If this bleed is successful, gain X pool" is basically both sentences on the respective cards).
This is different to the Dis Pater-style text "When [agent] {would} successfully bleed, you may do X to gain Y". The "When [condition] you may do X to get Y" do not require the action to resolve (and most expressly work before it can resolve) before they can be used.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> LSJ wrote:
> The difference is that Kindred Spirit's pool gain is part of the
> action card's resolution. The unnamed's pool gain comes after gaining
> the Edge.
>
KS: the action is a bleed action that gives you 1 pool if the action is successful. Resolve the action entirely before getting the edge.
Unnamed: once the bleed action is resolved, you have to 1/ gain the Edge 2/ gain 2 pool. Order these two effects the way you want.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Ankha,
I know LSJ has said that...
But WHY should two cards with the SAME sentence structure function differently?
They both say "If [event] then do [effect]". So there is no reason, based on the text, why The unnamed shouldn't operate like Kindred Spirits.
Bleed action declared.
As action resolves 'If condition then do' on The unnamed.
Gain Edge.
What is wrong with making it so that gaining the edge is always the last thing you do during a successful bleed?
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Ankha wrote:
> KS: the action is a bleed action that gives you 1 pool if the action is successful. Resolve the action entirely before getting the edge.
>
Not "if the action is successful".
It is "if the bleed is successful".
Thus my question. I also read what Scott wrote. If I had read that at the time I would ask the same thing.
Wait a minute... let me check something. Just remembered how similar in timing unnamed is with Lutz.
Yes. There's a ruling with Lutz that if a referendum kills your prey by itself, Lutz special hits your next prey.
It has to do with Last Stand, but it applies here if you ignore that.
So, it appears minion texts that have an effect after an action succeeds resolve after the actions themselves.
I just don't understand why. Card texts are not clear to me.
Pascal, have you -- by any chance -- had the time to find a final answer to this one?
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
Yes. I'm considering changing the ruling on the unnamed to have both cards work the same way (and reduce confusion). But that will be more explicit in the incoming RTR.
> Pascal wrote:
> Yes. I'm considering changing the ruling on the unnamed to have both cards work the same way (and reduce confusion). But that will be more explicit in the incoming RTR.
>
The pool gain for Kindred Spirits is part of the action itself. The pool gain for The Unnamed is not. LSJ's ruling is perfectly logical.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> The pool gain for Kindred Spirits is part of the action itself. The pool gain for The Unnamed is not. LSJ's ruling is perfectly logical.
>
Being logical is not enough sometime, and it's pretty subjective. As of I, I don't really see how thoses two are differents, mainly because I don't see how to justify that the pool gain is part of the action in kindred and not with the unnamed other than "it's like that".
It's so perfectly logical, that at least 5 people are asking the question why two cards with identical wording function differently and contradictory to another ruling on a card that has similar timing on a different effect.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Couldn't the difference between Kindred Spirit and the Unnamed be that Kindred Spirit is an action (that must be resolved completely before gaining the edge) while the Unnamed trigger on the action, like gaining the edge trigger on a successful bleed ?
>
This.
> Molloy wrote:
> The pool gain for Kindred Spirits is part of the action itself. The pool gain for The Unnamed is not. LSJ's ruling is perfectly logical.
>
This.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > The pool gain for Kindred Spirits is part of the action itself. The pool gain for The Unnamed is not. LSJ's ruling is perfectly logical.
> >
> Being logical is not enough sometime, and it's pretty subjective. As of I, I don't really see how thoses two are differents, mainly because I don't see how to justify that the pool gain is part of the action in kindred and not with the unnamed other than "it's like that".
>
You resolve the whole action card before doing else. The gaining of pool is part of the card. Only after the card is resolved you will get the edge from the bleed (if successful). If you don't already have the edge, you won't get the pool from the card while The Rising is in play.
If Unnamed would have same effect as Kindred spirits, it would be worded as in card ability for Unnamed like so: Independent: The unnamed may strike: 2R aggravated damage as a strike that costs 1 blood. The Unnamed can bleed for 1 and his controller gains 2 pool from the bloodbank if this bleed is successful. Infernal.
But see, that would be completely different vampire, for he couldn't use say cameraphone bleed to get the 2 pool, or other bleed actions except his own. With his current ability, the unnamed doesn't have action that gives pool if you bleed successfully (like kindred spirits) but he has action modifier -like ability that kicks in after the action is resolved (like forced march).
I hope this helped anyone who wasn't sure about this by now. It is pretty clear. Resolve things card at a time.
> Izaak wrote:
> It's so perfectly logical, that at least 5 people are asking the question why two cards with identical wording function differently and contradictory to another ruling on a card that has similar timing on a different effect.
>
They use some of the same words. One is an action card and the other is a crypt card.
An action card that says "Bleed at +1 bleed" and an action modifier that says "+1 bleed" use "identical wording" but are nonetheless not identical in function. The issue at hand is a little subtler, but only a little. The pool gain on KS is part of resolving the action because it's part of the text on an action card. The Unnamed's pool gain is not part of the text on an action card, nor is it part of the text of an action allowed by a card in play, so it is not part of the resolving the action.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Kude wrote:
> I hope this helped anyone who wasn't sure about this by now. It is pretty clear. Resolve things card at a time.
