Modifying Bleeds and the Crack I have been Smoking?
Peter D Bakija
in regards to how one conducts a bleed (the title of the thread is
something along the lines of "Aggrivated Damage and Skin of Steel,
'cause, well, the thread titles can't necessarily change...). Over the
length of this thread, the following rule has come to light, which
apparently I have been misunderstanding for 12 years:
Apparently, if I go to bleed you for 1, you don't block, I have the
first chance to modify the bleed. If I don't then, and then you don't
react, the bleed resolves, and I don't have a chance to modify the bleed
again (which would open the window for you to react again).
Since I have been playing this game, I have been under the impression
that I could go bleed you for 1, see if you wanted to bounce my bleed of
1, and if you chose not to bounce my bleed of 1, I could then increase
my bleed (and then you would again have the chance to bounce my bleed).
Presumably to see if you will bounce my bleed of 1 before I increase my
bleed. This always struck me as a perfectly reasonable way to approach
this part of the game. But apparently, it doesn't work like this.
Apparently, if I don't play any modifiers on my first opportunity to do
so, my prey can simply end the action by saying "no reaction", and the
bleed resolves for 1.
I'm not saying I don't think the rules work like this, as apparently
they do. But have they always worked like this? Has bleeding always been
a system of:
A: "I bleed for 1"
B: "I don't block"
A: "No modifiers"
B:' "I don't react"
(bleed automatically resolves, transaction ends)
As opposed to what I thought was always a possibility:
A: "I bleed for 1"
B: "I don't block"
A: "No modifiers"
B: "I don't react"
A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
It always seemed (and in 12 years, has never been disabused in my
understanding of the rules, till right now) that it was perfectly
possible and reasonable to go bleed for 1, see if your prey bounces the
bleed of 1, and if they choose not to bounce the bleed of 1, play a
modifier to increase the bleed, and then see if they bounce the new
bleed.
I'm in no way trying to indicate that I thought it was possible to,
like, go bleed for 1, see if they bounce it, and when they don't bounce
the bleed of 1, increase it and them not have the chance to react. But I
was always under the impression that modifiers and reactions happened in
a window of time (after, say, blocking has come and gone, and before the
bleed resolved) that was more fluid than simply "I pass" "Ok, I pass
too" (bleed resolves).
Have I been on crack for 12 years? Or did bleeding used to work like
this, and then there was some rules adjustment that I missed out on at
some point?
For reference, here is what LSJ wrote in the thread on the forum:
"f you pass on playing a modifier and the defender passes on playing a
reaction (and no one else interferes), then the bleed resolves. You
don't get to then choose to play a modifier after everyone else
passes.-LSJ"
Wildly confused.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
LSJ
> Apparently, if I go to bleed you for 1, you don't block, I have the
> first chance to modify the bleed. If I don't then, and then you don't
> react, the bleed resolves, and I don't have a chance to modify the bleed
> again (which would open the window for you to react again).
>
> Since I have been playing this game, I have been under the impression
> that I could go bleed you for 1, see if you wanted to bounce my bleed of
> 1, and if you chose not to bounce my bleed of 1, I could then increase
> my bleed (and then you would again have the chance to bounce my bleed).
> Presumably to see if you will bounce my bleed of 1 before I increase my
> bleed. This always struck me as a perfectly reasonable way to approach
> this part of the game. But apparently, it doesn't work like this.
> Apparently, if I don't play any modifiers on my first opportunity to do
> so, my prey can simply end the action by saying "no reaction", and the
> bleed resolves for 1.
>
> I'm not saying I don't think the rules work like this, as apparently
> they do. But have they always worked like this? Has bleeding always been
> a system of:
>
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B:' "I don't react"
> (bleed automatically resolves, transaction ends)
>
> As opposed to what I thought was always a possibility:
Yes.
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B: "I don't react"
> A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
Or: "A: Do you bounce?" "B: Do you boost?" Bounce? Boost? &c. ad infinitum.
That is, your system has a loop of passes that you either have arbitrarily
limited to two or that can go forever. If the former, why two instead of (the
official, more natural, one)?
> It always seemed (and in 12 years, has never been disabused in my
> understanding of the rules, till right now) that it was perfectly
> possible and reasonable to go bleed for 1, see if your prey bounces the
> bleed of 1, and if they choose not to bounce the bleed of 1, play a
> modifier to increase the bleed, and then see if they bounce the new
> bleed.
>
> I'm in no way trying to indicate that I thought it was possible to,
> like, go bleed for 1, see if they bounce it, and when they don't bounce
> the bleed of 1, increase it and them not have the chance to react. But I
> was always under the impression that modifiers and reactions happened in
> a window of time (after, say, blocking has come and gone, and before the
> bleed resolved) that was more fluid than simply "I pass" "Ok, I pass
> too" (bleed resolves).
>
> Have I been on crack for 12 years? Or did bleeding used to work like
> this, and then there was some rules adjustment that I missed out on at
> some point?
Crack.
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> That is, your system has a loop of passes that you either have arbitrarily
> limited to two or that can go forever. If the former, why two instead of (the
> official, more natural, one)?
Well, it always made sense to me that you could bleed for 1, see if they
bounce the bleed of 1, if not, then modify, and then they could bounce
again. It is one extra loop over the simple "pass"/"pass" model, but one
extra loop that makes sense in a strategic way.
> Crack.
Well, there ya go then. The crack it is.
LSJ
Maybe I'll hold a game show at the NAC called "Correct or Crack?" for
contestants to analyze rulings or fake rulings. :-)
Janne Hägglund
:-D I laughed out loud.
Or you could call it "Correcting the Wall"...
