Directed Bleed Question (LSJ?)

Okay, put simply, can one bleed across the table using Computer Hacking (and other (D) bleed cards)? My thinking is "no" since I think the (D) is there as a reminder that bleeds are a directed action and not as a method to change the valid target of the action (which, by default, is your prey ). Thus, unless the card specifies that a bleed can be directed at anyone, bleeds can only be targeted at your prey. However, others have tried to convince me otherwise and I almost believe them. Thanks, Todd Dunn V:EKN Prince of Noblesville, IIN, USA -- "How can you call me evil? Have you spoken to God today? What did he say?" Suicidal Tendencies - Pledge Your Allegiance Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Totengraber <totengr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Okay, put simply, can one bleed across the table using Computer > Hacking (and other (D) bleed cards)? No. See the example for Computer Hacking in 6.1.6 (page 25) of the rulebook. > My thinking is "no" since I think the (D) is there as a reminder that > bleeds are a directed action and not as a method to change the valid > target of the action (which, by default, is your prey ). Thus, unless > the card specifies that a bleed can be directed at anyone, bleeds can > only be targeted at your prey. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 19:47:59 GMT, Totengraber <totengr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Okay, put simply, can one bleed across the table using Computer >Hacking (and other (D) bleed cards)? > It used to be that you could. Why this was changed I do not know. There was nothing wrong with it. T

Talo...@hotmail.com writes: > It used to be that you could. Why this was changed I do not know. > There was nothing wrong with it. It used to be that you couldn't. Then you could, due to a Rules Team Ruling. Then you couldn't again. (D) bleeds which can be thrown around the table provide much potential for abuse, collusion, over-powering of the bleed deck archetype and general unbalancing. Used in the hands of "sensible" players, they can be okay. However, the rules are written for everyone to use. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D Standard disclaimers apply to this post. Full written details available upon request. Your statutory rights are not affected.

On 09 Feb 2001 21:23:57 +0000, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: > >(D) bleeds which can be thrown around the table provide much potential >for abuse, collusion, over-powering of the bleed deck archetype and >general unbalancing. Used in the hands of "sensible" players, they >can be okay. However, the rules are written for everyone to use. > That's alot of rhetoric. How about an example? Frankly, it makes sense from both a 'realism' perspective and even to further 'collusion' amongst the players to allow D bleeds across the table. T

Talo...@hotmail.com writes: > That's alot of rhetoric. How about an example? I bleed you because I'm colluding with my friend to get him into the final, but I brush it off as something "in game". Difficult to spot. > Frankly, it makes sense from both a 'realism' perspective and even to > further 'collusion' amongst the players to allow D bleeds across the > table. Why does it make sense that a Methuselah would want to step outside of the predator-prey relationship? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 09 Feb 2001 22:14:59 +0000, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: > >I bleed you because I'm colluding with my friend to get him into the >final, but I brush it off as something "in game". > >Difficult to spot. Hmm. I will admit I was thinking more of 'in game' collusion. The above is just downright nasty. > >> Frankly, it makes sense from both a 'realism' perspective and even to >> further 'collusion' amongst the players to allow D bleeds across the >> table. > >Why does it make sense that a Methuselah would want to step outside of >the predator-prey relationship? > Because the predator-prey relationship is artificial to begin with. That, and if a deal can be struck with the methuselah that benefits fromthe bleed, or the bleed is 'payback' for some other action, then yes, its realistic. T

[ quoted text not captured ] Also, the original rule AND the original intent was for bleeds to always be directed at your prey unless explicitly said otherwise (like, superior Cat Burglary). Changing it to be allowing bleeds to everyone was found my experience to detract from the game. It's a mistake that has been rectified. We'd all be better off, certainly, if the RT had never made the change in the first place, since then this wouldn't be an issue. (Not really, I know, since groups made that ruling for themselves in a RT vacuum and failing to read the rulebook carefully.) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3a89706a.3299848@news... > On 09 Feb 2001 22:14:59 +0000, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> (snip) > > Because the predator-prey relationship is artificial to begin with. Hey, man, quit playing Vtes immediatly, this game is not for you. > That, and if a deal can be struck with the methuselah that benefits > fromthe bleed, or the bleed is 'payback' for some other action, then > yes, its realistic. You also think gaining 6 pool by ousting your prey is artificial ? What about gaining 6 pool when you oust somebody else ? then cross table bleding would make sense, eh ? so everyone would play Bleed Stealth and focus on the weaker guy on the table. Alas for you, this is not the rule, and game was not written like this. Personnaly i'm glad with it. reyda