>
It's the current way it work. It's also a confusing mess, because things work differently with the same formulation, which is supposedly why Pascal work to see if a less confusing ruling is possible.
And unlike what you explain, not alway all of a action card is resolved before either effect happen : they can have delayed effect which happen well after the action resolution. And the current text use an ambiguous formulation.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Kude wrote:
> > I hope this helped anyone who wasn't sure about this by now. It is pretty clear. Resolve things card at a time.
> >
> It's the current way it work. It's also a confusing mess, because things work differently with the same formulation, which is supposedly why Pascal work to see if a less confusing ruling is possible.
>
> And unlike what you explain, not alway all of a action card is resolved before either effect happen : they can have delayed effect which happen well after the action resolution. And the current text use an ambiguous formulation.
>
I dunno. It's clear enough for me.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Template suggestion: if something is supposed to resolve after the action resolution then say it. Don't use "when" or "if". Use "after". Even if that is not deemed big enough to warrant an errata on cards (although I don't see why since it is a constant rule wording change), the edge rule can be corrected at least.
> With his current ability, the unnamed doesn't have action that gives pool if you bleed successfually (like kindred spirits) but he has action modifier -like ability that kicks in after the action is resolved (like forced march).
>
Nono, after the action is resolved *succesfully*. Which means, it needs to be a succesfull bleed, which means you get the edge for it. Exactly as with Kindred Spirits. Except KS apparently KS checks if you have the edge before the action is succesfully completed, and the Unnamed checks it afterwards.
> An action card that says "Bleed at +1 bleed" and an action modifier that says "+1 bleed" use "identical wording" but are nonetheless not identical in function.
>
Yes, that's because one is an action and the other is an action modifier. Your point?
> Molloy wrote:
> An action card that says "Bleed at +1 bleed" and an action modifier that says "+1 bleed" use "identical wording" but are nonetheless not identical in function.
>
By the way, I realize your example is wrong, since the +1 bleed from a computer hacking and the +1 bleed from a sup' command of the beast behave in the exact same fashion ; the card themselves behave differently because of the rest of their text.
The unnamed / KS difference is based on a non-written difference between the two. That's the problem.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > With his current ability, the unnamed doesn't have action that gives pool if you bleed successfually (like kindred spirits) but he has action modifier -like ability that kicks in after the action is resolved (like forced march).
> >
> Nono, after the action is resolved *succesfully*. Which means, it needs to be a succesfull bleed, which means you get the edge for it. Exactly as with Kindred Spirits. Except KS apparently KS checks if you have the edge before the action is succesfully completed, and the Unnamed checks it afterwards.
>
> > An action card that says "Bleed at +1 bleed" and an action modifier that says "+1 bleed" use "identical wording" but are nonetheless not identical in function.
> >
> Yes, that's because one is an action and the other is an action modifier. Your point?
>
Kindred Spirits is an action card. The Unnamed is a crypt card. Hello?
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> Kindred Spirits is an action card. The Unnamed is a crypt card. Hello?
>
The difference between the two does not come from the fact they are different type and are written differently, like your example.
The difference between the two come from the fact that on Kindred spirit you're implicitely required to do the trigger on success before finishing resolving the action, while you are implicitely required to not do the trigger with the Unnamed
Hello ?
> Kindred Spirits is an action card. The Unnamed is a crypt card. Hello?
>
Except that the rules explicitly explain the difference between the workings of an action card and an action modifier, whereas they do not do this for abilities on crypt cards (for obvious reasons).
So unless you can point me to a section in the rules that state that "abilities on crypt cards that are based around an action behave action-modifier-ish instead of an action card with identical taxt", LSJ's ruling makes no sense.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > Kindred Spirits is an action card. The Unnamed is a crypt card. Hello?
> >
> Except that the rules explicitly explain the difference between the workings of an action card and an action modifier, whereas they do not do this for abilities on crypt cards (for obvious reasons).
>
> So unless you can point me to a section in the rules that state that "abilities on crypt cards that are based around an action behave action-modifier-ish instead of an action card with identical taxt", LSJ's ruling makes no sense.
>
There's no need for a section in the rulebook. Any card other than an action card that provides an action says so.
Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky
Jeremy may bleed at +1 bleed as a action.
vs.
Adrianne
+1 bleed.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> There's no need for a section in the rulebook. Any card other than an action card that provides an action says so.
>
> Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky
> Jeremy may bleed at +1 bleed as a action.
>
> vs.
>
> Adrianne
> +1 bleed.
>
And amusingly, Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky work the same way exactly as computer hacking. But not Kindred spirit vs The Unnamed.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > There's no need for a section in the rulebook. Any card other than an action card that provides an action says so.
> >
> > Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky
> > Jeremy may bleed at +1 bleed as a action.
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > Adrianne
> > +1 bleed.
> >
> And amusingly, Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky work the same way exactly as computer hacking. But not Kindred spirit vs The Unnamed.
