Re: Damage immunity

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.

Well this escalated to a bad place real quick

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.