About Appolonius ADV.

Reading the text of Appolonius ADV., I saw a problem or an overpower. It´s written " Appolonius get +1 bleed for each titled vampire controlled by the target of the bleed.", since the target of the bleed can change the +1 bleed is already sumed to the action. Appolonius ADV. is bleeding Methuselah A Which controls 4 titled vampires, acquiring +4 bleed, the target of a minimun 5 bleed action is Methuselah A, Methuselah A redirects the bleed to Methuselah B which controls 2 titled vampires, it´s already a 5 bleed action and the card says to add +2 bleed turning it into a minimum 7 bleed action!!! After all the target is Methuselah B. And the action gains +2bleed as the modifier says. In the end Methuselah B redirects the bleed to Methuselah C which controls no titled vampire but it´s already a minimum 7 bleed action!!!!! I think it´s not the objective of the text? But we must obey what is written. If I misinterpreted, sorry, but since the card is a pre-release, It´s better to correct before the release, or I´m wrong and OK, i´m living with it. It would be the biggest bleed ever a Brujah would achieve in a VtES game. Thanks

I think you're completely wrong with the subject. IMO it should be : Appolonius ADV bleeds Methuselah A (controlling 4 titled vampires) -> bleed for 5 Methuselah A bounces the bleed to Methuselah B (controlling 2 titled vampires) -> bleed for 3 Methuselah B bounces the bleed to Methuselah C (controlling 0 titled vampires) -> bleed for 1 I guess it works like Constanza Vinti's special. I'm more concerned about the built-in baron than the floating +1 bleed BTW.

I´m OK with your interpretation, but Constanza´s text is " Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue." It´s completely different from Appolonius ADV. If it was written in Appolonius ADV´s text " Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each titled vampire a Methuselah control when bleeding " I would have no question.

> Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > I´m OK with your interpretation, but Constanza´s text is " Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue." > > It´s completely different from Appolonius ADV. > > If it was written in Appolonius ADV´s text " Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each titled vampire a Methuselah control when bleeding " I would have no question. > If your initial interpretation would be correct : Constanza bleeds methuselah A (controlling 1 ventrue) -> bleed for 3 Methuselah A bounces to methuselah B (controlling 1 ventrue) -> bleed for 5 It's not the case, methuselah B will be bled for 3 en in any case.

It doesn't say that he would gain +x bleed for the duration of the action, so I would say it works just like Constanza's special, or any of the variety of other gain +bleed against x abilities lot of vampires have. So in other words, he only gains +bleed equal to the number of titled vampires controlled by the current target of the bleed, not from every methuselah he has been bleeding during the action.

This is Appolonius text Appolonius get +1 bleed for each titled vampire controlled by the target of the bleed. This is Constanza text Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue. My suggestion is that Appolonius text turn to this: Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each titled vampire a Methuselah control when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a titled vampire. I don´t want Appolonius to gain a +1 bleed everytime the bleed bounces, but the insertion of "controlled by the target of the bleed" is not a good idea. But I didn´t designed the card, and the card is not released, then if the idea, was the bleed to get higher and higher the text can be interpreted this way too, the way it´s written is the problem to me.

Gets could simply be replaced with has and the whole potential for a problem is fixed. This game could actually use wording the differentiates between "triggered" abilities and "continuous abilities" to put it in Magic terms.

Appolonius effect is continuous: if the target of the bleed changes, his bonus bleed changes accordingly. It's the same as Constanza whose wording is being revised to: "Constanza gets +2 bleed against a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue." By the way, I'm puzzled that Constanza's current wording suits you, because "when bleeding" could be interpreted as a triggered thing. Anyway, there's nothing here that indicates that he gets another bonus bleed each time the target of the bleed changes. It's basically the same as "Appolonius gets +1 bleed against a Methuselah for each titled vampire he or she controls". Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TheLich wrote: > Gets could simply be replaced with has and the whole potential for a problem is fixed. This game could actually use wording the differentiates between "triggered" abilities and "continuous abilities" to put it in Magic terms. > You can already spot them: "triggered abilities" use words such as "each time," "if", "when". Continuous effects use words such as "while" or are simple statements, such as Appolonius's, or to take another example, Ayo Igoli's: "Ayo gets an additional vote for each ready titled vampire you control." (will be reworded to: "Ayo gets {+1} vote for each ready titled vampire you control.") Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

How about changing "gets" to "has" for continuous effects? I am not a native English speaker, but it seems to me that "gets" is a dynamic term that denotes triggering (before trigger, there is nothing, after trigger, there is something), whereas "has" is static. Now where is Hugh when we need him?

Responding to Ankha's post: While and when are synonyms. Attaching different meanings to words that normally mean the exact same thing is part of the reason why this game is hard for people to understand.