>
Exactly -- Jeremy's card says his thing is done as an action. That's exactly what's going on here. How is it possible that people keep missing the obvious?
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
>
> > Ohlmann wrote:
> >
> > > Molloy wrote:
> > > There's no need for a section in the rulebook. Any card other than an action card that provides an action says so.
> > >
> > > Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky
> > > Jeremy may bleed at +1 bleed as a action.
> > >
> > > vs.
> > >
> > > Adrianne
> > > +1 bleed.
> > >
> > >
> > And amusingly, Jeremy Wix Wyzchovsky work the same way exactly as computer hacking. But not Kindred spirit vs The Unnamed.
> >
> Exactly -- Jeremy's card says his thing is done as an action. That's exactly what's going on here. How is it possible that people keep missing the obvious?
>
Certainly because the unnamed's ability is not worded "as an action" and has nothing to do with our problem here, making it far less obvious than you pretend? Just sayin !
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Exactly -- Jeremy's card says his thing is done as an action. That's exactly what's going on here. How is it possible that people keep missing the obvious?
>
The gaining 1 pool from KS isn't an action either. The bleed is an action, the pool gain is a side-effect for succesfully completing the bleed action.
Unnamed's card text isn't an action, because it's a side effect for any succesfull bleed action she does.
It's the exact same thing, yet KS apparently gives you the edge after gaining the pool and Unnamed gives you the edge before gaining the pool. That makes no sense *whatsoever*. How is it possible that you keep missing the obvious?
> Reyda wrote:
> Certainly because the unnamed's ability is not worded "as an action" and has nothhing to do with our problem here, making it far less obvious than you pretend ? Just sayin !
>
On the contrary, that is exactly the situation here. The pool gain in KS is part of the action per se. The pool gain from TU is not part the action per se.
That is how it works (it is the rule) and that is how it should work, because it's logically consistent. Consequences of an action that are not part of the action itself (e.g. gaining the edge for a successful bleed, or gaining two pool when The Unnamed bleeds successfully) take place after the ones that are internal to the action (e.g. gaining a pool for a successful bleed with the Kindred Spirits action).
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> The gaining 1 pool from KS isn't an action either. The bleed is an action, the pool gain is a side-effect for succesfully completing the bleed action.
>
You are mistaken. The Kindred SPirits action consists of what's printed on the Kindred Spirits action card.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Rulebook 6.1.1.
>
> Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any.
>
It now appears that LSJ has ruled this has the same phasing as freak drive, voter cap., etc..., though that is not obvious from the rulebook. Now I wonder if that is right, you cannot play freak drive after you replaced the card from bum's rush, so action cards effects are in that window. Is the Edge gained after the action. The unnamed looks like a mandatory effect that should take place in the same window as KS.
I got nothing...
> Kindred Spirits
>
> [dem] Bleed any Methuselah. Gain 1 pool if bleed is successful (for 1 or more).
>
> The unnamed
>
> Independent: The unnamed may strike: 2R aggravated damage as a strike that costs 1 blood. If it successfully bleeds, you gain 2 pool. Infernal.
>
> Molloy wrote:
>
> > Reyda wrote:
> > Certainly because the unnamed's ability is not worded "as an action" and has nothhing to do with our problem here, making it far less obvious than you pretend ? Just sayin !
> >
> On the contrary, that is exactly the situation here. The pool gain in KS is part of the action per se. The pool gain from TU is not part the action per se.
>
I don't doubt the pool gain is part of the action, but there is a point you didn't really check : the pool gain is not automatic. It is subservient to a condition which is "the bleed action is succesful and the bleed amount is not reduced to 0 or less".
This is the same thing that must happen when you want to gain the 2 pool from The Unnamed's special.
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Molloy wrote:
> On the contrary, that is exactly the situation here. The pool gain in KS is part of the action per se. The pool gain from TU is not part the action per se.
>
You are mistaken, because you falsely believe that an action alway have all its effect resolved at once. Check Fiendish tongue to see that it's not the case ; all that can be resolved immediatly is, and everything else is resolved when due.
That's why Fiendish Tongue untap happen at the end of the turn and not immediatly. It look pretty evident, since it's printed on it.
And here ? Well, we have a strong case about the pool gain not being possible at the action resolution, the strong case being that nearly all effects that check for a successful action (Freak drive) or bleed (The Unnamend) have tio wait for the action to be completed.
So, for the exact same reason that the untap of Fiendish tongue have to wait the end of the turn, the pool gain of KS should wait for the entire resolution of the action... Or not. That's the problem.
You can look at it another way : to check if the action or bleed is successful before it completely resolve, you need to break rules. The golden rule say that it can happen only if it cannot be otherwise or if it's specifically stated. Neither case here, apparently, since you could gain the pool after resolution like the unnamed.
So, as you can see, there is strongs arguments for KS pool gain to be delayed. So there is confusion. So Pascal will clear that up (hopefully), and is checking card so to have a solution that does not provoke paradox on other card and is still simple to understand.
