Gangrel politics

It may be that I am attempting the impossible, yet I believe that there is a way for the Gangrel to become a resonable political force. As the Gangrel are not as adept at politics as other clans, their approach to politics requires a little not-so-subtle manipulation of the field. It is paramount to get Angus into play, so this approach cannot always be used, but his three votes are vital. With no princes, gangrels are giving up the political high-ground to Ventrue or Malkavian. This can be re-taken by force. Eliminating opposing vote-winners through direct attacks, sending them to torpor before proposing votes of your own gives the wolf boys and girls a suprising amount of political get up and go. I have gained a reasonable amount of success with this, and it gives my gangrels another dimension to their game. They still rather engague in combat, but adding a little politics stops them being predictable. Has anyone else tried this approach? "The Naturally Talented" Gangrel. Alan.

Waarning: article may contain protest against official rulings In article <rhoward-2803...@150.209.22.17> rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) writes: >parity shift is feasible and pretty >useful (one drawback to the deck is it's costliness- not too bad though) >parity shift in a 6 player game is killer: you control the vote, your >pray has 6 blood left you have 5. your vote goes off with the extra >stealth and you end up with 17 blood! Is this official? If this is, it looks like a misrule. Shouldn't be able to reduce his pool below your own ... -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Harpua (rho...@hamilton.edu) scribbles: : ... and i have two protean cards in there for a little more agg. : damage. ironically, out of all the gangrels, only two have superior : prot. so this ability is not really worth it... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't only basic protean required for agg. Dmg using claws of the Dead, or Wolf Claws? The superior protean is best for earth melds. Seb.

In article <3lb39j$c...@lvl-sun676.usc.edu> pech...@lvl-sun676.usc.edu (gomi no sensei) writes: >In article <3latue$m...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, >Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>Is this official? If this is, it looks like a misrule. Shouldn't >>be able to reduce his pool below your own ... > >I don't see how you're arriving at that; the text of parity shift reads >in part: "select a methuselah with more blood in pool than yourself, then >distribute up to n of that blood (n=number of methuselahs in game) as >you see fit." >I mean, I can see how one could think that 'that blood' referred to the >shifted player's excess over the vote-caller, but it's stretching the >wording a bit to say so, IMO. Because they could have (and IMO positively /should/ have) said this in a perfectly unambiguous manner: `/his/ blood', if your interpretation is the intended one. As it stands, `that blood' is ambiguous, with two interpretations possible. WotC has serious problems of this sort: unable to represent the rules in a precise manner. IMO they have something to learn from AH. If WotC wants to make a lot of money, they better put in the effort so that they (to some degree, at least) deserve it. [ quoted text not captured ]

rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) wrote: > parity shift in a 6 player game is killer: you control the vote, your > pray has 6 blood left you have 5. your vote goes off with the extra > stealth and you end up with 17 blood! Peace Harpua, Can you explain to me how you got to 17 blood? I thought you could only move the difference between your total and the other total. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3lcdrb$c...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) wrote: >> parity shift in a 6 player game is killer: you control the vote, your >> pray has 6 blood left you have 5. your vote goes off with the extra >> stealth and you end up with 17 blood! > >Can you explain to me how you got to 17 blood? I thought you could only >move the difference between your total and the other total. The card text isn't clear, but the interpretation (either Tom or DT, I forget which) was that you could move n blood where n is the number of players in the game. So he could move 6 blood to himself, and then get the 6 blood bonus, coming to 17 with his original 5. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <3lc8k8$n...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >WotC has serious problems of this sort: unable to represent >the rules in a precise manner. IMO they have something to >learn from AH. If WotC wants to make a lot of money, they >better put in the effort so that they (to some degree, at >least) deserve it. No disagreement about the lack of effort put into the game (and lack of editiing time), but what is AH? [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) wrote: > > In article <3lc8k8$n...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, > Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: > >WotC has serious problems of this sort: unable to represent > >the rules in a precise manner. IMO they have something to > >learn from AH. If WotC wants to make a lot of money, they > >better put in the effort so that they (to some degree, at > >least) deserve it. > > No disagreement about the lack of effort put into the game (and > lack of editiing time), but what is AH? Peace Joe, Actually, it is TAHGC: The Avalon Hill Game Company. Or more simply, Avalon Hill. [ quoted text not captured ]

