Re: Damage immunity

First of all, I completely agree that Reyda's answer is the most intuitive one. However one cannot rely on common sense when defining what is successful and what is not because we already have counterintuitive examples of successful bleeds burning no pool (which is the root of all evil if you ask me). What tells you that Immunity effectively changes the damage instead of only nullifying the effect just like Strix prevents burning pool without reducing the bleed amount?

Rather than a definition of Immunity, I would rather have a definition of Successful that is consistent across situations, but that would require a reversal on the effect of Strix. If you want to keep Strix as it is, then you need to specify everything because Strix proves that common sense does not work.

Non-existant user wrote:

First of all, I completely agree that Reyda's answer is the most intuitive one. However one cannot rely on common sense when defining what is successful and what is not because we already have counterintuitive examples of successful bleeds burning no pool (which is the root of all evil if you ask me).

There is Evil in the term "immune", but there is no Evil involved in defining bleeds and actions.

A "bleed action" is a special type of action, which is clearly, unambiguously defined in 6.1.1.

A bleed action that burns no pool is not a successful BLEED [6.1.1].

A bleed action that is unblocked but burns no pool is a successful ACTION [6].

KevinM wrote:

A bleed action that burns no pool is not a successful BLEED [6.1.1].

Not true in general: Strix causes the bleed to burn no pool but the bleed is still successful because the bleed amount does not change:
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/17899-strix-superior-and-the-edge

Non-existant user wrote:

Rather than a definition of Immunity, I would rather have a definition of Successful that is consistent across situations,

Why? Combat isn't taking an action. Blocking isn't conducting a referendum. Damage handling isn't bleed resolution.

Many things are treated differently between different aspects of the game. Why the need to crowbar things which are manifestly different into being the same?

Non-existant user wrote:

KevinM wrote:

A bleed action that burns no pool is not a successful BLEED [6.1.1].

Not true in general: Strix causes the bleed to burn no pool but the bleed is still successful because the bleed amount does not change:
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/17899-strix-superior-and-the-edge

Incorrect.

It is true in general [6.1.1] but not in specific (Strix's card text).

And most things in VTES, which are true in general, have specific, card text-based exceptions. Which are fine, since they don't change the rule, just break it. Which means that a player can know what the rule is and quote it (as I did) and be correct.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Why? Combat isn't taking an action. Blocking isn't conducting a referendum. Damage handling isn't bleed resolution.

Many things are treated differently between different aspects of the game. Why the need to crowbar things which are manifestly different into being the same?

1) So that it does not take a PhD to learn the game.
2) So that during a game, less time is spent checking whether a move is valid or not and more time on deciding the right move and, you know, playing the game.
3) So that common sense can be applied with confidence when faced with a new situation, unlike the current situation where you can find close contradictory rulings everywhere. The game does not need more rulings, it needs more rules. The difference is a rule can be extrapolated.

KevinM wrote:

Incorrect.

It is true in general [6.1.1] but not in specific (Strix's card text).

And most things in VTES, which are true in general, have specific, card text-based exceptions. Which are fine, since they don't change the rule, just break it. Which means that a player can know what the rule is and quote it (as I did) and be correct.

The problem is that Strix is not an exception. Things would be much easier if it was. Strix does not break any written rule. It does break the intuitive but incorrect rule you misquoted as 6.1.1: successful bleeding does not check if any pool is burnt, only if the bleed amount is higher than 1. If you read back the thread I linked, you will see that Pascal first explained that the bleed is still successful, then errated the card text to add it on Strix as a clarification only.

You got that rule wrong as would 99% of the players. I don't think people enjoy playing Gotcha! more than VTES, so a rule that everyone gets wrong is not a good rule. All I am saying to Pascal is that if he wants to advise the players to use common sense, then he also has the duty to make intuitive rules, otherwise we first need a ruling that tells when common sense can be applied and when it cannot, which defeats the whole point of common sense. And intuition works by applying the same known patterns to different unknown situations.