> Reyda wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> >
> > > Reyda wrote:
> > > Certainly because the unnamed's ability is not worded "as an action" and has nothhing to do with our problem here, making it far less obvious than you pretend ? Just sayin !
> > >
> > >
> > On the contrary, that is exactly the situation here. The pool gain in KS is part of the action per se. The pool gain from TU is not part the action per se.
> >
> I don't doubt the pool gain is part of the action, but there is a point you didn't really check : the pool gain is not automatic. It is subservient to a condition which is "the bleed action is succesful and the bleed amount is not reduced to 0 or less".
> This is the same thing that must happen when you want to gain the 2 pool from The Unnamed's special.
>
Yes, in both cases the pool gain is is contingent on the success of the bleed. That is neither here nor there to the the fact that in one case it is part of the action itself and in the other it is not.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > On the contrary, that is exactly the situation here. The pool gain in KS is part of the action per se. The pool gain from TU is not part the action per se.
> >
> You are mistaken, because you falsely believe that an action alway have all its effect resolved at once. Check Fiendish tongue to see that it's not the case ; all that can be resolved immediatly is, and everything else is resolved when due.
>
> That's why Fiendish Tongue untap happen at the end of the turn and not immediatly. It look pretty evident, since it's printed on it.
>
> And here ? Well, we have a strong case about the pool gain not being possible at the action resolution, the strong case being that nearly all effects that check for a successful action (Freak drive) or bleed (The Unnamend) have tio wait for the action to be completed.
>
> So, for the exact same reason that the untap of Fiendish tongue have to wait the end of the turn, the pool gain of KS should wait for the entire resolution of the action... Or not. That's the problem.
>
> You can look at it another way : to check if the action or bleed is successful before it completely resolve, you need to break rules. The golden rule say that it can happen only if it cannot be otherwise or if it's specifically stated. Neither case here, apparently, since you could gain the pool after resolution like the unnamed.
>
> So, as you can see, there is strongs arguments for KS pool gain to be delayed. So there is confusion. So Pascal will clear that up (hopefully), and is checking card so to have a solution that does not provoke paradox on other card and is still simple to understand.
>
Fiendish Tongues explicitly sets up a possible effect at an explicit later time in the game. Cards do that sometimes. That is not what Kindred Spirits is doing. How do I know? Because it's not what Kindred Spirits says it's doing.
Resolving a successful Kindred Spirits action per se has two parts: the target methuselah burns pool for a bleed of X and the controller of the acting minion gains 1 pool if X > 0. There's no paradox of having to resolve the action before you can resolve the action.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> Yes, in both cases the pool gain is is contingent on the success of the bleed. That is neither here nor there to the the fact that in one case it is part of the action itself and in the other it is not.
>
Except that it have not to be part of the resolution. LSJ ruled that it is, and a significant number of people stumble on that.
Also, I don't know how this work with Spying mission sup', that can be played during the action resolution and change the successful status.
> Molloy wrote:
> Because it's not what Kindred Spirits says it's doing.
>
That's the part you get wrong.
Kindred spirit say that it does something on successful bleed. Successful bleed or action is usually checked once the action is resolved. So people expect Kindred Spirit to do the same, because it's worded the same way and there is no part that imply it work differently.
Now, it does, because of a LSJ ruling (based themselves on analogy reasonment), and that's problematic because too much people can't figure that by themselves.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > Because it's not what Kindred Spirits says it's doing.
> >
> That's the part you get wrong.
>
> Kindred spirit say that it does something on successful bleed. Successful bleed or action is usually checked once the action is resolved. So people expect Kindred Spirit to do the same, because it's worded the same way and there is no part that imply it work differently.
>
> Now, it does, because of a LSJ ruling (based themselves on analogy reasonment), and that's problematic because too much people can't figure that by themselves.
>
The reason "successful bleed" is usually checked after the resolution of the action per se is only that the most common reason to do so, gaining the edge, is not part of the action per se.
The way something most commonly occurs does not make a strong argument that it doesn't occur other ways as well. It might lead to some confusion when some effect occurs in some other way than the way it most frequently occurs, but -- as long as the rules are logically consistent -- the confusion only happens because people are reading their expectation as though it were a law.
LSJ was diligent about making logical and consistent rulings, and this is one of them. One could have ruled that the second sentence of Kindred Spirits *implicitly* sets up an effect that occurs outside of the action, but that would have been a terrible ruling, opening up the question of what other things written on action cards are secretly, implicitly, outside the action itself.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Molloy wrote:
> (...) gaining the edge is not part of the [bleed] action per se.
>
Why? Gaining the edge is in the definition of the bleed action in the rulebook, section 6.1.1, and that definition does not mention that it happens after resolution. If your reasoning on action cards is valid, then per the same reasoning, gaining the edge is part of a bleed action.
> Molloy wrote:
> The reason "successful bleed" is usually checked after the resolution of the action per se is only that the most common reason to do so, gaining the edge, is not part of the action per se.
>
It's not for that, in fact. It's a counter-intuitive side effect of the golden rule.
How it work is that you cannot put effect or play card in the middle of the resolution of something, except when you cannot do otherwise.