pech...@lvl-sun676.usc.edu (gomi no sensei) writes: >In article <3latue$m...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, >Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>Waarning: article may contain protest against official rulings >>Is this official? If this is, it looks like a misrule. Shouldn't >>be able to reduce his pool below your own ... >I don't see how you're arriving at that; the text of parity shift reads >in part: "select a methuselah with more blood in pool than yourself, then >distribute up to n of that blood (n=number of methuselahs in game) as >you see fit." >I mean, I can see how one could think that 'that blood' referred to the >shifted player's excess over the vote-caller, but it's stretching the >wording a bit to say so, IMO. It seems apparent (in this area, anyhow) >to reapportion blood from the general pool of the shifted player, and to >check for higher pool only as a condition for calling the vote in the first >place. There is no official answer to this question, even though I've asked it many times on this group. Tom Wylie e-mailed me a guess (along the lines that it would be as gomi no sensei says), but made it clear that it could go either way. The name (Parity shift) leads me to believe it would be as Alan Kwan says: if you have 5 and your Prey has 7, then you can only move 2 (7-5) blood around (up to the number of Methuselah's in the game, which I'm assuming is at least two :-). That's what parity shift means. Note that this is not a good argument for WotC, since they frequently overrun the card name with illogical rulings (Rotschreck and re-Rotschreck). L. Scott

In article <3lcdrb$c...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) wrote: > > parity shift in a 6 player game is killer: you control the vote, your > > pray has 6 blood left you have 5. your vote goes off with the extra > > stealth and you end up with 17 blood! > > Peace Harpua, > > Can you explain to me how you got to 17 blood? I thought you could only > move the difference between your total and the other total. > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle > > <insert disclaimer here> simple: you start with 5 blood. your prey has 6 blood (more blood than you) play parity shift in a six player game and take all his blood (now you're up to 11 blood). you just ousted your prey so you get six more blood= 17 blood. harpua ps. i know this is a tough one to pass, but i've done it twice now. and yes, i did end up winning both of those (with roughly 4-6 victory points)

Since WotC hasn't ruled on this, can we manage a net consensus ruling? I used to think it was the other way, but I now agree with Alan and Scott that PS is limited to the difference between the user and the target Methuseleh. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <Pine.A32.3.91c.95033...@homer07.u.washington.edu>, James Bowes <leb...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > On 30 Mar 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > > The name (Parity shift) leads me to believe it would be as Alan Kwan says: > > if you have 5 and your Prey has 7, then you can only move 2 (7-5) blood > > around (up to the number of Methuselah's in the game, which I'm assuming > > is at least two :-). That's what parity shift means. > > > > Note that this is not a good argument for WotC, since they frequently > > overrun the card name with illogical rulings (Rotschreck and re-Rotschreck). > > > > L. Scott > > I had my girlfriend look at Parity Shift for me in order to try and > figure it out after a conflict in interpretations. She is an English > graduate, and she and I would both agree with L. Scott on this one. As > Parity _Shift_, it makes sense to only move that amount that is in > difference. If you decide to moving the number in the game, no matter > what the difference is, it turns into Parity _Landslide_. The card is > meant as an equalizer, not a killer. > ok ok ok. i started this parity shift thing to show a neat little option. i always thought the card was quite clear on how to use it. before you guys start trashing this card because i found a way to gain 12 blood with one card, whink of this: in a 6 player game, IT'S VERY HARD TO PASS if you take all the blood. you can get it intercepted or voted down. assuming you control the vote on the table basically means you have alot of vote cards in your hand and the others (6) don't. yes 12 blood is really extreme, but jyhad is a balanced game: this is next to impossible to pull off beacuse there are so many things to counter it: elder kindred net work, rarity, easily out voted (really common), intercepted, it takes at least a prince to do it... not to mention your prey has to have more blood than you AND still have less than 6 blood to pull off the 12 blood gain. so before you trash a card that usually works fine, consider that taking 6 blood from someone is REALLY hard to do. yes it can happen (or 4 blood for that matter), but there is alot against it that reads BALANCE. harpua