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
librarian
>
>
> As opposed to what I thought was always a possibility:
>
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B: "I don't react"
> A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
I think this is how we have played.
>
> It always seemed (and in 12 years, has never been disabused in my
> understanding of the rules, till right now) that it was perfectly
> possible and reasonable to go bleed for 1, see if your prey bounces the
> bleed of 1, and if they choose not to bounce the bleed of 1, play a
> modifier to increase the bleed, and then see if they bounce the new
> bleed.
>
Please pass the crack pipe, I think we play it wrong. However, spelled
out as you and LSJ have and did on the forum thread, it makes sense. It
will just take getting used to.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
The Name Forgotten
>
> Please pass the crack pipe, I think we play it wrong. However, spelled
> out as you and LSJ have and did on the forum thread, it makes sense. It
> will just take getting used to.
>
Eek, two major player's playing this incorrectly... I better start
posting on our local forum to make sure the players here don't make
the same mistake.
Peter D Bakija
librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> Please pass the crack pipe, I think we play it wrong. However, spelled
> out as you and LSJ have and did on the forum thread, it makes sense. It
> will just take getting used to.
Hah! So I'm not *totally* insane. I mean, like, arguments could be made
otherwise, but at least other people thought the same thing...
The Name Forgotten
>
> > As opposed to what I thought was always a possibility:
>
> > A: "I bleed for 1"
> > B: "I don't block"
> > A: "No modifiers"
> > B: "I don't react"
> > A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> > B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
>
I just want to clarify one more issue surrounding this kind of play.
It goes something like this:
A: "I bleed for 1"
B: "I don't block, any modifiers?"
A: "No modifiers, just 1."
B: "Isabel will play a telepathic counter and reduce the bleed by
one."
A: "Ok, I'll play a conditioning for + 3 Bleed."
B: "No reaction. I'll take the bleed of 3."
Legal or not legal?
There are two things I'm not too sure about.
1) As far as I can tell (from the sequencing rules), since the
reacting meth played a card, the opportunity to play a card returns to
the acting methuselah, thus opening a new window to play bleed
modifiers. Am I correct?
2) Is there such a thing as negative bleed? (could be a moot point) In
other words, could a telepathic counter reduce the bleed to -1 bleed,
so that the further conditioning modifier will only increase the bleed
to 2.
The Name Forgotten
Sorry. Stoopid question. Should've searched for the answer first.
Here's the link to this question that was already posted:
Short answer:
1) Yes, can play bleed modifiers afterwards.
2) Yes, it does reduce the bleed to below 0, making future modifiers
do less damage.
ResurrectioN
James Coupe
Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>A: "I bleed for 1"
>B: "I don't block, any modifiers?"
>A: "No modifiers, just 1."
>B: "Isabel will play a telepathic counter and reduce the bleed by
>one."
>A: "Ok, I'll play a conditioning for + 3 Bleed."
>B: "No reaction. I'll take the bleed of 3."
>
>Legal or not legal?
Fine.
After "no block", it goes back to A. A passes, so B gets the chance to
play a reaction. Because an effect was played, it goes back to A. A
plays an effect (and then passes, implicitly, by not playing anything
else). B declines to react.
Effectively, what you are looking for is two passes in a row - A saying
"I'm done playing cards for now" and B not reacting.
Technically, you are looking for everyone on the table to pass, because
effects could be played by everyone else too. But for the purposes of A
vs B, what you've written is fine.
>There are two things I'm not too sure about.
>1) As far as I can tell (from the sequencing rules), since the
>reacting meth played a card, the opportunity to play a card returns to
>the acting methuselah, thus opening a new window to play bleed
>modifiers. Am I correct?
Yes. Whenever *anyone* plays an effect, it goes back to the acting
Methuselah to play another effect in the same timing phase. Since the
defending Methuselah was reducing the bleed, the acting Methuselah can
still increase the bleed.
>2) Is there such a thing as negative bleed? (could be a moot point) In
>other words, could a telepathic counter reduce the bleed to -1 bleed,
>so that the further conditioning modifier will only increase the bleed
>to 2.
Yes. The actual figure is always tracked - so if you had 50 Telepathic
Misdirections at superior with 50 AUS minions, you'd get bled for 1, -
100, total of -99. The Methuselah doing the bleeding will need to
generate +100 bleed to get back to 1.
The same is true of all other values in V:TES - you always track the
real value. If stealth goes negative, track that. If intercept goes
negative, track that. And so on.
When effects that have some real world effect are applied in the real
world, negative values will count as zero, though. So bleeding for -99
doesn't give them back 99 pool, it's just treated the same as a bleed
for zero. Similarly, -99 hand damage is just 0 hand damage. -99 cost
is just 0 cost. And so on.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
as...@hotmail.com
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B: "I don't react"
> A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
I myself and everyone I´ve played against since 1994, including
numerous tournaments and many different playgroups, even though the "I
don´t react"-part has almost never been outspoken. LSJ, can you please
clarify this once more?
James Coupe
The sequencing rules are pretty clear.
If the acting Methuselah passes in a given time slot, the defending
Methuselah gets to play an effect. If they both pass (and, technically,
everyone else does too), you move on.
If the acting Methuselah really needs to play an effect, they should do
so before they pass. Otherwise, they might not get the chance.
Similarly, you don't get to say:
A: "Okay, choose range. I don't maneuver."
B: "Neither do I."
A: "Okay then. I maneuver."
You've both passed, so you move on.
LSJ
Correct.
After the "I don't block" declaration (which counts as an effect), the acting
Methuselah gets the impulse (the opportunity to play the next effect).
If she passes, then the defending Methuselah gets the impulse.
