Re: Damage immunity

Reyda wrote:

Then don't always step in to bash them on the head when they are saying " I don't understand this". That would greatly help and would not pass for lip service. Thank you.

Err, except I objected to someone trying to tear up the rules and write a new uber-rule which pretends that withdrawals are like referendums.

Your trolling is increasingly bizarre. Please stop.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

A simpler solution? Identifying a problem and writing a clearer rule, and presenting it more clearly. Or adding a definition to the special terms. Simple things that codify the way things actually are, and make them accessible.

The general definition "Stuff is successful if it does what it is supposed to do" that I wrote earlier is probably too vague to figure in the rulebook as such and I don't think it can be made much clearer, but it is a general design principle that should underline the wording of the actual rules. As I wrote before, it is already mostly the case except for bleeding. Now here comes the suggested wording change with constant rules (or not):

1) Change Rule 6.1.1. to: Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns at least one pool, then the bleed is successful and ...

I like this wording because it still makes Major Boon follow the general rule. In that sense Major Boon is similar to Brother's Blood: someone else heals the damage but it was still successfully inflicted to the vampire in combat. Otherwise one could specify that the bleed must burn pool from the target and make Major Boon an exception.

2)a) Change the Strix card text to: The bleed is still successful.
2)b) Revert Strix to the original card text (which now means the bleed is unsuccessful).

In 2)a), the only change is to remove the parentheses to change the sentence from a clarification to an exception. I tend to prefer 2)b) because it removes an exception and I think that point is too minor to warrant one (and because it goes back to printed card text), but if Pascal does not want to overturn his ruling it is still possible.

What is gained in the process is that we changed the rulebook making exception to common sense, which undermines the very idea of common sense, to a card making exception to the rulebook, which is already known and governed by the golden rule. That gives Pascal much more weight when he answers "just use common sense" on the damage subject. Now we don't need the fine print anymore and we don't need Pascal to tell us that we don't need the fine print: if you are immune to damage, then you don't take it because that is what Immunity intuitively does and if you don't take it, then it was not successfully inflicted because that's what "successful" intuitively means.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Twisting your mind into the universe where a referendum being successful is checked using the same definition as a block being successful? Despite the two things being totally different? That requires a PhD in high-grade stupidity.

...

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Because, yes, having an idiotic conversation about whether your block has been voted down or not, because we have to use the same defintion? Completely gonna save time. Totally. About whether your stealth has been prevented? Yep, gonna save loads of time. The vampire who gains no blood from hunting (successful action, unsuccessful hunt) is now somehow handled in the same way as determining a successful block? Super. That's not going to confuse anyone at all. A withdrawal is successful in the same way a referendum is? Yeah, there's a ten minute scream-fest right there.

Your cure is worse than the disease, by an order of magnitude.

Oh yes, sure, my trolling is bizarre. Now quit smoking pot when you try to answer and maybe we can discuss this between gentlemen ?

What Boris proposes here makes perfect sense. Unless you are still high ?

Reyda wrote:

Oh yes, sure, my trolling is bizarre. Now quit smoking pot when you try to answer and maybe we can discuss this between gentlemen ?

So you accuse me of attacking someone for not understanding the rules, because you haven't even bothered to read what you're trolling. Then when this is pointed out, you just hurl more abuse.

Reyda, King Troll, Poisoner of Forums.

Non-existant user wrote:

The general definition "Stuff is successful if it does what it is supposed to do" that I wrote earlier is probably too vague to figure in the rulebook as such and I don't think it can be made much clearer, but it is a general design principle that should underline the wording of the actual rules.

I quite agree, it's not at all useful for a rules change, because the things are so different. That's why I objected. That's what you called 'bullshit'. Please don't do that.

Consider: damage is supposed to hurt the opponent (or targeted retainer). But Brother's Blood means that someone else entirely burns blood for it. Successfully inflicted when it didn't do what it was supposed to do? The wider problem is that 'intent' will very much be in the eye of the player.

See also: many players get confused early on about what happens when a Bum's Rush is blocked, and don't realise the maneuver is lost. From their point of view, they're often still in the combat they wanted.