In article <3lg2b6$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] i can see how you can make the interpretation- just like rotshreck- but i think the card is very clear IMHO. select a meth. with more blood than you. divide N pool (where N is the # of meths in the game) as you see fit. i think this means that if there is 6 players in the game, then you take 6 blood and split it up as you see fit. don't get me wrong, i completely understand where you are coming from: the blood DIFFERENCE between the two meths. I also agree that it would make more sense that way, but this is just what the card SAYS, which i think is clear. i also think rotshreck is crystal clear too, but we saw what happened to that one. basically, if you want the difference to be split, the jargon about the # of meths needs to be replaced with "where N is the excess blood" which could possibly be limited to the # of meths in the game. i think that this would satisfy the "spirit of the card" problem. harpua- original problem creator.

On 30 Mar 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > The name (Parity shift) leads me to believe it would be as Alan Kwan says: > if you have 5 and your Prey has 7, then you can only move 2 (7-5) blood > around (up to the number of Methuselah's in the game, which I'm assuming > is at least two :-). That's what parity shift means. > > Note that this is not a good argument for WotC, since they frequently > overrun the card name with illogical rulings (Rotschreck and re-Rotschreck). > > L. Scott I had my girlfriend look at Parity Shift for me in order to try and figure it out after a conflict in interpretations. She is an English graduate, and she and I would both agree with L. Scott on this one. As Parity _Shift_, it makes sense to only move that amount that is in difference. If you decide to moving the number in the game, no matter what the difference is, it turns into Parity _Landslide_. The card is meant as an equalizer, not a killer. Anyways.... Remy leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault! Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball! | - Han Solo "I don't want the world, I just want your half." "Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped."

rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) writes: >i can see how you can make the interpretation- just like rotshreck- but i >think the card is very clear IMHO. select a meth. with more blood than >you. divide >N pool (where N is the # of meths in the game) as you see fit. i think >this means that if there is 6 players in the game, then you take 6 blood >and split it up as you see fit.>don't get me wrong, i completely understand >where you are coming from: the >blood DIFFERENCE between the two meths. I also agree that it would make >more sense that way, but this is just what the card SAYS, which i think is >clear. It would be clear if it said "his blood", but it says "that blood", which is vague. I'm awareit is hard to oust people with any vote, but compare it to other votes. No other vote can do any substantial pool loss without hurting other players, and even Conservative agitation will have to have significant harm to other players to get it to pass if you haven't run off with the Camarilla. With unlimited Parity Shift, you can pass it by pribing other voting Methuselehs, so it becomes something that can hurt another player a LOT (more than any other vote, typically) without having to hurt anybody else in the process (which typically makes votes fail, as even 1 pool loss makes a Methuseleh get very defensive). This conflicts with the usual restrictions on votes. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Look, fellas, I don't know what YOUR parity shift card says, but mine's pretty clear: Divide up to # of that blood among the Methuselahs blood pools as you see fit. # is the number of Methuselahs currently in the game. Successful vote means the blood is apportioned as you announced. So. Where does this bonus blood you're talking about come from? Am I missing something? 'Nis ti...@is.dal.ca

In article <1995Apr2.1...@ac.dal.ca>, ti...@is.dal.ca (Dennis Jeffery Murphy) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] peace Nis, sorry to diss, but we did discuss this one. you get the bonus blood by ousting your prey (6 blood) when he just had 6 blood and you had five. hence you end up with 17. 5 original 6 parity shift 6 ousting prize harpua (original poster)