When the defender passes, each other Methuselah in turn clockwise from the
acting Methuselah gets an impulse.
When they pass, that window closes (bringing up the "successful resolution" window).
Chris Berger
> >> Crack.
>
> > Well, there ya go then. The crack it is.
>
> Maybe I'll hold a game show at the NAC called "Correct or Crack?" for
> contestants to analyze rulings or fake rulings. :-)
Here's one for you: At one time, didn't Hellhound have the text,
"Does not tap when blocking."? I swear to god, I thought that it
maybe used to say that, or maybe a new version did, or something.
Obviously, it was the crack.
Oh, and the bleed thing... we've always (or well, usually) played it
as:
"I bleed for 1."
"No block, how much is it really for?"
Where the "how much is it really for" is binding unless the prey (or
anyone else) reacts. Which is essentially the same thing as:
"I bleed for 1."
"No block."
"No modifier."
Peter D Bakija
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> The sequencing rules are pretty clear.
Well, kind of--in the online rulebook, the sequencing rules specifically
say *when* someone gets an opportunity to play a card (i.e. acting
minion goes first till they are done, but at no point it is particularly
clear that once they "pass" on playing an effect, they are no longer
able to do so. The sequencing rules could probably be clearer on this
point. Especially given that some parts of the game (bleeding, combat)
are very strict in their sequencing and others (political referendum)
are not.
> Similarly, you don't get to say:
>
> A: "Okay, choose range. I don't maneuver."
> B: "Neither do I."
> A: "Okay then. I maneuver."
>
> You've both passed, so you move on.
Well, to be fair, the rules on combat sequencing are very specific and
detailed (and lengthy). The rules on bleed sequencing are pretty vague
(the actual paragraph on "how to bleed" is 4 scentences long).
as...@hotmail.com
So...
A: "I bleed for 1"
B: "I don't block"
A: "No modifiers"
B: "I don't react"
A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
... is illegal play? What part is illegal?
Dorrinal Blackmantle
> I'm not saying I don't think the rules work like this, as apparently
> they do. But have they always worked like this? Has bleeding always been
> a system of:
>
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B:' "I don't react"
> (bleed automatically resolves, transaction ends)
>
> As opposed to what I thought was always a possibility:
>
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B: "I don't react"
> A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
This is crack-addled to my mind, as a competent player will wait for
all modifiers before reacting with something like Deflection. Unless
you know for a fact they will deflect a bleed, you might as well play
your Conditioning as soon as they say "no block". You're better off
teaching n00bs to play the game well than taking advantage of them for
being sloppy :P
> It always seemed (and in 12 years, has never been disabused in my
> understanding of the rules, till right now) that it was perfectly
> possible and reasonable to go bleed for 1, see if your prey bounces the
> bleed of 1, and if they choose not to bounce the bleed of 1, play a
> modifier to increase the bleed, and then see if they bounce the new
> bleed.
This sounds a lot like the "not currently blocking" nonsense that I
encountered when I first started playing in tournaments. People
seemed to think they could draw out bleed modifiers before declining
to block by saying "not currently blocking" and forcing the acting
methuselah to tip his/her hand.
After the discussion on Deflection and the blocking window, I wouldn't
be surprised if we keep finding new ways we've been playing the game
wrong for years...
--
Dorrinal Blackmantle
Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City
Loves teh Crack.
LSJ
> So...
>
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B: "I don't react"
> A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
>
The Conditioning after all-pass.
Peter D Bakija
"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is crack-addled to my mind, as a competent player will wait for
> all modifiers before reacting with something like Deflection.
While my understanding of the sequencing rules were clearly off, that
someone would want to see if their prey deflected the bleed of 1 or not
before playing a modifier makes perfect sense.
Sometimes, you have, say, a handful of deflections and are perfectly
willing to deflect a bleed of 1--sure, you would rather deflect a bigger
bleed, but if you think they might not have a modifier in hand (i.e.,
say, they haven't played one for a while), you might happily bounce the
bleed of 1. On the other hand, you might only have 1 deflection in hand
and see a lot of bleeds coming your way. You might be perfectly happy to
take the bleed of 1 and save the deflection for a bigger bleed. So you
are totally willing to take the bleed of 1. Either of these is perfectly
possible, and could reasonably result in the guy bleeding for 1 wanting
to see if his prey bounces an unmodified bleed of 1 before playing a
modifier. Apparently, this isn't legal. But that doesn't mean that it
doesn't make sense.
> Unless
> you know for a fact they will deflect a bleed, you might as well play
> your Conditioning as soon as they say "no block". You're better off
> teaching n00bs to play the game well than taking advantage of them for
> being sloppy :P
That wasn't the issue being discussed. Again, it makes perfect sense
(well, at least to me) to go bleed for 1, wait to see if your prey
bounces the bleed of 1 (which happens sometimes), and if not, then play
the Conditioning (and see if they bounce that). But that this was
possible was a misunderstanding, apparently.
> This sounds a lot like the "not currently blocking" nonsense that I
> encountered when I first started playing in tournaments.
I'm not quite sure why. It makes perfect sense to see if your prey wants
to bounce a bleed of 1 before playing a modifier (sometimes folks bounce
a bleed of 1. Sometimes they don't). If they don't bounce the bleed of
1, increase the bleed, and see if they bounce that. I mean, yeah, ok,
apparently this is not a legal play. But I can't imagine why you would
think that it wouldn't be a reasonable thing to do, if it were legal.
> People
> seemed to think they could draw out bleed modifiers before declining
> to block by saying "not currently blocking" and forcing the acting
> methuselah to tip his/her hand.