Non-existant user wrote:

2)a) Change the Strix card text to: The bleed is still successful.

If the design principle is that bleeds must burn pool to be considered successful (as opposed to resolving for a particular amount), this is a strange change to consider.

Non-existant user wrote:

1) Change Rule 6.1.1. to: Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns at least one pool, then the bleed is successful and ...

I'm confused. In what general case is a bleed action a successful bleed but not a successful action? If none, as I believe there to be none, then your rule is redundant.

Actions are successful if they are not blocked [6].

Bleeds -- a sub-type of action -- are always successful if the action is unblocked and if the bleed amount is for 1 or more [6.1.1], excepting very specific card text.

There is no need to rewrite the rulebook because Strix exists. Strix and other cards like it can be rewritten, or written better in the first place.

The general rules in [6] and [6.1.1] are exacting, well-written, and well-understood. They aren't the problem.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Consider: damage is supposed to hurt the opponent (or targeted retainer). But Brother's Blood means that someone else entirely burns blood for it. Successfully inflicted when it didn't do what it was supposed to do? The wider problem is that 'intent' will very much be in the eye of the player.

That one is quite easy: the card itself states that the damage is taken by the vampire in combat, and if unhealed damage happens it is still the vampire in combat that goes to torpor/burns.

Major Boon/Enkil Cog could be a bit more tricky: are you still bleeding your prey? In that case it is what is not on the card that helps: it goes through a lengthy periphrase to avoid saying that the target of the bleed changes, this is certainly no accident so the target must stay the same.

The problem is: how can someone who faces a new rule problem be confident in his interpretation of the rules when he does not know/have access to the library of existing rulings or when a ruling does not exist?

Non-existant user wrote:

If the design principle is that bleeds must burn pool to be considered successful (as opposed to resolving for a particular amount), this is a strange change to consider.

I agree but I just added it to show that the wording can be changed with constant rules. Once again, I think it is better to have cards that provide exceptions to the rules than counter-intuitive rules, the best being intuitive rules and no exception whenever possible (and it is possible here with a minor ruling reversal).

KevinM wrote:

I'm confused. In what general case is a bleed action a successful bleed but not a successful action? If none, as I believe there to be none, then your rule is redundant.

True. I just pasted from the existing rule which has the "action succeeds" bit. It still feels clearer like that though: first check the blocks, then the bleed itself. Maybe that's just the habit of the old template, or maybe a bit of redundancy does not hurt to drive the point across.

Bleeds -- a sub-type of action -- are always successful if the action is unblocked and if the bleed amount is for 1 or more [6.1.1], excepting very specific card text.

For the second time: there is currently no exception to that rule. Strix does not change the bleed amount so the bleed is successful. This is not an exception, only the strict (pun intended) application of the rule.

Unless I forget something, there are currently only 2 cards that prevent the target of a bleed for 1 or more after reduction from burning pool: Strix and Major Boon. Both of them lead to a successful bleed.

The general rules in [6] and [6.1.1] are exacting, well-written, and well-understood. They aren't the problem.

You got the rule 6.1.1 (and its interaction with Strix) wrong three times in this thread, once in this very post, even after being corrected twice. You still got the ruling right by remembering it though: you got the right result but with two different wrong justifications. With your experience of judging tournaments, that should be enough of a proof that the rule 6.1.1 is not well understood, not well written and that the Strix ruling, although it is only a clarification, is hard to retrieve by reasoning/common sense for someone who does not already know it.

Back to the original topic: if common sense does not work for Strix, then we cannot be asked to rely on it for immunity to damage either.

KevinM wrote:

There is no need to rewrite the rulebook because Strix exists. Strix and other cards like it can be rewritten, or written better in the first place.

And, indeed, Strix has been changed.

Strix wrote:

[str] +1 intercept, even if intercept is not yet needed. If this vampire successfully blocks this action, he or she untaps at the end of the action. [str] is not a Discipline.
[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.

Actions are successful if they are not blocked

Except in case of Horrific Countenance, I might add.

@ megabaja : I clicked on "thank you". Because there is no "high five" button