Re: Damage immunity

Non-existant user wrote:

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.

I quite agree, it's not at all useful for a rules change, because the things are so different. That's why I objected. That's what you called 'bullshit'. Please don't do that.

Consider: damage is supposed to hurt the opponent (or targeted retainer). But Brother's Blood means that someone else entirely burns blood for it. Successfully inflicted when it didn't do what it was supposed to do? The wider problem is that 'intent' will very much be in the eye of the player.

See also: many players get confused early on about what happens when a Bum's Rush is blocked, and don't realise the maneuver is lost. From their point of view, they're often still in the combat they wanted.

Non-existant user wrote:

2)a) Change the Strix card text to: The bleed is still successful.

If the design principle is that bleeds must burn pool to be considered successful (as opposed to resolving for a particular amount), this is a strange change to consider.

Non-existant user wrote:

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'm confused. In what general case is a bleed action a successful bleed but not a successful action? If none, as I believe there to be none, then your rule is redundant.

Actions are successful if they are not blocked [6].

Bleeds -- a sub-type of action -- are always successful if the action is unblocked and if the bleed amount is for 1 or more [6.1.1], excepting very specific card text.

There is no need to rewrite the rulebook because Strix exists. Strix and other cards like it can be rewritten, or written better in the first place.

The general rules in [6] and [6.1.1] are exacting, well-written, and well-understood. They aren't the problem.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Consider: damage is supposed to hurt the opponent (or targeted retainer). But Brother's Blood means that someone else entirely burns blood for it. Successfully inflicted when it didn't do what it was supposed to do? The wider problem is that 'intent' will very much be in the eye of the player.

That one is quite easy: the card itself states that the damage is taken by the vampire in combat, and if unhealed damage happens it is still the vampire in combat that goes to torpor/burns.

Major Boon/Enkil Cog could be a bit more tricky: are you still bleeding your prey? In that case it is what is not on the card that helps: it goes through a lengthy periphrase to avoid saying that the target of the bleed changes, this is certainly no accident so the target must stay the same.

The problem is: how can someone who faces a new rule problem be confident in his interpretation of the rules when he does not know/have access to the library of existing rulings or when a ruling does not exist?

Non-existant user wrote:

If the design principle is that bleeds must burn pool to be considered successful (as opposed to resolving for a particular amount), this is a strange change to consider.

I agree but I just added it to show that the wording can be changed with constant rules. Once again, I think it is better to have cards that provide exceptions to the rules than counter-intuitive rules, the best being intuitive rules and no exception whenever possible (and it is possible here with a minor ruling reversal).

KevinM wrote:

I'm confused. In what general case is a bleed action a successful bleed but not a successful action? If none, as I believe there to be none, then your rule is redundant.

True. I just pasted from the existing rule which has the "action succeeds" bit. It still feels clearer like that though: first check the blocks, then the bleed itself. Maybe that's just the habit of the old template, or maybe a bit of redundancy does not hurt to drive the point across.

Bleeds -- a sub-type of action -- are always successful if the action is unblocked and if the bleed amount is for 1 or more [6.1.1], excepting very specific card text.

For the second time: there is currently no exception to that rule. Strix does not change the bleed amount so the bleed is successful. This is not an exception, only the strict (pun intended) application of the rule.

Unless I forget something, there are currently only 2 cards that prevent the target of a bleed for 1 or more after reduction from burning pool: Strix and Major Boon. Both of them lead to a successful bleed.

The general rules in [6] and [6.1.1] are exacting, well-written, and well-understood. They aren't the problem.

You got the rule 6.1.1 (and its interaction with Strix) wrong three times in this thread, once in this very post, even after being corrected twice. You still got the ruling right by remembering it though: you got the right result but with two different wrong justifications. With your experience of judging tournaments, that should be enough of a proof that the rule 6.1.1 is not well understood, not well written and that the Strix ruling, although it is only a clarification, is hard to retrieve by reasoning/common sense for someone who does not already know it.

Back to the original topic: if common sense does not work for Strix, then we cannot be asked to rely on it for immunity to damage either.

KevinM wrote:

There is no need to rewrite the rulebook because Strix exists. Strix and other cards like it can be rewritten, or written better in the first place.

And, indeed, Strix has been changed.

Strix wrote:

[str] +1 intercept, even if intercept is not yet needed. If this vampire successfully blocks this action, he or she untaps at the end of the action. [str] is not a Discipline.
[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.

Actions are successful if they are not blocked

Except in case of Horrific Countenance, I might add.

@ megabaja : I clicked on "thank you". Because there is no "high five" button