That's why you cannot play Freak Drive or gain pool from the Unnamed before the bleed resolve entirely : it's not necessary to do so, you can do it immediatly after.
That's also why you can play Spying mission in the middle of a bleed resolution : you cannot let the bleed resolution finish to play it, and you cannot play it before the bleed start to resolve.
The problematic part is the fact that the KS pool gain is formulated like a trigger on succesful bleed, and can very easily be argumented as being one (which is what I have done), and have been ruled as not being a trigger but part of the action resolution.
The edge itself could be backed into the bleed resolution, is worded like the KS pool gain, and his text seem to be part of the definition of a bleed. It had even more to the confusion, since people expect both to behave in the same way by similarity.
(it's important to note that, in order to people to do the good ruling by themselves, ruling must be logical, but should also appear natural to human, and a ruling being similar to ruling to other similar situation is a good goal)
So, no, it's not a consistent ruling, and it's not more logical than the other reasonment.
> You are mistaken. The Kindred SPirits action consists of what's printed on the Kindred Spirits action card.
>
Yes. And it says "Bleed any Methusalah." FULL STOP.
And then, after describing the action, tells you what happens when the action is completed succesfully. The gaining of the pool is not part of the actual action, because it cannot possibly resolve while the action is still going on because as long as it's going on there is no succesfull bleed.
This is the same, as, for example, Shadow of the Beast. That says "Put this card on the acting vampire." FULL STOP. The card then proceeds to tell us what happens to the vampire with this card. Or do you want to argue now that when the vampire with Shadow of the Beast fails to use the optional maneuver the action to put the card on fails? Or something?
Are you just arguing for arguments sake?
> ...gaining the edge, is not part of the action per se.
>
The rulebook disagrees with you here.
> LSJ was diligent about making logical and consistent rulings, and this is one of them. One could have ruled that the second sentence of Kindred Spirits *implicitly* sets up an effect that occurs outside of the action, but that would have been a terrible ruling, opening up the question of what other things written on action cards are secretly, implicitly, outside the action itself.
>
Actually the ruling as it is, is actually terrible.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > You are mistaken. The Kindred SPirits action consists of what's printed on the Kindred Spirits action card.
> >
> Yes. And it says "Bleed any Methusalah." FULL STOP.
>
> And then, after describing the action, tells you what happens when the action is completed succesfully. The gaining of the pool is not part of the actual action, because it cannot possibly resolve while the action is still going on because as long as it's going on there is no succesfull bleed.
>
> This is the same, as, for example, Shadow of the Beast. That says "Put this card on the acting vampire." FULL STOP. The card then proceeds to tell us what happens to the vampire with this card. Or do you want to argue now that when the vampire with Shadow of the Beast fails to use the optional maneuver the action to put the card on fails? Or something?
>
> Are you just arguing for arguments sake?
>
> > ...gaining the edge, is not part of the action per se.
> >
> The rulebook disagrees with you here.
>
> > LSJ was diligent about making logical and consistent rulings, and this is one of them. One could have ruled that the second sentence of Kindred Spirits *implicitly* sets up an effect that occurs outside of the action, but that would have been a terrible ruling, opening up the question of what other things written on action cards are secretly, implicitly, outside the action itself.
> >
> Actually the ruling as it is, is actually terrible.
>
Wow. Just wow. What you're saying is so stupid I'm almost ashamed of myself for responding. Shadow of the Wolf?!?!?!?! It puts a card into play and then says, "The vampire with this card..." You're seriously suggesting that's how Kindred Spirits works, too? I'm laughing at you.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Molloy wrote:
> > (...) gaining the edge is not part of the [bleed] action per se.
> >
> Why? Gaining the edge is in the definition of the bleed action in the rulebook, section 6.1.1, and that definition does not mention that it happens after resolution. If your reasoning on action cards is valid, then per the same reasoning, gaining the edge is part of a bleed action.
>
I just reread 6.1.1 in case you were right. You're not. It doesn't make sense to read all the several paragraphs of 6.1.1 as a 'definition' -- it's more a description. Would it be consistent with 6.1.1 to include gaining the edge as part of a bleed action per se (as opposed to a consequence of the action)? Yes, I think it would. Is it consistent with 6.1.1 to consider gaining the edge as a consequence of the bleed action rather than part of the action itself? Yes, I think it is and, obviously, LSJ thought it was.
The issue arose because of the unfortunate tendency for effects to crowd into the same window. The rule structure, based on the rulebook, card text, and rules team rulings, has comparmentalized some things that might otherwise be trying to happen at the same time.
The separation of (1) the internal effects of the action and (2) a window after resolution but before the action is over was a reasonable solution. I haven't heard a better one. Considering gaining the edge as an internal part of the bleed would resurrect the problems that these rules have already solved.
Assuming an internal and external portion of the action ("internal" and "external are my words, not official terms, but what they refer to is perfectly clear in terms of the rules), the question may arise as to what is internal and what is external. The current rule, and surely the most straight forward one, is that what's internal to an action is precisely what the action says is internal to it. That leaves only cardless actions in doubt.
