Re: Damage immunity
05 Jul 2012 08:18 - 05 Jul 2012 08:20 #32781
by Ankha
1/ you don't check the latest cardtext and speak out of knowledge
2/ cardtext are amended when there's an error (which is a good thing)
It's a normal thing that games get fixed and evolve through rulings (and occasionnaly reprints)
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity
It shows two things:
This isn't the latest cardtext, so all your following discussion is moot.
That not being the latest cardtext only shows how deep problem is. So joke is on you.
1/ you don't check the latest cardtext and speak out of knowledge
2/ cardtext are amended when there's an error (which is a good thing)
It's a normal thing that games get fixed and evolve through rulings (and occasionnaly reprints)
So instead of correcting errors in cards, you'll adjust the rules so all the cards with their current cardtext fits in it? you'll just move those 200 pages of ruling to the rulebook.We're talking here about new players not understanding rules, cardtexts, mechanics, not about crappy text on one out of 150 cards from edition poorly written...
My point is that you need to adjust rules to some of the card texts so you wouldn't need to rewrite all of them to be understandable to a beginner. Nobody wants to play the game with 200 pages of rulings, well except maybe lawyers.
Nothing new here. Check the pre-httb rulings (including the infamous Mask of the Thousand Faces). And once again, do you have any conclusions? You seem to blame the HttB edition a lot.Have you tried to count how many rulings are written for HttB edition only? Beginning with Striga and Maleficia's unclear definition, over the Pocket out of Time, Outside the Hourglass, to Strix... and who knows what other bizarre situations await us.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
05 Jul 2012 10:55 - 05 Jul 2012 16:52 #32782
by Boris The Blade
Reyda started to talk about damage prevention/reduction, but does Immunity work like that? Immunity preventing the damage feels wrong because in that case Immunity would be trumped by unpreventable strikes like Blood Sweat. There is currently no irreducible strike but one might get printed someday if Nephandii become enough of a nuisance, so the same guess also applies to Immunity reducing the damage to 0. So Immunity does not seem to act on the damage itself but only on the receiving end. The damage is inflicted as is but somehow not taken. Maybe something like "this vampire does not need to burn blood to heal damage" (works for non-aggravated damage only).
So the question boils down to: if the damage is inflicted but not taken, does it count as successfully inflicted? Once again, the answer is not written anywhere so we have to guess, and when you guess you search for something you can relate to. In that case, the closest known situation is the Strix ruling and for that ruling, the rule 6.1.1 (not Strix card text, the rule itself) states that as long as the bleed amount was not modified, the bleed is still successful. So if the rule to determine whether damage is successfully inflicted is not supposed to work like the rule 6.1.1, it has to be written somewhere: because of the bad wording of the rule 6.1.1, we need a ruling on immunity to tell us that we don't need a ruling
If the rule 6.1.1 was changed to a more simple and intuitive wording and the effect of Strix migrated to its own card text (or scrapped at all), then this problem would not occur: Strix would be one more exception and having an exception does not change the understanding of the general rule.
Everyone here agrees that we want simple and intuitive core rules. The rule 6.1.1 does not live up to these expectations, and the only reason some people fail to acknowledge it is because of the chronological aspect. Rule 6.1.1 was written long before Strix so some primitive part of the brain must tell you that the culprit is always the new guy. It is not the case here. The bad wording is in the rule, it has always been there, just it was not exploited before Strix.
Replied by Boris The Blade on topic Re: Damage immunity
The ruling on Strix (the fact that a bleed that burns no pool can be successful) is counter-intuitive. Nothing can help that except a reversal. My main point is not that. My point is: at least get the core rules clean and simple and move the goofy points as exceptions on cards, so that when people do not find a written rule they can be confident that most simple solution will be the right one.It's not your fault, but then and here it seem exactly as complex as before, while needing some additional rules changes. (and I don't have a trix handy, but if the reminder text became false, how it is an improvement in clarity ?).
Then again, the main point was not the Strix ruling itself but how it hurts common sense and being able to guess a ruling for immunity to damage. Intuitively, it seems obvious that if the target is immune to damage, then it has not been inflicted, and Pascal's ruling is explicitely that intuition is right. But what if someone at the table is not convinced? Then you have to start guessing how it can work (because it is not written anywhere), and that is actually the same as doing Pascal's job if he wanted to specify how it works in the rules.I believe so because having to know the (relativiely intuitive) rule about bleed being successful that you would add and having to know the (for me intuitive) ruling for trix is equal for me. In both case, if I were to play trix six month from here, it would be reading rulings about trix that would correct me, not knowing the rulebook, simply because it is still an easy to miss subtelety.
Reyda started to talk about damage prevention/reduction, but does Immunity work like that? Immunity preventing the damage feels wrong because in that case Immunity would be trumped by unpreventable strikes like Blood Sweat. There is currently no irreducible strike but one might get printed someday if Nephandii become enough of a nuisance, so the same guess also applies to Immunity reducing the damage to 0. So Immunity does not seem to act on the damage itself but only on the receiving end. The damage is inflicted as is but somehow not taken. Maybe something like "this vampire does not need to burn blood to heal damage" (works for non-aggravated damage only).
