Condemn the sins of the father

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?

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.

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..

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.

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