Re: Damage immunity

It's funny that I keep quoting rules correctly, rules that work, rules that are correct and accurate, and people keep pointing to cards as to why I got the rule wrong. Which I didn't.

The rule I keep quoting -- correctly -- in 6.1.1 isn't un-correct. It's correct. It works. All the time. In every case.

Oh, wait. EXCEPT FOR SOME CARD BREAKING IT. Yep, exactly as I stated.

In other words: If Strix/etc didn't exist, there'd be no discussion about 6.1.1, because 6.1.1 would be accurate and correct in all cases.

Next: "Actions are successful if they are not blocked." Works perfectly. Every time. In every case.

Oh, wait. EXCEPT FOR SOME CARD BREAKING IT.

This is why James is saying what he is saying, because y'all keep wanting the rulebook to reflect every case and every card when you actually have no clue what a rulebook should be, should do, or how to write one.

See, the rulebook works PERFECTLY, except when some goofy cards, like Strix or Horrific Countenance use wording that breaks the rulebook. Those cards don't dictate that the rulebook be changed. In fact, there is a specific rule that addresses this, as well as our community having a person in place to help us figure these things out.

In these rare cases, we either read the card is it's easily understood what to do (Horrific Countenance) or we become rightfully confused (Strix, Outside the Hourglas, et.al.) and summon Pascal to help us deal with it. Perhaps the card text needs to be clarified, or it never should've been written that way in the first place.

If you cannot understand how the rulebook is correct, how it works, how it works quite well, except in certain instances based on card text, then I'd submit that maybe you shouldn't be talking about the rulebook.

KevinM wrote:

The rule I keep quoting -- correctly -- in 6.1.1 isn't un-correct. It's correct. It works. All the time. In every case.

Are you at least willing to acknowledge that you changed versions between your first post and your third?

KevinM wrote:

A bleed action that burns no pool is not a successful BLEED [6.1.1].

KevinM wrote:

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]

are not the same. One of them is correct, I grant you that

Oh, wait. EXCEPT FOR SOME CARD BREAKING IT. Yep, exactly as I stated.

For the third time, that is wrong. Strix does not break the rule 6.1.1, it follows it. I have already explained how (which was not difficult since it is mostly copy/paste from Pascal's answer in a linked thread) and am not willing to repeat. If you do not agree, please provide a counter-argument instead of switching to caps lock.

"I'm right, you're wrong.
-Actually, it does not work as you think because of A, B and C.
-Let me rephrase: I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG."

Doesn't work.

In other words: If Strix/etc didn't exist, there'd be no discussion about 6.1.1, because 6.1.1 would be accurate and correct in all cases.

Rule 6.1.1 is correct in all cases as it is now. If Strix didn't exist, the loophole that alows a bleed to be successful without burning pool would most likely have remained unnoticed, but it would still be there, in the rule itself, waiting to be exploited.

The place for loopholes is not in the core rules but on card texts. You seem to agree with that but still do not realize that Rule 6.1.1 and Strix fail on that point and that the change I propose (but have you even read it?) aims exactly at that: migrate the loophole from Rule 6.1.1 to Strix card text. The golden rule is currently not invoked in the case of Strix because Strix does not break any rule.

The personal attacks at the end second half of your post do not deserve an answer. Please stop.

EDIT: added citations.

Outside of personal argument, I must admit that the pro-reform here look like they want to replace something that work actually pretty well with something undefined that may or may not be simpler.

In any case, smallish incremental change - like the one done on disarm to help with outside the hourglass or the one on trix - seem way more controlable and efficient than "we should find a way to define successful that work for all different type of stuff that can happen".

Non-existant user wrote:

The personal attacks at the end second half of your post do not deserve an answer. Please stop.

There are no personal attacks in my post. I'm discussing the subject at-hand. If your definition of "personal" is so broad as to encompass any discussion of the other person then "personal attacks" becomes a meaningless term.

I sincerely believe that you do not understand how a rulebook functions. You are free to disagree with that, as you have. That is what discussion is about. I have nothing further to say past my last post.

Ohlmann wrote:

Outside of personal argument, I must admit that the pro-reform here look like they want to replace something that work actually pretty well with something undefined that may or may not be simpler.

In any case, smallish incremental change - like the one done on disarm to help with outside the hourglass or the one on trix - seem way more controlable and efficient than "we should find a way to define successful that work for all different type of stuff that can happen".

Well-stated. It is worth noting how that fix involved the card and not the rulebook.

I have posted a complete wording change proposal here:
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/32662-damage-immunity?limit=10&start=20#32715
The total change is less than 30 words localized in 2 places only (Rule 6.1.1 and Strix text), with several options, one of them being a wording change with constant rules and the other one allowing to go back to the printed text of Strix. It didn't receive any comment so far. How is that my fault?