If the cards had a standard text for a similar effect, things will get easier... Now that we are writing the text of the cards we will continue doing the same mistakes that we criticized... Standardizing the text is the minimum we should do... When I started the post, I didn't know Contanza's example but I knew it would have some... I want Appolonius ADV. gain the +1 bleed advantage in the end of the action against the Methuselah he is effectively bleeding. But the card is not released, please just use the text according to previous example to make things easier.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Responding to Ankha's post: While and when are synonyms. > They are pretty close, but they don't have the same usage. You can't used "while" in sentences like "I thought of it (just) when you opened your mouth." "When" is used in the wordings to designate a specific time or moment: "When X leaves the ready region, burn 3 pool" (not "while", the effect is instantaneous) "While" puts more emphasis on the duration: "While X is ready, you get +1 hand size." > TwoRazorReign wrote: > Attaching different meanings to words that normally mean the exact same thing is part of the reason why this game is hard for people to understand. > Well first they don't have exactly the same meaning. Then, the game uses a pattern to help identify a triggered effect or a continuous effect. It's just a help, because you could identify them otherwise: a triggered effect follows always the pattern "if/when/as something happens then something else happens". Continuous effects (aka static effects) are just true. I'm not the only one to make the distinction. The rule guys at Magic thought about it and make the same distinction: www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20121001.txt > Non-existant user wrote: > 112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities." > 112.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They're simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, "Handling Static Abilities." > A sample of the use of "while": magiccards.info/dgm/en/22.html Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > If the cards had a standard text for a similar effect, things will get easier... > We're working on it. There's a whole document about it: www.vekn.net/output-changes It's not the latest version, but it's close to it. The current printed cardtexts are not "standard" at all. You can't just pick up one card of your choosing (such as Constanza) and say it's the standard cardtext: they are other printed cards that use a different cardtext and that could be chosen as "standard". Our choices were made considering whether a pattern was more frequent than another, whether it's consistent with other similar effects etc. > Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > Now that we are writing the text of the cards we will continue doing the same mistakes that we criticized... > > Standardizing the text is the minimum we should do... > That's precisely what we're doing, following the rules established in the aforementioned document. But I can't change Constanza's printed card text. > Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > When I started the post, I didn't know Contanza's example but I knew it would have some... I want Appolonius ADV. gain the +1 bleed advantage in the end of the action against the Methuselah he is effectively bleeding. > > But the card is not released, please just use the text according to previous example to make things easier. > Appolonius special doesn't work the same as Constanza's. That's one reason why they can have different cardtext. Reason: Constanza's special is conditional, Appolonius' special is always "on" (even if sometimes his bonus is +0). That's why there's no "when" in Appolonius' special. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Non-existant user wrote: > How about changing "gets" to "has" for continuous effects? I am not a native English speaker, but it seems to me that "gets" is a dynamic term that denotes triggering (before trigger, there is nothing, after trigger, there is something), whereas "has" is static. > That could be an option. The printed cardtexts use "has" or "gets" in a mixed way. Art of Pain: "This vampire gets +2 strength." Concordance: "This vampire treats aggravated damage as normal damage and has +1 strength and -1 stealth." Preternatural Strength: "This vampire gets +1 strength." Depravity: "This vampire has +1 strength, and he or she gets +1 stealth on diablerie actions." The following rule was established: > R0009 : Have/get > Have: something you possess. 'Burn this card when it has no more ablative counters.', 'Arishat has 1 vote.' Note that '+1 stealth/strength/intercept.' = 'This vampire has +1 stealth/strength/intercept' (this one is absolute, not conditional - see below '+1 intercept against...'). > Get: something you receive. 'Vampires with Dementation [dem], mortals and mages get -1 intercept during this action.' , 'You get +1 hand size.', 'This vampire gets +1 intercept during actions.', 'This vampire gets +1 stealth on political actions. > Please ignore the "note" part because it's pretty irrelevant, wrong and a little confusing. (Note to myself: change it) "Has" effects are not cumulative. Eg. Anson and Nana Buruku each states that you "have" 2 master phase, they overlap. "Get" effects are cumulative. Enkidu ("+2 strength") with a Depravity ("gets +1 strength") and a inferior Preternatural Strength ("gets +1 strength") gets a total bonus of +4 strength. Let's say that Appolonius is equiped with the "Seal of the All-Mighty" that grants him +1 for each titled vampire controlled by the target of the bleed. His special has been duplicated, and he gets twice the bonus bleed. The "get" usually goes hand in hand with the "+" (or "-") notation, that replaced the "old" syntax "additional"/"fewer" (shorter, and brings consistency between bonus bleed, intercept, stealth and votes). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Ankha: The difference is that the rules people at Magic clarify the distinction between the two words. VTES does not clarify the distinction anywhere. That's a problem for two words that are defined the exact same way in the dictionary. Not all players will understand the nuances in the usage of the two words. This is why Magic clarifies it.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Ankha: The difference is that the rules people at Magic clarify the distinction between the two words. VTES does not clarify the distinction anywhere. That's a problem for two words that are defined the exact same way in the dictionary. Not all players will understand the nuances in the usage of the two words. This is why Magic clarifies it. > When and while are not defined the same way in the dictionary (what dictionary do you use?) Anyway, the distinction it's not as important in V:TES as it is in Magic. Usage is made consistent to help players as I said, but whether "while" or "when" is used is not a key factor for the comprehension (you can do without). "Triggered" effects simply have a trigger (however it is expressed). If they don't, then they aren't triggered effects. Is Appolonius' bonus bleed increasing each time the target of the bleed changes? I can't see a valid reasoning to comfort this scenario. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > When I started the post, I didn't know Contanza's example but I knew it would have some... I want Appolonius ADV. gain the +1 bleed advantage in the end of the action against the Methuselah he is effectively bleeding. > That would be a significant buff to his ability, since it would basically mean he is immune to Archon Investigation since the +bleed would only be applied when the bleed is succesful.