In article <3lg2b6$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >Since WotC hasn't ruled on this, can we manage a net consensus ruling? I >used to think it was the other way, but I now agree with Alan and Scott >that PS is limited to the difference between the user and the target >Methuseleh. After reading all of the arguments both ways, and looking at the card again, and thinking about past play experience with the card, I would say that PS works fine when blood subtracted is the number of players in the game. At this point, I have no new arguments to add, so I will refrain from making any. You asked for my opinion, and there it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > When the Parity Shift vote starts, you choose a player who has more blood > than you. If the vote passes, you take X of their blood away, where X > is the number of players in the game. This X is limited by how much blood > they have, not the difference between their blood total and yours. > So if it's an eight player game, they have 13 blood, and you have 7 blood, > you are divvying up eight blood, not six. > > > Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Peace Tom, It's official, but I don't like it. Ow! that makes those Ventrue/prince decks so much more nasty! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3lu8ta$4...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >> [official ruling of Parity Shift deleted] >It's official, but I don't like it. Ow! that makes those Ventrue/prince decks >so much more nasty! Accept it, James. Jyhad is a $$$ game. Conservative Agitation is almost wallpaper. With the uncommon Parity Shift, a political deck can have as much blood to spend as they want! Ventrue is /the/ Clan. Almost immune to combat (Majesty + Skin of Steel + Elysium), almost immune to bleeds (Bleed Bounce). As soon as a political deck gets the majority of votes, the game is over. Against intercept, just use Day Op. or Majesty untaps or Freak Drive's to push through your first Archon vote. From there on he's unblockable: if anybody blocks him, he pays 1 blood, opponent pays 1 /pool/, and he untaps. Prazis Seizures ... Parity Shift ... Archon ... Freak Drive ... Day Operation ... with Aaron's Feeding Razor, Elysium, Hospitality (augmented by Majesty and Deflection), it's $$$ heaven. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3lujg8$j...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > Accept it, James. Jyhad is a $$$ game. Conservative Agitation is almost > wallpaper. With the uncommon Parity Shift, a political deck can > have as much blood to spend as they want! > > Ventrue is /the/ Clan. Almost immune to combat (Majesty + Skin of > Steel + Elysium), almost immune to bleeds (Bleed Bounce). As soon as > a political deck gets the majority of votes, the game is over. > Against intercept, just use Day Op. or Majesty untaps or > Freak Drive's to push through your > first Archon vote. From there on he's unblockable: if anybody > blocks him, he pays 1 blood, opponent pays 1 /pool/, and he > untaps. > Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu\\ peace alan, i'm not sure how to respond to this one, except for the fact that i'm sorry i originally pointed out the parity shift combo (maybe then this wouldn't have happened?). but realistically, i still don't see a problem with parity shift the way it is. true, the card can be deadly, but there are just so many ways around it. first off, you need a prince or justicar to call it --in your example (ventrue) that may or may not be hard secondly, +1 stealth is pretty easy to intercept with any gangrel deck (raven spies/sport bikes) (i'm not forgetting auspex decks either), and the cobat that ensues will make them drop the untap cards (counter: cat's guidance). yes this gets the intercept out, but the vote you wanted blocked is gone. third, someone has to have more blood than you. i know there are zillions of exceptions, but the ventrue decks i've seen play always seem to have alot of blood. fourth, there is always a time when the ventrue are missing a majesty type- it happens. when it does, they're fucked. especially when the rest of the players realize what's going on, and beat up the ventrue. this was one occasion when 2 predator-prey ally systems sprang up. hey, it's weird. fifth, some of the ventrue defenses you mention are rares- day op and freak drive are pretty rare. maybe that makes jyhad a $$$ game, but those cards are not essential anyay. elysium can be arsoned at stealth. but perhaps this isn't enough for you yet. i've purposely avoided the card limit side until now. if you have a 4 card limit, there is LESS abuse of the game. true, it does turn jyhad into more of a $$$ game, because it makes the rares more powerful, but it avoids alot of abuse. personally, i believe in the increased rares power, but i still don't think it is essential. i have 6 rares in my 100 card gangrel deck, and it still works fine. granted i have a bunch of uncommons in there, but no more than 2-3 of any one. and my collection is not really a $$$ collection. i don't think i've spent more than 90$ on all my cards, yet i fare more than well against the $$$ players (hell, pete has 400$ worth of cards! and i think i beat him at least 3 out of 4). i'm not really advocating the use of card limits, but i guess i'm saying that if Jyhad turns into a $$$ game because of the need for 15 copies of an uncommon card in your deck, than maybe card limits should be used. or how bout rare limits and uncommon limits? just a thought. harpua

