About Appolonius ADV.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Responding to Ankha's post: While and when are synonyms.

They are pretty close, but they don't have the same usage.
You can't used "while" in sentences like "I thought of it (just) when you opened your mouth."

"When" is used in the wordings to designate a specific time or moment: "When X leaves the ready region, burn 3 pool" (not "while", the effect is instantaneous)

"While" puts more emphasis on the duration: "While X is ready, you get +1 hand size."

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Attaching different meanings to words that normally mean the exact same thing is part of the reason why this game is hard for people to understand.

Well first they don't have exactly the same meaning. Then, the game uses a pattern to help identify a triggered effect or a continuous effect. It's just a help, because you could identify them otherwise: a triggered effect follows always the pattern "if/when/as something happens then something else happens". Continuous effects (aka static effects) are just true.

I'm not the only one to make the distinction. The rule guys at Magic thought about it and make the same distinction:

www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20121001.txt

Non-existant user wrote:

112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities."
112.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They're simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, "Handling Static Abilities."

A sample of the use of "while": magiccards.info/dgm/en/22.html

Henrique_Sorocaba wrote:

If the cards had a standard text for a similar effect, things will get easier...

We're working on it. There's a whole document about it: www.vekn.net/output-changes
It's not the latest version, but it's close to it.

The current printed cardtexts are not "standard" at all. You can't just pick up one card of your choosing (such as Constanza) and say it's the standard cardtext: they are other printed cards that use a different cardtext and that could be chosen as "standard".
Our choices were made considering whether a pattern was more frequent than another, whether it's consistent with other similar effects etc.

Henrique_Sorocaba wrote:

Now that we are writing the text of the cards we will continue doing the same mistakes that we criticized...

Standardizing the text is the minimum we should do...

That's precisely what we're doing, following the rules established in the aforementioned document. But I can't change Constanza's printed card text.

Henrique_Sorocaba wrote:

When I started the post, I didn't know Contanza's example but I knew it would have some... I want Appolonius ADV. gain the +1 bleed advantage in the end of the action against the Methuselah he is effectively bleeding.

But the card is not released, please just use the text according to previous example to make things easier.

Appolonius special doesn't work the same as Constanza's. That's one reason why they can have different cardtext.
Reason: Constanza's special is conditional, Appolonius' special is always "on" (even if sometimes his bonus is +0). That's why there's no "when" in Appolonius' special.

Non-existant user wrote:

How about changing "gets" to "has" for continuous effects? I am not a native English speaker, but it seems to me that "gets" is a dynamic term that denotes triggering (before trigger, there is nothing, after trigger, there is something), whereas "has" is static.

That could be an option.
The printed cardtexts use "has" or "gets" in a mixed way.

Art of Pain: "This vampire gets +2 strength."
Concordance: "This vampire treats aggravated damage as normal damage and has +1 strength and -1 stealth."
Preternatural Strength: "This vampire gets +1 strength."
Depravity: "This vampire has +1 strength, and he or she gets +1 stealth on diablerie actions."

The following rule was established:

R0009 : Have/get
Have: something you possess. 'Burn this card when it has no more ablative counters.', 'Arishat has 1 vote.' Note that '+1 stealth/strength/intercept.' = 'This vampire has +1 stealth/strength/intercept' (this one is absolute, not conditional - see below '+1 intercept against...').
Get: something you receive. 'Vampires with Dementation [dem], mortals and mages get -1 intercept during this action.' , 'You get +1 hand size.', 'This vampire gets +1 intercept during actions.', 'This vampire gets +1 stealth on political actions.

Please ignore the "note" part because it's pretty irrelevant, wrong and a little confusing. (Note to myself: change it)

"Has" effects are not cumulative. Eg. Anson and Nana Buruku each states that you "have" 2 master phase, they overlap.

"Get" effects are cumulative. Enkidu ("+2 strength") with a Depravity ("gets +1 strength") and a inferior Preternatural Strength ("gets +1 strength") gets a total bonus of +4 strength.

Let's say that Appolonius is equiped with the "Seal of the All-Mighty" that grants him +1 for each titled vampire controlled by the target of the bleed. His special has been duplicated, and he gets twice the bonus bleed.

The "get" usually goes hand in hand with the "+" (or "-") notation, that replaced the "old" syntax "additional"/"fewer" (shorter, and brings consistency between bonus bleed, intercept, stealth and votes).

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Ankha: The difference is that the rules people at Magic clarify the distinction between the two words. VTES does not clarify the distinction anywhere. That's a problem for two words that are defined the exact same way in the dictionary. Not all players will understand the nuances in the usage of the two words. This is why Magic clarifies it.

When and while are not defined the same way in the dictionary (what dictionary do you use?)
Anyway, the distinction it's not as important in V:TES as it is in Magic. Usage is made consistent to help players as I said, but whether "while" or "when" is used is not a key factor for the comprehension (you can do without).
"Triggered" effects simply have a trigger (however it is expressed). If they don't, then they aren't triggered effects.

Is Appolonius' bonus bleed increasing each time the target of the bleed changes? I can't see a valid reasoning to comfort this scenario.