So the question boils down to: if the damage is inflicted but not taken, does it count as successfully inflicted? Once again, the answer is not written anywhere so we have to guess, and when you guess you search for something you can relate to. In that case, the closest known situation is the Strix ruling and for that ruling, the rule 6.1.1 (not Strix card text, the rule itself) states that as long as the bleed amount was not modified, the bleed is still successful. So if the rule to determine whether damage is successfully inflicted is not supposed to work like the rule 6.1.1, it has to be written somewhere: because of the bad wording of the rule 6.1.1, we need a ruling on immunity to tell us that we don't need a ruling
If the rule 6.1.1 was changed to a more simple and intuitive wording and the effect of Strix migrated to its own card text (or scrapped at all), then this problem would not occur: Strix would be one more exception and having an exception does not change the understanding of the general rule.Everyone here agrees that we want simple and intuitive core rules. The rule 6.1.1 does not live up to these expectations, and the only reason some people fail to acknowledge it is because of the chronological aspect. Rule 6.1.1 was written long before Strix so some primitive part of the brain must tell you that the culprit is always the new guy. It is not the case here. The bad wording is in the rule, it has always been there, just it was not exploited before Strix.
That is exactly what the rule 6.1.1 currently does: it is twisted so that it can encompass the Strix ruling instead of leaving it aside as an exception. It was not done in that order and not on purpose, but the end result is the same.So instead of correcting errors in cards, you'll adjust the rules so all the cards with their current cardtext fits in it? you'll just move those 200 pages of ruling to the rulebook.
05 Jul 2012 12:25 - 05 Jul 2012 12:30 #32786
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity
@Boris: You seem right (at least you've convinced me).
Rule should be changed from:
"Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
to
"Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns one or more pool, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
Which would be more intuitive.
It affects two cards (please tell if I've missed another one): Strix and Major Boon.
To preserve the designer intent, card texts must be changed from:
Strix: "[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."
-> "[STR] Only usable when a bleed against you would be successful. Instead, the bleed is successful but burns no pool and this vampire taps and enters combat with the acting minion."
Major Boon doesn't require any change.
Name: Major Boon
[Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U, KMW:PG, LoB:PA, Third:U, KoT:U/PB2]
Cardtype: Master
Master: out-of-turn. Boon.
Put this card in play when another Methuselah would be successfully bled. Not usable if you control the acting minion. You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah (must be at least 1 pool or this card is burned). When you would be successfully bled, you may burn this card to have that Methuselah burn pool instead of you.
Rule should be changed from:
"Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
to
"Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns one or more pool, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it, if any."
Which would be more intuitive.
It affects two cards (please tell if I've missed another one): Strix and Major Boon.
To preserve the designer intent, card texts must be changed from:
Strix: "[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."
-> "[STR] Only usable when a bleed against you would be successful. Instead, the bleed is successful but burns no pool and this vampire taps and enters combat with the acting minion."
Major Boon doesn't require any change.
Name: Major Boon
[Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U, KMW:PG, LoB:PA, Third:U, KoT:U/PB2]
Cardtype: Master
Master: out-of-turn. Boon.
Put this card in play when another Methuselah would be successfully bled. Not usable if you control the acting minion. You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah (must be at least 1 pool or this card is burned). When you would be successfully bled, you may burn this card to have that Methuselah burn pool instead of you.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
05 Jul 2012 18:30 #32819
by Ankha
1/ If the action is successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount.
2/ Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful
2'/Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns one or more pool, then the bleed is successful
So why change 2/ to 2'/? Because it's more intuitive to check if pool is really burned or not (maybe because it's visual to see the pool removed), rather than checking if the bleed amount is 1 or more, even if in the end no pool is burned.
1/ + 2/ was already a bit flawed from the start, because instead of checking the final result (is pool burned?), you had to check an intermediate result (the bleed amount). It wasn't really relevant until now, but changing the rules to reflect the real designer's intent (according to me) would be a little step towards clearer rules.
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity
No, it wouldn't be redundant. Considering the assumptions below, 1/ + 2/ is not redundant, and 1/ + 2'/ is not redundant. 1/ + 2/ + 2'/ would be redundant, but it's not what is proposed.So what you want to change that sentence to would be redundant, because it's already defined.
1/ If the action is successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount.
2/ Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful
2'/Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed burns one or more pool, then the bleed is successful
So why change 2/ to 2'/? Because it's more intuitive to check if pool is really burned or not (maybe because it's visual to see the pool removed), rather than checking if the bleed amount is 1 or more, even if in the end no pool is burned.
1/ + 2/ was already a bit flawed from the start, because instead of checking the final result (is pool burned?), you had to check an intermediate result (the bleed amount). It wasn't really relevant until now, but changing the rules to reflect the real designer's intent (according to me) would be a little step towards clearer rules.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
23 Mar 2021 07:27 #101919
by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity
It's counterproductive to answer to a topic that is more than 9 years old. Please create a new one with as much details as possible (eventually a link to the relevant post in this thread) because I absolutely don't know what you are talking about.And then... What about Damage immunity ? What does «immune to» means?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Time to create page: 0.113 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Re: Damage immunity