> but perhaps this isn't enough for you yet. i've purposely avoided the > card limit side until now. if you have a 4 card limit, there is LESS > abuse of the game. true, it does turn jyhad into more of a $$$ game, > because it makes the rares more powerful, but it avoids alot of abuse. > personally, i believe in the increased rares power, but i still don't > think it is essential. i have 6 rares in my 100 card gangrel deck, and it > still works fine. granted i have a bunch of uncommons in there, but no > more than 2-3 of any one. and my collection is not really a $$$ > collection. i don't think i've spent more than 90$ on all my cards, yet i > fare more than well against the $$$ players (hell, pete has 400$ worth of > cards! and i think i beat him at least 3 out of 4). > > i'm not really advocating the use of card limits, but i guess i'm saying > that if Jyhad turns into a $$$ game because of the need for 15 copies of > an uncommon card in your deck, than maybe card limits should be used. or > how bout > rare limits and uncommon limits? just a thought. > > > harpua I just want to point out that a global card limit will limit many good (but not unbalanced) deck strategies, especially combat oriented ones that burn through cards quick. Also, you mentioned that it would take a lot of money to get 15 copies of an uncommon card you want, but wouldn't it take even more money to get 4 copies of the rares you need for a game with card limits? If you have a problem with some cards being unbalanced, make a house rule limiting those particular cards. Most cards don't need a limit. Well, there's my vote against card limits. --------- Paul Schaaf sch...@u.washington.edu

James Bowes <leb...@u.washington.edu> writes: > > >On 30 Mar 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > >> The name (Parity shift) leads me to believe it would be as Alan Kwan says: >> if you have 5 and your Prey has 7, then you can only move 2 (7-5) blood >> around (up to the number of Methuselah's in the game, which I'm assuming >> is at least two :-). That's what parity shift means. >> >> Note that this is not a good argument for WotC, since they frequently >> overrun the card name with illogical rulings (Rotschreck and re-Rotschreck). Admittedly, the word "parity" does tend to suggest equality but I think you're making a fundamental mistake here by trying to suggest that this situation is comparable to some of the more bizarre MtG rulings WotC has issued. First of all, the full title is Parity _Shift_ which can quite arguably refer to a "shift towards parity", involving no guarantee that such a shift might not fall short or overshoot the mark. It does not automatically suggest the full implementation of parity, as you seem to want it to. Secondly, there's no particular rule that a card name needs to be accurately descriptive of what it does. For all we know, it's named after a fictional character named "Parity", who was fond of robbing from the rich past the point of sanity (in the manner of Dennis Moore, perhaps, but in terms of blood rather than Lupens). You gotta read the _text_ to see what the card does... >> >> L. Scott > > I had my girlfriend look at Parity Shift for me in order to try and >figure it out after a conflict in interpretations. She is an English >graduate, and she and I would both agree with L. Scott on this one. As >Parity _Shift_, it makes sense to only move that amount that is in >difference. If you decide to moving the number in the game, no matter >what the difference is, it turns into Parity _Landslide_. The card is >meant as an equalizer, not a killer. Whoa. I'm confused. The card text looks quite clear to me. It states how to use the card ("Select a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you.") and then describes what it does. The description of what it does says not a thing about the differential in any two blood pools. So where does your English grad girl friend find a reference to such a differential on the card?!? The description clearly defines the meaning of the '#' symbol on the card. Maybe someone will enlighten me here but I just don't see the source of confusion here. Fred

