LSJ: re red herring-NRA ruling
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
> From: LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>Subject: Re: Re: Red Herring
>
> >See the following post from LSJ:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D452E85.F041D78F%40white-
> >wolf.com
> >
> >google - red herring bleed author:LSJ
> >
> >
> >
> >I know you're going by what that ruling says, and according to that ruling
> >you're right. EVEN though it is a metagaming twinker ruling.
>
>You've got it backwards.
>
>The twink ruling would be that two different actions (Social Charm and
>Legal Manipulations, say) are the same action just because they're both
>types of bleed actions.
>
>The current ruling is just applied English, with any ambiguity resolved so
>as to create a uniform, coherent set of rulings.
>
LSJ, I really think this needs a closer look. I play competitively
offline and on, and I seriouslly had not heard of this ruling before
now. A ruling needs to look at more than 'just applied english' and
needs to look at whats good for the game. What is the point of the
NRA rules if its so easily circumvented by this loophole? A bleed is
a bleed is a bleed. You cant call 2 votes with the same minion a
turn, unless its to get rid of something else in play via a vote. Or
can I under this ruling via charming lobby (different card/type)?
Allowing people to bleed twice or more with the same minion/turn with
a different card or even the cardless action is wrong. That
completely flys in the face of what the NRA is supposed to accomplish.
Even the rush decks have to play a different card at least, and rush
decks typically have to work much harder for their gamewins than bleed
decks. Giving bleed decks another tool (loophole) to oust people is a
bad idea, and not good for the game, when they already are the
strongest archetype in the game.
But as long as we are discussing 'plain english' I'd like to suggest
applying the following;
6.1. Types of Actions
Some action cards are enhanced versions of the default bleed action
6.1.1. Bleed
A minion cannot perform more than one bleed action each turn, even if
he untaps.
Therefore, if you bleed in any form, any subsuqent card or cardless
action that says 'bleed' is a bleed. Simple, fits your criteria of
applied english, and is good for the game. It also not
coincidentally, is how the vast majority of players are already
playing and interpreting the rules. At least from my end of the
table.
Geoff
LSJ
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D452E85.F041D78F%40white-wolf.com
>>>google - red herring bleed author:LSJ
>
> offline and on, and I seriouslly had not heard of this ruling before
> now. A ruling needs to look at more than 'just applied english' and
> needs to look at whats good for the game. What is the point of the
> NRA rules if its so easily circumvented by this loophole? A bleed is
A closer look:
It is not circumvented by that rule.
The acting vampire cannot bleed again by 6.1.1.
The rest of your minions cannot perform the same action again by card text.
> a bleed is a bleed. You cant call 2 votes with the same minion a
> turn, unless its to get rid of something else in play via a vote. Or
> can I under this ruling via charming lobby (different card/type)?
If a minion is blocked while performing a political action and uses
Red Herring, he cannot perform another political action again (by 6.1.7).
The rest of his controller's minions cannot perform *that* political
action, but could perform others, subject to the normal restrictions,
per card text (see also Delaying Tactics).
[Snip rest, I assume it was based on the misunderstanding of the ruling
expressed above. If there's another point in the part I snipped, let
me know.]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com
wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
>>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D452E85.F041D78F%40white-wolf.com
>>>>google - red herring bleed author:LSJ
>>
>> LSJ, I really think this needs a closer look. I play competitively
>> offline and on, and I seriouslly had not heard of this ruling before
>> now. A ruling needs to look at more than 'just applied english' and
>> needs to look at whats good for the game. What is the point of the
>> NRA rules if its so easily circumvented by this loophole? A bleed is
>
>A closer look:
>
>It is not circumvented by that rule.
>The acting vampire cannot bleed again by 6.1.1.
>The rest of your minions cannot perform the same action again by card text.
>
Ok maybe i did misunderstand something, so to check (ignore red
herring completely right now);
Can a minion bleed (cardless action),
freak drive,
bleed again with a card that says 'bleed at'?,
in the same turn?
G
LSJ
> Ok maybe i did misunderstand something, so to check (ignore red
> herring completely right now);
>
> Can a minion bleed (cardless action),
> freak drive,
> bleed again with a card that says 'bleed at'?,
> in the same turn?
No. [6.1.1]
Geen Eggs
> a bleed is a bleed. You cant call 2 votes with the same minion a
> turn, unless its to get rid of something else in play via a vote. Or
> can I under this ruling via charming lobby (different card/type)?
Eh? The vote to get rid of Anarch Revolt (most common) says it's a PA
(according to ELDB anyway). Can you really call this and another PA with
the same minion in one turn?
LSJ
No. They're both political actions.