Re: Damage immunity

@Boris: You seem right (at least you've convinced me).

Rule should be changed from:
"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."
to
"Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns one or more pool, 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."

Which would be more intuitive.

It affects two cards (please tell if I've missed another one): Strix and Major Boon.

To preserve the designer intent, card texts must be changed from:
Strix: "[STR] Only usable when a bleed against you would be successful. The bleed burns no pool. Instead, this vampire taps and enters combat with the acting minion."
-> "[STR] Only usable when a bleed against you would be successful. Instead, the bleed is successful but burns no pool and this vampire taps and enters combat with the acting minion."

Major Boon doesn't require any change.

Name: Major Boon
[Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U, KMW:PG, LoB:PA, Third:U, KoT:U/PB2]
Cardtype: Master
Master: out-of-turn. Boon.
Put this card in play when another Methuselah would be successfully bled. Not usable if you control the acting minion. You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah (must be at least 1 pool or this card is burned). When you would be successfully bled, you may burn this card to have that Methuselah burn pool instead of you.

KevinM wrote:

So what you want to change that sentence to would be redundant, because it's already defined.

No, it wouldn't be redundant. Considering the assumptions below, 1/ + 2/ is not redundant, and 1/ + 2'/ is not redundant. 1/ + 2/ + 2'/ would be redundant, but it's not what is proposed.

1/ If the action is successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount.
2/ Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful
2'/Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns one or more pool, then the bleed is successful

So why change 2/ to 2'/? Because it's more intuitive to check if pool is really burned or not (maybe because it's visual to see the pool removed), rather than checking if the bleed amount is 1 or more, even if in the end no pool is burned.

1/ + 2/ was already a bit flawed from the start, because instead of checking the final result (is pool burned?), you had to check an intermediate result (the bleed amount). It wasn't really relevant until now, but changing the rules to reflect the real designer's intent (according to me) would be a little step towards clearer rules.

deslaure wrote:

And then... What about Damage immunity ? What does «immune to» means?

It's counterproductive to answer to a topic that is more than 9 years old. Please create a new one with as much details as possible (eventually a link to the relevant post in this thread) because I absolutely don't know what you are talking about.