As for bleeding, what's internal in "bleed" is the target methuselah's being bled (losing pool) for the bleed amount. The acting methuselah gaining the edge is a consequence external to the bleed acttion. This is neither confirmed nor denied by 6.1.1, which says nothing about the interior or exterior of the action. It is simply the current rule, which was a good solution to problems that arose.
Now, Kindred Spirits is not the cardless bleed action. What's interior to the Kindred Spirits action is exactly what the card says.
Some people seem to want the definition of "successful bleed" to be changed to: a successful action resulting in a bleed for one or more that has already been resolved. It *could* be ruled that this is indeed the definition of a successful bleed. That would contradict the current rules and conflict with the apparent definition of "successful bleed" included in 6.1.1 and in reminder texts on cards, which is simply: a successful action resulting in a bleed for one or more.
Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.
> You're seriously suggesting that's how Kindred Spirits works, too?
>
No, you are, actually. You are also quite epically failing at reading it seems. Might have to do with you being blinded by your own belief that everything is crystal clear and fine.
I'm suggesting KS does what it says it does.
> I'm laughing at you.
>
Good for you.
The unnamed effect triggers after the bleed action is successful: an "if...bleeds" trigger can only trigger once the action is over. It's not a replacement effect such as "if... would be ..."
Maybe it would be clearer if the unnamed's special was "After it successfully bleeds, you gain 2 pool." (which is the same, but maybe clearer).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> The unnamed effect triggers after the bleed action is successful: an "if...bleeds" trigger can only trigger once the action is over. It's not a replacement effect such as "if... would be ..."
>
> Maybe it would be clearer if the unnamed's special was "After it successfully bleeds, you gain 2 pool." (which is the same, but maybe clearer).
>
Yes, Either that or:
Deciding that taking the edge only occurs after all the bleed action effects are resolved (no pool for KS ou Unnamed if Rising is on the Table)
Deciding that taking the edge is in the "resolving the action window" and the Methuselah can decide which effect he want to resolve first. If he get the edge first he can go for the pool.
As it is it doesn't make sense and its not consistent.
> wesile wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > The unnamed effect triggers after the bleed action is successful: an "if...bleeds" trigger can only trigger once the action is over. It's not a replacement effect such as "if... would be ..."
> >
> > Maybe it would be clearer if the unnamed's special was "After it successfully bleeds, you gain 2 pool." (which is the same, but maybe clearer).
> >
> Yes, Either that or:
>
> Deciding that taking the edge only occurs after all the bleed action effects are resolved (no pool for KS ou Unnamed if Rising is on the Table)
>
Rule 6.1.1 says "Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
Notice the use of "if..." which is the same as for the unnamed, meaning you have to wait until the action is resolved to know if the action is successful, then get the edge. It means also that you may order the unnamed effect and gaining the Edge in any order since they trigger at the same time.
If works quite similarily to Sargon getting the edge after a successful Enticement. Resolve the action first. Get the edge afterwards.
groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr&fromgroups=#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/DlCBJmB2fzY/cpt1UdwIdnoJ
For KS: resolve the action first. Get the edge afterwards. Meaning you don't gain the pool if you don't have the Edge beforehand.
> wesile wrote:
> Deciding that taking the edge is in the "resolving the action window" and the Methuselah can decide which effect he want to resolve first. If he get the edge first he can go for the pool.
>
> As it is it doesn't make sense and its not consistent.
>
It isn't consistent to take the Edge before the action resolves, and talking about "resolvING the action" is quite weird since actions are resolved without interruption.
About consistency: compare Bribes and Consanguineous Boon. Both make the Meth gain pool during a referendum, but don't occur at the same time. (Or Ancilla Empowerement + Voter Cap. You may be ousted before playing Voter Cap). Does that make it inconsistent? No.
It's the same here.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> For KS: resolve the action first. Get the edge afterwards. Meaning you don't gain the pool if you don't have the Edge beforehand.
>
Whoa, hold your horses, KS pool gain has nothing to do with edge (by default)!
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
> kombainas wrote:
>
> > For KS: resolve the action first. Get the edge afterwards. Meaning you don't gain the pool if you don't have the Edge beforehand.
> >
> Whoa, hold your horses, KS pool gain has nothing to do with edge (by default)!
>
The topic is about the interaction between KS and The Rising (cf. the title of the thread). Or you mean something else?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> Rule 6.1.1 says "Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
>
> Notice the use of "if..." which is the same as for the unnamed, meaning you have to wait until the action is resolved to know if the action is successful, then get the edge. It means also that you may order the unnamed effect and gaining the Edge in any order since they trigger at the same time.
>
> For KS: resolve the action first. Get the edge afterwards. Meaning you don't gain the pool if you don't have the Edge beforehand.
>
By definition, a bleed is not successful until a after bleed action is successful. From 6.1.1: "...if the action succeeds...then the bleed is successful". The use of the word "then" indicates that the effects are ordered.
That means that the pool gain from KS, Social Charm, Legal Manipulations, et al. does not occur until after the action itself is successful, by definition. Section 6.1.1 strongly implies that gaining the edge is an effect of a successful bleed action: "then the bleed is successful and the [player]...gets the Edge..." Those calling for pool gain to be possible with KS while the Rising is in play have a strong logical argument.