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:30:34 +0100, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >> >> Because the predator-prey relationship is artificial to begin with. > >Hey, man, quit playing Vtes immediatly, this game is not for you. > Your assesment if offbase, and in no way invalidates my comment. The predator prey relationship is an artifice of the game for balnce purposes. Did I disagree with this? No. I merely pointed out that relationship as being artificial. >> That, and if a deal can be struck with the methuselah that benefits >> fromthe bleed, or the bleed is 'payback' for some other action, then >> yes, its realistic. > >You also think gaining 6 pool by ousting your prey is artificial ? No, thats terrirotory or power gained in the vacuum left by your prey. >What about gaining 6 pool when you oust somebody else ? then cross table bleding >would make sense, eh ? so everyone would play Bleed Stealth and focus on the >weaker guy on the table. > >Alas for you, this is not the rule, and game was not written like this. >Personnaly i'm glad with it. > So am I. Because ousting non-prey had nothing to do with my discussion. T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3a8da54b.16839191@news... [ quoted text not captured ] sorry, but earlier in the thread, you wrote this, about bleeding action directed at anyone: "It used to be that you could. Why this was changed I do not know. There was nothing wrong with it." so you seem to think that bleeding anyone on the table is just okay. I maintain that keeping a strong Prey/predator relationship between player makes this game interesting and fun to play. "Everyone Beat the weaker to a pulp" has nothing to do there, because you have (most of the time) no interest in killing a guy crosstable. You even might want to help him with powerbase access or replenishing vote. without the prey/predator style of play, there's no almost no place for politics or alliance. the first change of the rule (bleed directed wherever you want) was a mistake. the return to original rule is a good thing, because it reflects the true spirit of the jyhad : you have a grief on a particular methuselah, and you are the target of another one. It's the main theme of the game. so it has to do with the discussion. I still can read plain english. reyda

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 06:51:51 +0100, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >sorry, but earlier in the thread, you wrote this, about bleeding action >directed at anyone: >"It used to be that you could. Why this was changed I do not know. >There was nothing wrong with it." > Yes, but if you'll recall, that was in reference to D bleed action cards like computer hacking. Most 'bleed at' include 'bleed your prey at' text these days. Only a few open ended D bleed cards remain. Those made the game interesting when you could bleed across the table. >so you seem to think that bleeding anyone on the table is just okay. >I maintain that keeping a strong Prey/predator relationship between player >makes this game interesting and fun to play. I agree, but it is the VP and 6 blood that does this. Allowing a few cards to cross table bleed shouldnt prevent this. >the return to original rule is a good thing, because it reflects the true >spirit of the jyhad : you have a grief on a particular methuselah, and you >are the target of another one. It's the main theme of the game. > True. But by no means should he be considered an ally at all times. Allowing the odd Dbleed at him would reflect this, and used to. Its not a big deal really. Not to me. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > Yes, but if you'll recall, that was in reference to D bleed action > cards like computer hacking. Most 'bleed at' include 'bleed your prey > at' text these days. > > Only a few open ended D bleed cards remain. Those made the game > interesting when you could bleed across the table. You can still use the open-ended bleed actions (superior Cat Burglary and Kindred Spirits) to bleed across table. The only thing that has changed is that the errata that gave a subset of the (D) symbols printed on action cards the ability to grant omnidirectability (in opposition to the printed rulebooks and the stated intention of the game designer) has been reversed. Now the (D) symbol represents a reminder, just like the rulebooks have said. > [snip] > Allowing a few cards to cross table bleed shouldnt prevent this. A few are allowed. See superior Cat Burglary and Kindred Spirits. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On 09 Feb 2001 21:23:57 +0000, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> > wrote: > > > > >(D) bleeds which can be thrown around the table provide much potential > >for abuse, collusion, over-powering of the bleed deck archetype and > >general unbalancing. Used in the hands of "sensible" players, they > >can be okay. However, the rules are written for everyone to use. > > > > That's alot of rhetoric. How about an example? Ah, I'm not sure I agree with James in how he defended the rule. You're right - that is pretty fuzzy stuff. Personally, I like the rule simply because there's enough politics and ganging up against the lead player as it is without allowing lots of extra cross-table bleed cards. (Which may have been approximately what James was trying to say.) Rush combat decks can do a lot of cross- table stuff which is probably a good thing, since they don't do well in so many other ways. Handing bleed decks another tool for winning the game is simply not necessary - they're strong enough as it is! > Frankly, it makes sense from both a 'realism' perspective and even to > further 'collusion' amongst the players to allow D bleeds across the > table. Well, that's the thing. It's a matter of taste, of course. But I don't see why 'collusion' amongst players needs furthering. Fred

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:50:26 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > >Personally, I like the rule simply because there's enough politics >and ganging up against the lead player as it is without allowing lots >of extra cross-table bleed cards. (Which may have been approximately >what James was trying to say.) Rush combat decks can do a lot of cross- >table stuff which is probably a good thing, since they don't do well in >so many other ways. Handing bleed decks another tool for winning the >game is simply not necessary - they're strong enough as it is! > Fair enough. I just remember being able to use computer hacking for the occasional 'backbiter' bleed, and it was fun. At the time that was one of the few cards you could do that with. As LSJ points out, there are a few remaining that you can do this with, but they are very limited. For a good reason? Sure. But I still miss my computer hacking days. =] T

Talo...@hotmail.com writes: > I just remember being able to use computer hacking for the occasional > 'backbiter' bleed, and it was fun. At the time that was one of the > few cards you could do that with. Indeed, a few backbiter bleeds used sensibly by a player were often quite useful. Howevre, the use of random "I'm annoyed" type bleeds or "I'm gonna bleed you cos I don't like you" type bleeds are a major problem - especially considering that bleeds are, of the three major archetypes (bleed, combat, vote) the most directly powerful. Richard Garfield, in his introduction to the White Wolf strategy guide, noted the use of the predator prey dynamic to focus the game. IT stops the game becoming purely diplomacy, since people really need the right cards to step outside the dynamic, whicmeans that skill in the game becomes an imoprtant asset. [ quoted text not captured ]