This wasn't an issue of trying to force someone to tip their hand. It
was, what seemed to be, a perfectly reasonable course of action--go to
bleed for 1, see if they bounce the bleed of 1, if they don't, increase
the bleed and see if they bounce that. Not actually legal, it turns out.
But perfectly sensible.
> After the discussion on Deflection and the blocking window, I wouldn't
> be surprised if we keep finding new ways we've been playing the game
> wrong for years...
Likely.
Peter D Bakija
as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> So...
>
> A: "I bleed for 1"
> B: "I don't block"
> A: "No modifiers"
> B: "I don't react"
> A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
>
> ... is illegal play? What part is illegal?
The part where Player A plays a Conditioning after both he and Player A
passed earlier in the transaction.
If I go to bleed for 1, no block occurs, I have the first opportunity to
play a modifier. If I decline to modify, my prey then declines to react,
the transaction is over. Two "passes" in a row (i.e. I don't play a
modifier, you don't play a reaction) closes the window and moves us
straight to the resolve the bleed step.
So if you want to modify your bleed, and you don't want to miss the
opportunity to do so, do so before you see if your prey wants to react
to it. If you pass on playing a modifier and they pass on playing a
reaction, the bleed is over and resolves.
I have misunderstood this for years. Apparently, I'm not the only one.
Blooded Sand
> In article <1170611623.255084.113...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > So...
>
> > A: "I bleed for 1"
> > B: "I don't block"
> > A: "No modifiers"
> > B: "I don't react"
> > A: "Ok, I play Conditioning for +3 bleed"
> > B: "Ok, then I play Deflection"
>
> > ... is illegal play? What part is illegal?
>
> The part where Player A plays a Conditioning after both he and Player A
> passed earlier in the transaction.
>
> If I go to bleed for 1, no block occurs, I have the first opportunity to
> play a modifier. If I decline to modify, my prey then declines to react,
> the transaction is over. Two "passes" in a row (i.e. I don't play a
> modifier, you don't play a reaction) closes the window and moves us
> straight to the resolve the bleed step.
>
> So if you want to modify your bleed, and you don't want to miss the
> opportunity to do so, do so before you see if your prey wants to react
> to it. If you pass on playing a modifier and they pass on playing a
> reaction, the bleed is over and resolves.
>
> I have misunderstood this for years. Apparently, I'm not the only one.
>
> Peter D Bakija
Well, we have always played this as follows:
A: Bleed for 1, block
B: No block
A: conditioning et al
B: deflect or accept bleed.
Perfectly reasonable, and just want to confirm this is correct
Peter D Bakija
"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, we have always played this as follows:
> A: Bleed for 1, block
> B: No block
> A: conditioning et al
> B: deflect or accept bleed.
> Perfectly reasonable, and just want to confirm this is correct
That is correct. What you can't do is:
A: Bleed for 1
B: No block
A: No modifier
B: No reaction
A: Conditioning for +3
B: Deflection
The transaction automatically ends after B states there is no reaction.
J
A. I bleed for 1.
B. Are there any modifiers?
A. Do you block?
B. Are there any modifiers?
A. Do you block?
etc
When does the reacting meth have to state that they are either
blocking or not blocking. Should they have to answer one way or the
other as soon as they are asked if they are blocking? As acting meth,
can I ignore the questions of my prey until they have answered the
question pertaining to blocking?
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
LSJ
> So what about...
>
> A. I bleed for 1.
> B. Are there any modifiers?
> A. Do you block?
> B. Are there any modifiers?
> A. Do you block?
> etc
>
> When does the reacting meth have to state that they are either
> blocking or not blocking.
When everyone is finished playing effects prior to that decision.
> Should they have to answer one way or the
> other as soon as they are asked if they are blocking?
By asking for blocks, the acting Methuselah is "passing" her impulse (implicitly
declining to play any more effects before the block decision or other reaction
or effect).
> As acting meth,
> can I ignore the questions of my prey until they have answered the
> question pertaining to blocking?
Mostly. You've inherently passed by asking for blocks.
The decision not to block, however, is an event. When that event occurs, you
(the acting Methuselah) get the next impulse, and may play modifiers as you like.
Peter D Bakija
"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So what about...
>
> A. I bleed for 1.
> B. Are there any modifiers?
> A. Do you block?
> B. Are there any modifiers?
> A. Do you block?
> etc
>
As blocking is a whole separate thing, you don't have to play modifiers
till after blocking is resolved. You can simply go:
A: I bleed for 1
B: Are there any modifiers?
A: No
B: I don't block
A: I play Conditioning.
and so on.
> When does the reacting meth have to state that they are either
> blocking or not blocking. Should they have to answer one way or the
> other as soon as they are asked if they are blocking? As acting meth,
> can I ignore the questions of my prey until they have answered the
> question pertaining to blocking?
As you get a new chance to play modifiers after blocking is resolved,
you can simply decline to play modifiers till blocking is resolved.
Dorrinal Blackmantle
> In article <1170612380.672671.139...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is crack-addled to my mind, as a competent player will wait for
> > all modifiers before reacting with something like Deflection.
>
> While my understanding of the sequencing rules were clearly off, that
> someone would want to see if their prey deflected the bleed of 1 or not
> before playing a modifier makes perfect sense.
It makes perfect sense from the perspective of the acting methuselah
-- because it's a bad play. I'm all for taking advantage of
mistakes... but you're encouraging it? Has this ever worked? I
daresay you've been taking advantage of morons who don't make you show
your modifiers when appropriate.
