Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
Name wrote:
> I looked through the on-line rulebook and found this in the "Resolve
Any
> Block Attempts" section 6.2.2: "If the action targets another
Methuselah (or
> something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is
called
> directed, and the Methuselah who is the target (or controls the
target) of
> the action may use her ready untapped minions to attempt to block the
> action. If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at
something
> controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called
undirected . .
> ."
>
> See how it differentiates between an action directed at another
Methuselah
> and something controlled by another Methuselah? This would suggest
that an
> action directed at a Methuselah's cards is not the same thing as an
action
> directed at a Methuselah.
You are mistaking clarification/reminder text for differentiation.
If an action directed at a card a Methuselah controls is actually a
different thing than an action directed at a Methuselah, there would
presumably be some mention, somewhere in the rules, of exactly what the
difference is.
Instead, the two subsets (at a Meth or at a Meth's card) are defined as
both being "Directed Action"s without any difference in effect,
terminology or how they get handled.
> In the glossary a directed action is described as: "Directed Action:
An
> action of one Methuselah's minion that directly affects another
single
> Methuselah or her minions or other cards she controls." Which also
could be
> read to suggest that there is a difference between an action directed
at a
> Methuselah and an action directed at one of his cards.
Except again, nowhere does anything in the rules provide an explanation
to what the hypothetical difference might be; the rules are actually
saying 'there's NO difference between these two, they're both 'directed
actions'.
And has been mentioned in other threads: There doesn't seem to be any
action targetting a Methuselah (instead of his cards) that isn't a
bleed; if the rules meant to word things as:
(an action taken against a Methuselah) or (against a card controlled by
a Methuselah)
instead of an action taken against ((a Methuselah) or (a card he
controls))
....in the first instance it would just read 'a bleed, or an action
against a card a Methuselah controls'.
> I guess I'm wondering now if some of this needs some rewording.
>
> Neil, who needs to get out more
-John Flournoy
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram