lock Re: Damage immunity

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.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 05 Jul 2012 12:30 by Ankha. Reason: fixed bbcode
The topic has been locked.
More
05 Jul 2012 13:52 #32790 by KevinM
Replied by KevinM 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."

Two sentences before this sentence which you and Boris wish to modify in the definition of a Bleed's effect:

"...the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount."

So what you want to change that sentence to would be redundant, because it's already defined.

Again: Read the rulebook. It works. 6.1.1 works. 1.4 works. And sometimes the cards break things.

Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
The topic has been locked.
More
05 Jul 2012 18:30 #32819 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity

So what you want to change that sentence to would be redundant, because it's already defined.

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.

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
The following user(s) said Thank You: Squidalot, Amenophobis
The topic has been locked.
More
22 Mar 2021 22:42 #101917 by deslaure
Replied by deslaure on topic Re: Damage immunity
And then... What about Damage immunity ? What does «immune to» means?
The topic has been locked.
More
23 Mar 2021 07:27 #101919 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity

And then... What about Damage immunity ? What does «immune to» means?

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.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The topic has been locked.
More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.146 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum