Anthology set previews: April 17

jamesatzephyr wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The part I'm having an issue with stems more from how the rulebook refers to both "bleed" and "bleed action" to mean "bleed action," but then there is another meaning of "bleed" which is an ability associated with a number ("+1 bleed”).

Yes, in English, words often have more than one meaning. These often involve different parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs etc.) - such as "bleed" (verb) and "bleed" (noun), or "vote" (verb) and "vote" (noun), or "damage" (verb) and "damage" (noun), or "strike" (verb) and "strike" (noun), or "block" (verb) and "block" (noun). Sometimes, they are different meanings with the same part of speech, such as "ally" (noun meaning War Ghoul etc.) and "ally" (noun meaning my cross-table buddy).

This is not in any way controversial.

It's not controversial. It's unclear. Obviously there is no problem in normal discourse; however, it can be confusing in the context of instructions, and it might be something to have in mind when rewriting card text.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

they may confuse “resolution of a successful bleed” (which happens in part D) simply as being “successful” (happens in Part C

But:Part C is only about resolving block attempts. It doesn't tell you anything about resolving actions (Part D), or bleeds, or damage (Part VII), or combat (Part VI), or referendums (Part V).

Part C tells you that with no block attempts, the action becomes successful. But the card text you are quoting requires "resolution of a successful bleed". And nothing in Part C tells you to do anything regarding RESOLUTION of a successful bleed.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying using the word bleed (action) may be confused by some people to mean bleed (ability), and bleed (ability) interacts only with part C. What I am not saying is that this is a major flaw that needs to be fixed right this second or I'm going to be super upset and "tell my mother wah wah wah." Again, I'm saying it's unclear, and it might be a good thing to at least have in mind when rewording card text. That is all.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying using the word bleed (action) may be confused by some people to mean bleed (ability), and bleed (ability) interacts only with part C. What I am not saying is that this is a major flaw that needs to be fixed right this second or I'm going to be super upset and "tell my mother wah wah wah." Again, I'm saying it's unclear, and it might be a good thing to at least have in mind when rewording card text. That is all.

Can you explain what on earth you mean by a successful bleed ability, that wouldnt be an action?

I understood the rules till i started reading your posts =/

Sure. Take the example "Bleed with +1 Bleed". There are two different meanings of bleed in this sentence. There's "Bleed," which is an action a minion can take. Then there is "+1 Bleed," which is modifying the amount that minion is able to bleed. I referred to the first as "bleed (action)" and the second as "bleed (ability)" in my previous post.

If you look at the Detailed Play Summary, How to Perform Actions, a bleed becomes successful in Part C, last line. A bleed is successful when it is greater than zero at this point. This is the part that "+1 Bleed" interacts with. Then in Part D, the "Bleed," as in the action, resolves.

Enkil Cog says, "Only usable after resolution of a successful bleed against your prey." All I'm saying is that, if one is thinking of the ability meaning of the word bleed (+1 bleed in the example above), they may play the card when the bleed is successful in Part C because that's the only place where it would apply in the Detailed Play Summary.

In addition, the word "action" is inextricably connected to action resolution, so much so that there is a section of the Rulebook called "Resolve the Action." Conversely, "bleed" is a specific type of action, and because of this because of its dual meanings and interactions with the Detailed Play Summary, this makes it a less than optimal word to use with "resolution." So I think that word "action" needs to be in there.

"Only usable after resolution of a successful bleed action against your prey."

If you understand the rules, that's awesome. To someone who understands the rules, this level of detail may seem unnecessary. I understand that. However, I'm coming from the perspective of knowing nothing about VTES, so please bear with me.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying using the word bleed (action) may be confused by some people to mean bleed (ability),

But action modifiers, and persistent abilities, aren't successful or unsuccessful. Actions are successful. Block attempts can be successful. Referendums can be successful. And so on. But there is nothing in the game that says that Arika's +2 bleed isn't resolving "successful" - it just modifies bleed actions she takes. Lucretia's +1 stealth isn't resolving successfully, it just modifies actions she takes. No part of the game's rules, including the Detailed Play Summary, supports a position that these resolve successfully or unsuccessfully.

If someone does somehow decide that Arika's +2 bleed is "successful", the only point at which it makes even the slightest logical sense to determine that is if she gets to the successful resolution of a bleed action. Consider the situation where Arika's +2 bleeds "resolves successfully" at some earlier point - when she starts the action (or takes it over with a Mask)? How would it ever be unsuccessful? Something that cannot be unsuccessful can hardly be successful!

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Again, I'm saying it's unclear, and it might be a good thing to at least have in mind when rewording card text. That is all.

You keep making this assertion that it's unclear. It's not. It's just that you spot ONE word on a card matches ONE word in the Detailed Play Summary, and then proceed to tell everyone that that makes things unclear.

Part C is not in any way about resolving anything other than block attempts. It tells you that's what it's for. The card text that is causing you to claim, speciously, that there is ambiguity is not about block attempts - it is about resolution of a successful bleed. Thus, Part C is irrelevant - no words in part C are about resolution of a successful bleed.

Part D includes resolution of a successful action, including all sorts of actions, whatever they might be - bleeds, hunts, Bum's Rushes, or whatever else. You get to Part D, you resolve the action.

Now, someone may potentially not know that "resolution" of a "successful bleed" happens in Part D. That doesn't, in any way, mean that Part C suddenly becomes relevant. For the same reason that they think Part D doesn't apply to them (it doesn't include the words "resolution of a successful bleed" or any close rearrangement of those words), Part C also doesn't apply to them (it doesn't include the words "resolution of a successful bleed" either).

Your argument is totally specious and not even remotely logical, even on its own terms. If there is a person who cannot work out that Part D is about resolution of a successful bleed (or a successful hunt, or a successful whatever else), Part C tells them it's about something else entirely - resolving block attempts. So Part C is clearly, explicitly not to do with resolving successful bleeds, because it says it's about block attempts.

If someone thinks that "bleeds" and "block attempts" are the same thing, they very probably shouldn't be reading the Detailed Play Summary.

Okay, we will just have to disagree then. I still stand by my points, but I respect your viewpoint.

I appreciate you guys might be busy, but when all the card wordings are finalised and the official card lists updated would we be able to get a post or announcement to that effect please?