> Sometimes, you have, say, a handful of deflections and are perfectly
> willing to deflect a bleed of 1--sure, you would rather deflect a bigger
> bleed, but if you think they might not have a modifier in hand (i.e.,
> say, they haven't played one for a while), you might happily bounce the
> bleed of 1. On the other hand, you might only have 1 deflection in hand
> and see a lot of bleeds coming your way. You might be perfectly happy to
> take the bleed of 1 and save the deflection for a bigger bleed. So you
> are totally willing to take the bleed of 1. Either of these is perfectly
> possible, and could reasonably result in the guy bleeding for 1 wanting
> to see if his prey bounces an unmodified bleed of 1 before playing a
> modifier. Apparently, this isn't legal. But that doesn't mean that it
> doesn't make sense.
Sub-optimal play doesn't make any sense to me. Being perfectly
willing to bounce a bleed of one, and actually doing so before giving
the acting methuselah the opportunity to waste any modifiers, are two
different things. Barring any corner cases, a defender should wait
for modifiers.
Just sayin'... your misunderstanding of sequencing has likely resulted
from sloppy/sub-optimal play. That's why it makes no sense to me.
--
Dorrinal Blackmantle
Grouch of Salt Lake City
Flawless V:TES Player
0 mistakes in 482 games
Shade
> Since I have been playing this game, I have been under the impression
> that I could go bleed you for 1, see if you wanted to bounce my bleed of
> 1, and if you chose not to bounce my bleed of 1, I could then increase
> my bleed (and then you would again have the chance to bounce my bleed).
> Presumably to see if you will bounce my bleed of 1 before I increase my
> bleed. This always struck me as a perfectly reasonable way to approach
> this part of the game.
I'm pretty sure I've played it your way as well actually and it seemed
reasonable to me. I don't think it was crack related although I'm
fairly certain there was alcohol being consumed the first time I
played so I blame that ;-)
Not that I think it makes too much difference overall but anyhow it
wasn't just you.
Simon
Johannes Walch
> I'm pretty sure I've played it your way as well actually and it seemed
> reasonable to me. I don't think it was crack related although I'm
> fairly certain there was alcohol being consumed the first time I
> played so I blame that ;-)
>
> Not that I think it makes too much difference overall but anyhow it
> wasn't just you.
I am not sure that it doesn´t make a difference. Myself and numerous
(like all) other people I know have been handling it like Peter for many
years now and in various (international) tournaments.
This tells me that there is something wrong with a) the rulebook and b)
the way tournaments/judges/rules are handled.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> It's conspiracy to nerf dominate, i tell ya!
>
Well it nerfs Conditioning but it boosts Deflection.
Yay!
Peter D Bakija
Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote:
> I am not sure that it doesn´t make a difference. Myself and numerous
> (like all) other people I know have been handling it like Peter for many
> years now and in various (international) tournaments.
>
> This tells me that there is something wrong with a) the rulebook and b)
> the way tournaments/judges/rules are handled.
Awsome! I'm looking less and less insane as time goes on!
Heh. To second what Johannes is saying here, I'd never claim that my
understanding for the rules is right or anything on this point, but it
is very possible that the rulebook could get cleared up on this
point--as I was coming through the online rulebook in response to this
thread, I discovered that the rules specifically on how to bleed someone
involves 4 scentences (none of which spell out the "pass, pass, resolve"
model of play) and the sequencing rules don't specifically state that
there is a "pass, pass, resolve" system. It implies it in a kind of
vague way, but probably could benefit from some specificity.
LSJ
Perhaps, but note that the ambiguity only allows two results: the official and
the infinite. So only one reasonable result.
Peter D Bakija
"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It makes perfect sense from the perspective of the acting methuselah
> -- because it's a bad play. I'm all for taking advantage of
> mistakes... but you're encouraging it? Has this ever worked? I
> daresay you've been taking advantage of morons who don't make you show
> your modifiers when appropriate.
Uhh, I'm still not seeing how it is bad play. Sometimes as the reacting
methuselah, you have a handfull of Deflections that you want to use, and
will bounce bleeds of 1 regardless or you are gambling that your
predator has no modifiers (as they haven't played any all game, say)--in
such an instance (i.e. it is very likely they are simply bleeding for 1,
and you don't want to pass on the opportunity to bounce the bleed of 1).
So sometimes, you simply bounce the bleed of 1. As the acting
methuselah, it is worth seeing if they do this (i.e. simply bounce the
bleed of 1) before playing a modifier (given the understanding that you
could do that, which was an incorrect understanding).
> Sub-optimal play doesn't make any sense to me. Being perfectly
> willing to bounce a bleed of one, and actually doing so before giving
> the acting methuselah the opportunity to waste any modifiers, are two
> different things. Barring any corner cases, a defender should wait
> for modifiers.
Still not seeing the sub-optimal aspect of this. The rules sequence I
was seeing that made this work involved the bleed ending and resolving
after no one had any cards to play (i.e. by indicating that you were not
reacting to the bleed of 1, you were committing to taking the bleed of
1, unless it changed). So you could either take the bleed of 1 (in which
case it was too late to play a bounce card unless it then got increased)
or you could bounce the bleed of 1 (which was better than taking the
bleed of 1, if you had a handfull of bounce cards you wanted to cycle or
you had reason to believe that your predator wasn't playing bleed
modifiers).
> Just sayin'... your misunderstanding of sequencing has likely resulted
> from sloppy/sub-optimal play. That's why it makes no sense to me.
Well, no, it resulted from a misunderstanding of the sequencing rules.
LSJ
> In article <1170650386.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It makes perfect sense from the perspective of the acting methuselah
>> -- because it's a bad play. I'm all for taking advantage of
>> mistakes... but you're encouraging it? Has this ever worked? I
>> daresay you've been taking advantage of morons who don't make you show
>> your modifiers when appropriate.