There are several action cards that have multiple, ordered effects that occur upon the action resolution, for example SchreckNET or The Portrait. There are action cards with effects that occur at and after resolution, such as Abactor. It is not logical to assume that all the effects of an action card must occur successively. By definition, the two parts of KS CANNOT happen concurrently. There is no inherent reason why the pool gain effect could not happen after some other effect that immediately succeeds a successful bleed action. It requires a ruling for that to be the rule, which we have. It is not a bad ruling, but it is not so self-evident that it couldn't be changed.
Edit/Another thought: The text of the rulebook can easily be understood to mean that getting the Edge must happen before the pool gain of KS: "...then the bleed is successful and the [player]...gets the Edge..." When two effects are linked by "and" in the text, and not "and then", we can understand that they occur simultaneously.
> AaronC wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > Rule 6.1.1 says "Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
> >
> > Notice the use of "if..." which is the same as for the unnamed, meaning you have to wait until the action is resolved to know if the action is successful, then get the edge. It means also that you may order the unnamed effect and gaining the Edge in any order since they trigger at the same time.
> >
> > For KS: resolve the action first. Get the edge afterwards. Meaning you don't gain the pool if you don't have the Edge beforehand.
> >
> By definition, a bleed is not successful until a after bleed action is successful. From 6.1.1: "...if the action succeeds...then the bleed is successful". The use of the word "then" indicates that the effects are ordered.
>
Indeed, you must wait for the action to have resolved (=> it has been successful) to get the Edge. It's coherent with Sargon's behavior btw.
> AaronC wrote:
> That means that the pool gain from KS, Social Charm, Legal Manipulations, et al. does not occur until after the action itself is successful, by definition.
>
No. It's contradictory with what you said above. Gaining pool is part of the action. You gain pool when the action is resolved.
Then (same emphasis as yours) you get the Edge if the bleed (not bleed action) was successful (> 0).
> AaronC wrote:
> Section 6.1.1 strongly implies that gaining the edge is an effect of a successful bleed action: "then the bleed is successful and the [player]...gets the Edge..."
>
No, it happens afterwards.
> AaronC wrote:
> There are several action cards that have multiple, ordered effects that occur upon the action resolution, for example SchreckNET or The Portrait. There are action cards with effects that occur at and after resolution, such as Abactor. It is not logical to assume that all the effects of an action card must occur successively.
>
Sure, but they are all part of the resolution of the action.
> AaronC wrote:
> By definition, the two parts of KS CANNOT happen concurrently. There is no inherent reason why the pool gain effect could not happen after some other effect that immediately succeeds a successful bleed action.
>
No, you have to resolve the action first (under the current rules).
> AaronC wrote:
> Edit/Another thought: The text of the rulebook can easily be understood to mean that getting the Edge must happen before the pool gain of KS: "...then the bleed is successful and the [player]...gets the Edge..." When two effects are linked by "and" in the text, and not "and then", we can understand that they occur simultaneously.
>
I'm not sure it would change anything. You still have to resolve the action first.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I have to point out 2 things:
> Rule 6.1.1 says "Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
>
> Kindred Spirits
>
> [Action] Action
>
> [Dementation] Dementation
>
> [dem] Bleed any Methuselah. Gain 1 pool if this bleed is successful (for 1 or more).
> [DEM] As above, with +1 bleed.
>
Both edge-gain and KS pool gain do not depend on action, but on bleed success. Since there is no priority of one benefit over the other, strictly speaking, you could reorder them as you like.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
> kombainas wrote:
> I have to point out 2 things:
>
> > Rule 6.1.1 says "Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
> >
> > Kindred Spirits
> >
> > [Action] Action
> >
> > [Dementation] Dementation
> >
> > [dem] Bleed any Methuselah. Gain 1 pool if this bleed is successful (for 1 or more).
> > [DEM] As above, with +1 bleed.
> >
> Both edge-gain and KS pool gain do not depend on action, but on bleed success. Since there is no priority of one benefit over the other, strictly speaking, you could reorder them as you like.
>
This is true only if you consider the gain pool part from KS being a kind of postponed effect that doesn't happen during the resolution of the action.
This is not the case under the actual rule.
Floppy said he would add it to the review list, so let's wait for his final changes (if any).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > Edit/Another thought: The text of the rulebook can easily be understood to mean that getting the Edge must happen before the pool gain of KS: "...then the bleed is successful and the [player]...gets the Edge..." When two effects are linked by "and" in the text, and not "and then", we can understand that they occur simultaneously.
> >
> I'm not sure it would change anything. You still have to resolve the action first.
>
You bleed with KS. The bleed is for 1. The action is not blocked. According to 6.1.1, what happens next? The bleed is declared successful AND the acting player gains the Edge. According to the rulebook (6.2.3.), resolving an action is just having the effects of the action take place, and gaining the Edge seems to be an effect of the action, and one that happens immediately.
