This question came around in a local tournament week ago. While not that important anymore, what is important is that there seems to be conflicting cardtext between the official cardlist, revised CSV.file, secret library and Lackey involving this card.
question: Is condemn the sins of the father a directed action?
- The official cardlist under rules section this site says that it is not.
- secret library says that it is not
- lackey says that it is, and apparently the revised text csv file thats being used for lackey also says that it is.
Is this card text about to be errataed or whats the situation?
ps. I could link the card text, except from what source?
pps. I personally cannot fathom how it could be a directed action.
EDIT: ppps. So the difference is between the official and the revised card list. Is this card being errataed?
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> question: Is condemn the sins of the father a directed action?
>
If it targets vampires controlled by other Methuselahs, yes. If it doesn't, no. Same as other actions.
Also, the directedness of an action is determined by its actual targets - not the presence or absence of a symbol of the card. Perhaps the most notable example of a " symbol on the card" action that is commonly undirected is using Temptation on one of your own vampires, for the ability to untap the vampire.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> - The official cardlist under rules section this site says that it is not.
> - secret library says that it is not
> - lackey says that it is, and apparently the revised text csv file thats being used for lackey also says that it is.
>
The card was first printed in 2007. The definition of directed action changed in Keepers of Tradition, in 2008. Prior to Keepers of Tradition, an action that targeted things controlled by multiple Methuselahs (or their hands, or their pool etc.) was not a action - it was an undirected action. Post Keepers of Tradition, if an action targeted multiple Methuselahs (their things, their hand, their pool etc.), it was a action against all of those Methuselahs.
One of the more notable changes in this scenario was Border Skirmish. Less notably, Shepherd's Innocence.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> pps. I personally cannot fathom how you it could be a directed action.
>
When you declare the action, you probably(*) declare that you're going to tap a bunch of vampires controlled by one or more other Methuselahs. So it's a action against those Methuselahs, same as if you were playing Wave of Insanity to tap allies controlled by a bunch of other Methuselahs. (Note that Wave of Insanity's text at superior also long predates the change in action rules.)
(*) I mean, you could pick a clan that isn't on the table, if you wanted to cycle it without acrimony.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> When you declare the action, you probably(*) declare that you're going to tap a bunch of vampires controlled by one or more other Methuselahs. So it's a action against those Methuselahs, same as if you were playing Wave of Insanity to tap allies controlled by a bunch of other Methuselahs.
>
> (*) I mean, you could pick a clan that isn't on the table, if you wanted to cycle it without acrimony.
>
I wouldn't interpret this card that way. You are choosing a clan, not vampires. After choosing a clan, you are not choosing individual vampires, ALL said vampires are tapped. I don't see where there is a choice regarding cards controlled by other methuselahs. My brain doesn't wrap around this interpretation.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Correct.
Please note that the fact that an action is directed or not is not indicated on the cards. means that the action is typically (= most of the time) directed But for instance, the symbol doesn't make Impundulu's action directed when you steal a life from one of your own minions.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> (*) I mean, you could pick a clan that isn't on the table, if you wanted to cycle it without acrimony.
>
Isn't this then in contradiction of the rule that requires valid targets to be available for a card to be playable in the first place?
> If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) some target, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. Examples: Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon cannot be used if the opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be destroyed/stolen. [RTR 19980928] [LSJ 20030408]ÂÂ "Stealing blood" effects target a minion, not its blood (or life) counters.
>
ps. I find new condemn text illogical and I don't agree with it, but obviously that doesn't matter..
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I wouldn't interpret this card that way. You are choosing a clan, not vampires.
>
You choose a clan. The action then targets all the vampires of that clan, as per your choice.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> I don't see where there is a choice regarding cards controlled by other methuselahs. My brain doesn't wrap around this interpretation.
>
Your brain is apparently inserting a spurious extra requirement of "choosing specific vampires" into the definition of action. It doesn't matter who chose them, or how they were chosen - by specific name, by class of card, by pseudo-random number generator. It matters that the action targets them. And it does - it taps them if the action is successful.