>
> Uhh, I'm still not seeing how it is bad play. Sometimes as the reacting
> methuselah, you have a handfull of Deflections that you want to use, and
> will bounce bleeds of 1 regardless or you are gambling that your
> predator has no modifiers (as they haven't played any all game, say)--in
> such an instance (i.e. it is very likely they are simply bleeding for 1,
> and you don't want to pass on the opportunity to bounce the bleed of 1).
> So sometimes, you simply bounce the bleed of 1. As the acting
> methuselah, it is worth seeing if they do this (i.e. simply bounce the
> bleed of 1) before playing a modifier (given the understanding that you
> could do that, which was an incorrect understanding).
As the defending Methuselah, you should just wait for the final "pass" from the
acting Methuselah.
The sequencing rules are quite clear on the defending Methuselah going after the
acting Methuselah, so even if you have a second loop (or a third, or an infinite
number), in every case, the defending Methuselah simply waits until the last
iteration of the loop before deflecting (or taking the bleed).
1.A: Bleed
2.B: No block.
3.A: Pass ("do you bounce?")
4.B: Pass ("no bounce, do you modify?")
5.A: Modify
6.B: Bounce
Or
1.A: Bleed
2.B: No block.
3.A: Pass ("do you bounce?")
4.B: Pass ("no bounce, do you modify?")
5.A: Pass
6.B: Bounce
(With 3 and 4 repeated as many times as you like before finally getting to 5 and
6 -- or omitting 3 and 4 altogether to save time, as in the official version).
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> The sequencing rules are quite clear on the defending Methuselah going after
> the
> acting Methuselah, so even if you have a second loop (or a third, or an
> infinite
> number), in every case, the defending Methuselah simply waits until the last
> iteration of the loop before deflecting (or taking the bleed).
Ah, see, you are clearly misunderstanding my misunderstanding of the
rules. But as it is all completely moot, there is no good reason to
continue to explain it :-)
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Perhaps, but note that the ambiguity only allows two results: the official
> and
> the infinite. So only one reasonable result.
Maybe, maybe not--the understanding that I had was not the official one,
and not an infinite one. I can't see how it could hurt to make the
sequencing rules a bit more concrete (i.e. make the "pass, pass,
resolve" model very explicit).
LSJ
> In article <gGGxh.52321$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but note that the ambiguity only allows two results: the official
>> and
>> the infinite. So only one reasonable result.
>
> Maybe, maybe not--the understanding that I had was not the official one,
> and not an infinite one.
But that understanding was not based on the rules text, since the rules text
does not support an understanding that results in the acting Methuselah getting
the last "pass".
> I can't see how it could hurt to make the
> sequencing rules a bit more concrete (i.e. make the "pass, pass,
> resolve" model very explicit).
In the same way, it couldn't hurt to put the entire E/R/C list into the rulebook.
Rehlow
I'm surprised so many people have been playing this wrong. I guess its
because our playgroup has always played it correctly. Then again, I
didn't know playing Deflection created an implicit I don't block, but
since we don't play a large number of Direct Intervention in the
playgroup that situation never/rarely came up.
As pointed out elsewhere with an example to the maneuver phase, once
both players pass, the phase is done, you move on. Blocking is a
phase, so there is an explicit block or no block resolution. Bouncing
a bleed is not a phase, so there is no mandatory do you bounce yes/no
declaration and then creating another window to play cards.
I think the rulebook is fine, but it looks like individual/playgroups'
interpretation of the rulebook could be better handled. As far as I
know there is no formal test for becoming a judge, correct? I'm sure
its no small amount of work, but an annual test of rules (based
largely on issues that came up that year) that judges could take would
be a nice way to know the judges are on top of current rules and all
ruling the same way.
Later,
~Rehlow
Johannes Walch
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> In article <gGGxh.52321$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps, but note that the ambiguity only allows two results: the
>>> official and the infinite. So only one reasonable result.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not--the understanding that I had was not the official
>> one, and not an infinite one.
>
> But that understanding was not based on the rules text, since the rules
> text does not support an understanding that results in the acting
> Methuselah getting the last "pass".
But at least it was ambigous enough for the stupid, crack-people like me
and Peter to misunderstand it or overread it. Of course the perfectly
reasonable people like you get it, but we are asking only for a little
clarification to help people understand the rules.
>> I can't see how it could hurt to make the sequencing rules a bit more
>> concrete (i.e. make the "pass, pass, resolve" model very explicit).
>
> In the same way, it couldn't hurt to put the entire E/R/C list into the
> rulebook.
If E/R/C is referring to rarity it is a) way to long (not only 2
sentences like the afformentioned suggestion) and b) has nothing to do
with the rules. So your argument would be kind of moot. If E/R/C is
something else please enlighten me (again).
--
johannes walch
LSJ
> LSJ schrieb:
>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> In article <gGGxh.52321$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but note that the ambiguity only allows two results: the
>>>> official and the infinite. So only one reasonable result.
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not--the understanding that I had was not the official
>>> one, and not an infinite one.
>>
>> But that understanding was not based on the rules text, since the
>> rules text does not support an understanding that results in the
>> acting Methuselah getting the last "pass".
>
> But at least it was ambigous enough for the stupid, crack-people like me
> and Peter to misunderstand it or overread it. Of course the perfectly
> reasonable people like you get it, but we are asking only for a little
> clarification to help people understand the rules.
It is clear that the defender gets a chance to pass or react after the actor
passes, so that misunderstanding is remedied by reading the rules, not by asking
that the rules be rewritten (and then hoping that they'll then be read).
>>> I can't see how it could hurt to make the sequencing rules a bit more
>>> concrete (i.e. make the "pass, pass, resolve" model very explicit).