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >It would be clear if it said "his blood", but it says "that blood", which >is vague. I disagree. The term "that blood" clearly refers to the (selected) subject's blood pool, which had been referred to previously. It does NOT refer to "the differential between the subject's blood pool and the acting Meth's blood pool" because that concept was never mentioned in the first place. I think you all are making an unconcious but unwarranted jump here, from the use of the inequality in the statement that determines which Meth you're allowed to use as a subject of the vote (on the one hand) to the calculation of this differential (on the other). The two are not the same thing. If there is something that's unclear here, it's what happens when '#' is greater than the amount of blood in the subject's blood pool. Should you reduce '#' to equal that amount of blood or are you simply not allowed to select that Meth for this vote. Neither answer is obvious to me. Fred

fre...@anthrax.cisco.com (Frederick Scott) >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>It would be clear if it said "his blood", but it says "that blood", which >>is vague. >I disagree. The term "that blood" clearly refers to the (selected) subject's >blood pool, which had been referred to previously. It does NOT refer to >"the differential between the subject's blood pool and the acting Meth's >blood pool" because that concept was never mentioned in the first place. "Select a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you. Divide up to # of that blood among the Methuselahs' blood pools as you see fit." More blood = that blood. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3meg6k$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >fre...@anthrax.cisco.com (Frederick Scott) >"Select a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you. >Divide up to # of that blood among the Methuselahs' blood pools as you see >fit." > >More blood = that blood. To me, "his or her pool" = "that blood." It's ambiguous.

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: : In article <3meg6k$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, : CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: : >fre...@anthrax.cisco.com (Frederick Scott) : >"Select a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you. : >Divide up to # of that blood among the Methuselahs' blood pools as you see : >fit." It continues: "where # is the number of methuselahs in the game." Clearly: if there are 5 methuselahs playing, one can take 5 pool from the methuselah who has more and distribute it as one wishes. : > : >More blood = that blood. : To me, "his or her pool" = "that blood." It's ambiguous. What's ambiguous? Happiness and bliss, 'Nis

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >fre...@anthrax.cisco.com (Frederick Scott) > >>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: > >>>It would be clear if it said "his blood", but it says "that blood", >which >>>is vague. > >>I disagree. The term "that blood" clearly refers to the (selected) >subject's >>blood pool, which had been referred to previously. It does NOT refer to >>"the differential between the subject's blood pool and the acting Meth's >>blood pool" because that concept was never mentioned in the first place. > >"Select a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you. >Divide up to # of that blood among the Methuselahs' blood pools as you see >fit." > >More blood = that blood. Correct - "that blood"...his blood pool...the _whole_ thing. The word "more" in this usage is an adjective that describes a relationship with something else (the other blood pool, your blood pool, in this case). It does not refer to the _difference_ between the two, as you seem to be suggesting. If I handed you $100 and you said you wanted more money, then you would be speaking about the difference because "more money" would refer to another amount beyond what you already had. But if I owed you $100 and proposed to give you "more money than that" and you agreed that that would be nice, I had better not hand you ONLY a $5 bill and say that I had given you "more money than $100". "More" in this case refers to the _whole_ amount: $105. Likewise with the "more blood" in Parity Shift. Fred

In article <1995Apr13.1...@ac.dal.ca>, Dennis Jeffery Murphy <ti...@is.dal.ca> wrote: >: >More blood = that blood. > >: To me, "his or her pool" = "that blood." It's ambiguous. > >What's ambiguous? Whether "that blood" means "more blood" or "his or her pool". If many people cannot all come up with the same meaning given the wording on the card, then the wording on the card is unclear or misleading, which is one of the definitions of the word ambiguous. You may think that you know what the card means (I know that I certainly do), but from the empirical evidence, it seems that the wording on the card is ambiguous. [ quoted text not captured ]