If the action targets one or more other Methuselahs (or things controlled by other Methuselahs), then the action is called directed,
Border Skirmish targets all Methuselahs, so is directed. Wave of Insanity superior targets all allies, so will be directed if one (or more) of those allies is controlled by another Methuselah.
See, amongst other sources, www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/65261-sowing-skirmish
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > (*) I mean, you could pick a clan that isn't on the table, if you wanted to cycle it without acrimony.
> >
> Isn't this then in contradiction of the rule that requires valid targets to be available for a card to be playable in the first place?
>
"Strike: steal equipment" (or whatever) requires that there be a piece of equipment there.
Doing something to "all" whatever affects however many things there are in play - 1, 20, or 0. For example, you could take a useless action against a Powerbase that collects counters that had no counters on it, to take all the counters from it. (Presumably there would be a reason for this, like wanting to cycle action modifiers but not wanting to provoke a block by bleeding.) Social Ladder will still function if the vampire is empty during your influence phase. You could burn a pool with Path of Evil Revelations to untap all your infernal vampires, even if you had zero (perhaps to move you out of range of Parity Shift).
My point was that you just said that the card targets,
>
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> You choose a clan. The action then targets all the vampires of that clan, as per your choice.
>
and
Digizoom
>
> If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) some target, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available .
>
This rule doesn't specify the type of card or interaction.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Border Skirmish targets all Methuselahs, so is directed. Wave of Insanity superior targets all allies, so will be directed if one (or more) of those allies is controlled by another Methuselah.
>
> See, amongst other sources, www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/65261-sowing-skirmish
>
LSJ ruled wave of insanity to be undirected
groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/1jW6GXrIRSU/8QTYL98kB0gJ
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Since we are here on the subject of Directed actions, let me hijack a bit with a relevant question:
Shattering Crescendo vs Zaire River Ferry (or and effect that forbids or fails D actions against a specific Vampire)
So, my question is - if a card targets a player and its effect affect vampire(s), does that mean that the said action is directed both at a player and vampires?
In other words, if I play a Shattering Crescendo and I choose as my target a Zaire River Ferry-equipped vamp, can he use it to cause the entire action to fail?
> Discard a Shattering Crescendo from your hand to inflict 2 unpreventable damage on each of up to 2 minions controlled by a single Methuselah.
>
> You may tap this location when a action directed at this Lasombra is announced to cause that action to fail.
>
(quoted relevant parts)
> Bloodartist wrote:
> My point was that you just said that the card targets,
> ...
> If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) some target, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available .
>
It does target them, if there are any in play - which 99% of the time there will be, because you'll be playing it to tap people's vampires usefully.
Strike: steal equipment targets a specific piece of equipment - so you need one. Choose a vampire targets a specific vampire, so you need one in play to target. Tap all allies taps however many of them are in play, which may be zero or twenty, or any other number. If there are any in play, they're targets.
> Bloodartist wrote:
> [LSJ ruled wave of insanity to be undirected
> groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/1jW6GXrIRSU/8QTYL98kB0gJ
>
Look at the date of the post you are screenshotting.
Then look at the date of the release of Keepers of Tradition , where the rule was changed.
Unless you are willing to share your flux capacitor with the rest of us, rulings issued before a rule change will not reflect the rule as it exists after a rule change.
It was - as mentioned in the vekn.net thread I already linked - largely as a result of the discussions between Jozxyqk and LSJ in that RTR, and subsequent private emails between them, that the rule was changed in KoT to the current rule.
> Kiddo wrote:
> So, my question is - if a card targets a player and its effect affect vampire(s), does that mean that the said action is directed both at a player and vampires?
>
So I think you're mis-reading Shattering Crescendo's text, in that it doesn't target the Methuselah directly - it simply requires there to be two minions controlled by the same Methuselah.
However, anything that targets a minion also targets the controlling Methuselah anyway.
> Kiddo wrote:
> In other words, if I play a Shattering Crescendo and I choose as my target a Zaire River Ferry-equipped vamp, can he use it to cause the entire action to fail?
>
Sure, it's a action targeting that vampire.
(And would have been in the pre-KoT world too, as both targets are controlled by the same Methuselah.)