>>
>> In the same way, it couldn't hurt to put the entire E/R/C list into
>> the rulebook.
>
> If E/R/C is referring to rarity it is a) way to long (not only 2
> sentences like the afformentioned suggestion) and b) has nothing to do
> with the rules. So your argument would be kind of moot. If E/R/C is
> something else please enlighten me (again).
Errata, rulings, and clarifications list.
Kevin M.
> I am not sure that it doesn´t make a difference. Myself and numerous
> (like all) other people I know have been handling it like Peter for
> many years now and in various (international) tournaments.
>
> This tells me that there is something wrong with a) the rulebook and
> b) the way tournaments/judges/rules are handled.
You know me, and I have neither played it in that sloppy fashion, nor have
I ever judged it in that sloppy fashion, so perhaps you should stop
looking at the rulebook and judges and look inward for the solution to
your problem. ;)
ooooooohhhhhhmmmmmmmm
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
Kevin M.
> Awsome! I'm looking less and less insane as time goes on!
Nope. You're still crazy. :)
Kevin M.
> But at least it was ambigous enough for the stupid, crack-people like
> me and Peter to misunderstand it or overread it. Of course the
> perfectly reasonable people like you get it, but we are asking only
> for a little clarification to help people understand the rules.
I would say that unless you can provide a very specific example, that
[6.2] and all its subsections are totally, completely clear on this point,
and your (and Peter's) misunderstandings do not come from the rulebook,
but rather your wish (and others', as I play with players that, to this
day, believe that taking advantage of the rules to win = fun) to create a
situation where you have the advantage.
Read [6.2] and all its subsections for 5 minutes. Then read them again,
trying to force those rules there to conform to the way you say you have
been playing all this time. If you're honest, you won't be able to
reconcile the two, and you'll end up with "Wow, I guess I created
something that wasn't there, thanks for help correcting my
misunderstanding, love and kisses XOXOXO!"
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> I would say that unless you can provide a very specific example, that
> [6.2] and all its subsections are totally, completely clear on this point,
> and your (and Peter's) misunderstandings do not come from the rulebook,
> but rather your wish (and others', as I play with players that, to this
> day, believe that taking advantage of the rules to win = fun) to create a
> situation where you have the advantage.
To be specific, I think, at least in my case, it came from the ambiguity
of what happens in an infinite loop case that seemed possible (when the
"pass/pass/resolve" model was unclear, as it probably was a hundred
years ago when I figured out how to play this game. Mind you, this week
is probably the first time I actually read the rulebook in, like, a
decade...)
So at least in the logic I could figure (and probably the result of lots
of usenet discussion in the mid 90's), it seemed that an infinite loop
of "No modifier/no reaction/then no modifier/then no reaction/then no
modifier..." was possible, which resulted in an "understanding" of the
rules that had the person being bled having, at some point, to accept
the bleed at its current level. So when the person being bled was like
"I'm not blocking, I'm taking the bleed of 1 (unless it changes)" (which
is how bleeds have happened in these here parts as far as I can
remember), they were committing to:
A) Ending the possible endless loop.
B) Take that bleed of 1 unless it changed.
The target of the bleed (in my "understanding") was essentially
responsible for ending the possible loop by taking the bleed (i.e. by
committing to take the bleed at its current level), and unless something
changed, by doing so, they activated the resolution of the action.
Which made perfect sense for all these years. Granted, now that I see
that the bleed action works with a very cut and dry "pass/pass/resolve"
system (just like combat), the actual rules make much more sense than
the rules I thought existed.
Robert Goudie
> So when the person being bled was like
> "I'm not blocking, I'm taking the bleed of 1 (unless it changes)" (which
> is how bleeds have happened in these here parts as far as I can
> remember), they were committing to:
>
> A) Ending the possible endless loop.
> B) Take that bleed of 1 unless it changed.
[clip]
> Which made perfect sense for all these years. Granted, now that I see
> that the bleed action works with a very cut and dry "pass/pass/resolve"
> system (just like combat), the actual rules make much more sense than
> the rules I thought existed.
I think people start to get confused between the shorthand and the
actual sequencing rules. We all play with the shorthand and sometimes
forget that those exchanges must still be rooted in the sequencing
rules.
Now, just because you now know the sequencing rules doesn't mean that
you have to verbalize each one of them. When the actor bleeds and you
say "I'll take that bleed of 1" you are jumping ahead but you cannot
be declining to react at this point. Otherwise, you'd be robbing the
acting player of their opportunity to play Action Modifiers. All
you've really done so far is say you aren't blocking. The priority
returns to the acting player who may then choose to play modifiers.
You may then play your Deflection.
It's the same as being the reacting player in combat and blurting out
that you've got "hands for 1" as a strike before the acting minion has
manuevered. You've used shorthand for "I play no pre-range cards,
don't manuever, and select hands for 1." But if the acting player
plays a Torn Signpost you aren't committed to all of those other
things you blurted out.
-Robert
Azel
A: bleed for 1.
B: *silence*
A: ok, do you block?
B: since you asked that question that means you pass, right?
A: yes, i pass
B: then i pass.
resolve bleed for 1.
but if i ever mentioned that i do not block that allows playing an act
mod. right? so, as has been typed before:
A: bleed for 1. do you block?
B: no block.
A: Conditioning.
A: pass
B: pass
resolve bleed
so... i just must remember to *never, ever, ever* say "no block." all i
have to do is ask if A passes. as soon as they ask for "no block" or
something else that implies "pass," i just have to say "pass" and the
action immediately moves to resolution. correct?
if so, this makes things easier. no more silly jedi mind tricks. just be
sure to never say "no block" when you can just say "pass," "reduce," or
"bounce." or did i miss something in this long thread?