With a very logical reading of the rules, this is what could happen during a successful Kindred Spirits bleed:
1. Kindred Spirits bleed is not blocked and is for 1 or more.
2. The bleed is [considered] successful and the player gains the Edge [simultaneously] (6.1.1.)
3. Since the bleed was successful, the additional part of the KS action card takes place and the player gains 1 pool. ("if"-clause was satisfied.)
LSJ has decided that this is not how it works in practice: fine. Are LSJ's rulings "the rules"? In practice, yes, but technically, no. From a strictly logical viewpoint, I can't see any problem with my interpretation of what could happen, and I would see no problem with discarding LSJ's ruling in favor of this one, although I'm not advocating it, either.
According to the rulebook, when an action is successful, its effects take place. If a vampire like Dr. Streck or The unnamed successfully bleeds with sup. Legal Manipulations, are their respective card texts effects of the action? Is gaining the Edge an effect of the action? Is gaining the pool an effect of the action? The rulebook doesn't differentiate between sources of effects, except to imply that the Edge is gained and the bleed is successful at the same time.
LSJ has ruled that the effects of an action card take place before other effects of the action, but it is an arbitrary ruling.
> AaronC wrote:
> LSJ has ruled that the effects of an action card take place before other effects of the action, but it is an arbitrary ruling.
>
I concur, even if I think he ruled "the pool gain is part of the action proper and not a trigger on an event".
> AaronC wrote:
> LSJ has ruled that the effects of an action card take place before other effects of the action, but it is an arbitrary ruling.
>
How is it "arbitrary" to suggest that card text takes precedence over effects generated by card text?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> KevinM wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > LSJ has ruled that the effects of an action card take place before other effects of the action, but it is an arbitrary ruling.
> >
> How is it "arbitrary" to suggest that card text takes precedence over effects generated by card text?
>
It's not, but it's not what LSJ suggest either.
LSJ have arbitrary decided one interpretation (it's part of the action), with its problem, over another interpretation (it's a trigger on the action being successful), which have the exact same wording and a different set of problem.
Also, "arbitrary" is applicable to both decision in this cases : something have to be decided, and cardtext don't help here.
> Ankha wrote:
> [...]
> Floppy said he would add it to the review list, so let's wait for his final changes (if any).
>
I guess I missed the solving of this little riddle.
How did Floppy decide?
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
There is nothing inherently wrong with LSJ's ruling/clarification. Does it work logically and soundly? Yes. Is it intuitive? Not necessarily since a discussion such as this one has made Pascal add it to the review list. When wording on cards is exactly the same and nothing in the rules claims that one should be resolved before the other, why not go with the words and phrasings as they are written?
Certain words and phrases, especially in other language translations, also make it more difficult to explain the arbitrary decisions that attempt to codify a specific blanket ruling for different particular situations. It adds yet another step to go through when just ordering effects that seem to happen at the same time does not require these additional partitions and is used during many situations throughout the course of the game already, with the plus that even a beginner can grasp with little to no difficulty.
It is another example of rulings that say "VtES doesn't have a stack, but it has a stack for some things".
1. Make it all work at the same time.
2. When some things happen simultaneously, the player with the impulse chooses order of effects he controls.
As with any big ruling in VtES this might open another can of worms...
> Brum wrote:
> It is another example of rulings that say "VtES doesn't have a stack, but it has a stack for some things".
>
> 1. Make it all work at the same time.
> 2. When some things happen simultaneously, the player with the impulse chooses order of effects he controls.
>
> As with any big ruling in VtES this might open another can of worms...
>
You misunderstanding the definition of the stack, and mixing it with a simple chain of things happening one after the other.
In a stack, you pile up things, then unpile them in reverse order. In games such as Magic, you can even start piling again other things after some of them have been unpiled.
In a chain of events, A -> B -> C, A happens, then B, then C.
With regards to the OP, the chain of event is for Kindred Spirit: A -> B
A: resolve the action (Rising prevents you from gaining a pool if you don't have the Edge)
B: Gain the Edge if the bleed was successful.
If the unnamed bleeds, the chain is the same: A -> B
A: resolve the action.
B: Two events trigger at the same: gain the Edge, and gaining 2 pool from the unnamed special text.
The pool gain of the unnamed is not part of the action resolution (because his cardtext doesn't say that it's part of an action).
Since two events happen at the same time, the acting player choose how to order them.
There's no stack involved there.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
It depends on your point of view, Obi-Wan.
Any time you have a set order of events that trigger each other in order, you can look at it as a stack.
Also (and that's my issue with Bundi) these games are a mathematical system described with human language.
You can have Last In - Last Out stacks and First In - Last Out stacks.
Oh and I understand both examples completely (Kindred Spirits and The unnamed).
However, it is tricky for new players.
> Brum wrote:
> You can have Last In - Last Out stacks and First In - Last Out stacks.
>
A FIFO "stack" is usually called a queue or file.
Stacks are LIFO by convention ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type) ), Darth Vader.
And for Magic players (that is the closer thing to VTES players), a stack is LIFO, so don't mindbreak them.
> Brum wrote:
> However, it is tricky for new players.
>
Indeed, even for older players.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director