OK, U R right... Not at the end of the action, but when he´s effectively bleeding... No more bounces and other modifier cards... Then if he´s bleeding for more than 3... But the methuselah that Appolonius is targeting is effectively changing while the bleed is been redirected, the action modifier is the Appolonius ADV card itself. So it´s been played even before the action.... Appolonius text is written "Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each title vampire controlled by the target of the bleed." Appolonius ADV is bleeding Methuselah A that has 2 titled Vampires, the target is Methuselah A and he gets +2 bleed, if the bleed is redirected he already got +2 bleed, because during this action he already got +2 bleed, HE "Appolonius ADV" got +2 bleed during this action. You wrote that Appolonius ADV that is acting got +2 bleed, because the target has 2 titled vampires; the target changes and the next Methuselah B has no titled vampire... But what is written is that Apolonius gained +2 bleed in the beginning of the action.... He gets... Another text suggestion "Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each title vampire controlled by the Methuselah he is bleeding." Remember the card is not released...

You look very confused, so let me explain. > > Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > But the methuselah that Appolonius is targeting is effectively changing while the bleed is been redirected, the action modifier is the Appolonius ADV card itself. So it´s been played even before the action.... > Appolonius isn't an action modifier, and his special is not an action modifier neither. He has a bonus bleed whose value depends on who is the target of the bleed. > Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > Appolonius text is written "Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each title vampire controlled by the target of the bleed." > > Appolonius ADV is bleeding Methuselah A that has 2 titled Vampires, the target is Methuselah A and he gets +2 bleed, if the bleed is redirected he already got +2 bleed, because during this action he already got +2 bleed, HE "Appolonius ADV" got +2 bleed during this action. > The bonus bleed changes, it's not "applied" once. If it was, what would be the duration? The end of the action? The end of the turn? The end of the game? Furthermore, say Appolonius (controlled by Methuselah A) is bleeding Methuselah B who controls a ready titled vampire with a Temptation his controller played on him. Methuselah A takes control of the titled vampire using the Temptation. Appolonius' bonus bleed falls down to 0 because the target of the bleed don't have any titled vampire. > Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > You wrote that Appolonius ADV that is acting got +2 bleed, because the target has 2 titled vampires; the target changes and the next Methuselah B has no titled vampire... But what is written is that Apolonius gained +2 bleed in the beginning of the action.... He gets... > You're mixing "gain +X bleed at the beginning of the action for the duration of the action" with a simple bonus he gets and whose value varies. > Henrique_Sorocaba wrote: > Another text suggestion "Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each title vampire controlled by the Methuselah he is bleeding." > The target of the bleed is the Methuselah he is bleeding... Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Ankha: "when" and "while" are both defined as "during the time that." If assigning two different meanings to these words in the context of how to handle effects in VTES, then making the distinction clear is extremely important. It is a bad idea to assume everybody understands this the way you do without explaining it somewhere in the rules.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Ankha: "when" and "while" are both defined as "during the time that." If assigning two different meanings to these words in the context of how to handle effects in VTES, then making the distinction clear is extremely important. It is a bad idea to assume everybody understands this the way you do without explaining it somewhere in the rules. > You didn't read my answer, did you? > Ankha wrote: > Anyway, the distinction it's not as important in V:TES as it is in Magic. Usage is made consistent to help players as I said, but whether "while" or "when" is used is not a key factor for the comprehension (you can do without). > "Triggered" effects simply have a trigger (however it is expressed). If they don't, then they aren't triggered effects. > Usage of "while" or "when" don't have any impact on how the game works. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Ankha: "when" and "while" are both defined as "during the time that." > "when" and "while" are not the same. A basic online dictionary search will reveal that. Your insistence that they are equivalent is getting old. If you read card text, "when" is usually used in an "if X, then Y" statement. "when" X, Y happens. When (if) Doctor Streck bleeds, (then) the target discards a card. "When" is also defined as "in the event that" or "just after the time that". That is probably the best way to use "when" in the game. "while" should probably be used whenever you talk about an event that occurs during an action or constant state but changeable state. "while bleeding"/"while you control a ready anarch"/etc. However, even if the terms aren't used consistently, it's pretty obvious how they should be construed, even to non-native English speakers. "when" is a "trigger" unless it is followed by a present participle construction like "when bleeding". Then yes, you could also say "while bleeding".

Ankha: I think we are talking past each other. I read your response. The bottom line is I dont agree with you, which is fine. I think making the distinction is more important than you think it is. Aaronc: thank you for your thoughts on how the two words should be used in the context of vtes. My whole point is if these two similar words are going to be used for very different things in vtes, we need to define how they will be used. As you have done brilliantly.