James Coupe
<opao...@comcast.net> writes:
>ok, let me get this straight:
>
>A: bleed for 1.
>B: *silence*
>A: ok, do you block?
>B: since you asked that question that means you pass, right?
>A: yes, i pass
>B: then i pass.
>resolve bleed for 1.
Asking for blocks is implicitly passing, yes. However, when player B
declines to block, the "impulse" goes back to A. So A can play bleed
modifiers after the pass on the block.
>but if i ever mentioned that i do not block that allows playing an act
>mod.
No. You don't get to get around this with verbal acrobatics. If, when
asked if you're blocking, you "pass" then you have implicitly said "I am
not blocking." It matters not if you say this in English, French, sign
language, or through the medium of improvisational dance. If the other
plays on the table understand that you're not blocking, you've declined
to block. If they don't understand that you're not blocking, you still
need to make that declaration - however you do.
>right? so, as has been typed before:
>
>A: bleed for 1. do you block?
>B: no block.
>A: Conditioning.
>A: pass
>B: pass
>resolve bleed
>
>so... i just must remember to *never, ever, ever* say "no block."
No.
>all i have to do is ask if A passes. as soon as they ask for "no block"
>or something else that implies "pass," i just have to say "pass" and
>the action immediately moves to resolution. correct?
No.
>if so, this makes things easier. no more silly jedi mind tricks. just
>be sure to never say "no block" when you can just say "pass," "reduce,"
>or "bounce." or did i miss something in this long thread?
Yes.
Inherent in all this is that it doesn't matter how you communicate the
sequencing to the players so long as they all understand what's going
on. If "Do you block?" "Pass." communicates that you're not blocking to
your table, you have declined to block in exactly the same way as saying
"No block."
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Peter D Bakija
> ok, let me get this straight:
>
> A: bleed for 1.
> B: *silence*
> A: ok, do you block?
> B: since you asked that question that means you pass, right?
> A: yes, i pass
> B: then i pass.
> resolve bleed for 1.
>
> but if i ever mentioned that i do not block that allows playing an act
> mod. right? so, as has been typed before:
As noted by James, this doesn't work. Blocking is a totally seperate
step from the "post blocking/pre resolution" step of a bleed. So
regardless of what you do, after blocking is resolved, the acting
methuselah always has the opportunity to play modifiers.
So you go:
A: "Bleed of 1"
B: silence
A: "Do you block?"
B: silence
A: "Ok. I take it that means you don't block."
B: silence.
A: "I play a Conditioning."
B: "Ok. I play deflection."
That is assuming you don't get slapped in the head for all those
instances of staring blankly in silence...
-Peter
Azel
ok, thanks for the clarification. but, um, this isn't an explicitly
declared step in the manual. or if it is it needs a definite and
sensible flow chart that combat and turn sequence has for VTES (and how
most CCGs generally display accordingly). in fact, i think it's kinda
inexcusable that i have to resort to this to figure this sort of thing
out. i second Peter's request that the next manual explicitly state such
steps, preferably in a classic bullet-indent format (ie. 1. a. i. ii. b.
2. a. i. b. i.). apparently "no block" is an absolutely fixed step with
zero-to-none fluidity in the action process. this is definitely news.
anyway, thanks for the clarification. i'm just kinda waiting for the day
when we all just give up the ghost and just submit to the KISS logic of
"effect stack" of MtG and "pass and permission" of L5R. and yet people
wonder why this game has difficulty recruiting... clarity issues like
this kinda show why. just wait until i declare my blocks via
interpretive dance! :shakes fist of impotent rage:
Raille
>
> It is clear that the defender gets a chance to pass or react after the actor
> passes, so that misunderstanding is remedied by reading the rules, not by asking
> that the rules be rewritten (and then hoping that they'll then be read).
Having been playing the Vtes On-Line its very clear that the rules are
*not* clear. Too many players think that once the bleed is declared
the reacting players only gets one chance to react and some thing that
blocking is first and formost, so you can't even play cards until you
declare a block.
Its getting better since the more experiance are slowing educating the
newbies, but at the same time certain players are also teaching others
the wrong way.
The rules just don't help as writen so reading them does not help
clarify this area.
Raille
LSJ
> Having been playing the Vtes On-Line its very clear that the rules are
> *not* clear. Too many players think that once the bleed is declared
> the reacting players only gets one chance to react and some thing that
> blocking is first and formost, so you can't even play cards until you
> declare a block.
>
> clarify this area.
The rules as written address that directly.
If you wish to claim that they don't, please explain how the following can be
interpreted (since we're assuming that it is being read) to disallow the
defending player the option to react (quoted from 1.6.1) :
At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next
card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another.
Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the
cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in
clockwise order from the acting Methuselah.
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next
> card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and
> another.
> Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in
> the
> cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in
> clockwise order from the acting Methuselah.
Just for the sake of clarity, I can't see how it could possibly hurt to
turn the above paragraph into the below paragraph:
At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the
next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another
and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the
defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then
to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting
Methuselah. <Once a Methuselah passes, she may not play further cards or
effects unless another Methuselah plays a card or effect. If all
Methuselae (Methuselahs?) pass in order, the action immediately
resolves.>
Or something to that effect. Just a couple scentences to clarify things.
Johannes Walch
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. I never argued that there
the rules are not very clear and logic when you read them a few times
and really try to think about it.
But if the person reading this is not really thinking it through for
whatever reason the clarification mentioned by Peter would point him to
it. Especially when you assume that a lot of players are people whose
primary language is not English.
--
johannes walch