Anthology set previews: April 17

Lönkka wrote: TwoRazorReign, have you checked the wording for the upcoming revised version of Madness Network (opposed to the current one)?

Perhaps it is worded in the same way as the upcoming Enkil Cog reprint...

That's why I'm bringing it up. I'm wondering if the wordings will be consistent eventually.

TwoRazorReign wrote: So, here's where the confusion is: a "bleed" is either successful or unsuccessful. It does not resolve much like a referendum of a political action doesn't resolve. A "bleed action" resolves with a successful or unsuccessful bleed.

Enkil Cog changed the word "action" to "bleed."

Why?

You are parsing it wrong. There is no difference between "bleed" and "bleed action." A bleed is an action, all actions resolve, and the resolution of the bleed is the resolution of the action if the action is successful.

However, there is a difference between "successful bleed" and "successful action," and surely you understand that if the wording "successful bleed action" were used, then "successful" would qualify the action, not the bleed. It is not about timing, it is about the criterion used to define success.

Boris The Blade wrote: You are parsing it wrong. There is no difference between "bleed" and "bleed action." A bleed is an action, all actions resolve, and the resolution of the bleed is the resolution of the action if the action is successful.

However, there is a difference between "successful bleed" and "successful action," and surely you understand that if the wording "successful bleed action" were used, then "successful" would qualify the action, not the bleed.

Correct me if any of the following is wrong (bear with me here, I'm no expert at VTES):

When you bleed with + 1 bleed as a D action, do you assign the number to the bleed or the action? I'm thinking you assign it to the bleed, which can either be successful or unsuccessful. Then the action resolves regardless of the bleed being successful or not. "Bleed" and "action" are conceptually different things. Hence my reasoning that you can't "resolve" a bleed the same way you can't action at +1. And that's why I'm wondering why "action" was changed to "bleed" on Enkil Cog.

Let us clarify something first. You keep saying this:

TwoRazorReign wrote: "action" was changed to "bleed" on Enkil Cog.

That is incorrect. The old text of Enkil Cog reads: "Only usable when this vampire successfully bleeds your prey." That also requires a successful bleed, not a successful action. There has been no rule change on Enkil Cog.

Successful action action = apply the effect of the action, you may Freak Drive at .
Successful bleed = successful bleed action AND the bleed amount is at least 1.

When you bleed with + 1 bleed as a D action, do you assign the number to the bleed or the action? (..) "Bleed" and "action" are conceptually different things.

They are not independent. A bleed is an action. It follows all the rules of actions. Section 6.2 on Actions specifies everything about actions, except what goes into a successful resolution, because each action has its own effect. For all the actions described in Section 6.1, the described effect is what goes into the successful action resolution. In the case of a bleed, resolving the bleed is resolving the action. Actions all fail in the same way, but each of them succeeds in its own way.

I'm thinking you assign it to the bleed, which can either be successful or unsuccessful. Then the action resolves regardless of the bleed being successful or not.

That is not how it works. In terms of timing, there is only one resolution (i.e.: you cannot play between the different steps.) It terms of causality, the steps of that resolution are:
1) check whether the action is successful,
2) apply the corresponding effect.

The bleed amount is not checked until the action is successful, because if it is not, then the resolution is a combat, and that does not require a bleed amount to resolve.

New art on Cog feels more vtes-ish than original.(but why does Krusty the Clown have a sword?)

I'm an enormous fan of malkavians, but at that capacity, with no title, those disciplines aren't getting her anywhere.

and now anarch with all do wonders for malks. We all know malks is too good to mass produce, but a prince with is playable. A prince that groups with Unmada and has is playable. I'd settle for a 7-8 with who has and isn't Petaniqua that groups with Reiner and Alastair.

The Torrie is playable. A return to the long tradition of 9ish cap non prince or justicar torries and !Torries with interesting out if clan disciplines, all 3 in clans, and vaguely useful text.
This one can vote, fight with guns, and play foul blood..
Neat...

Boris The Blade wrote: Let us clarify something first. You keep saying this:

TwoRazorReign wrote: "action" was changed to "bleed" on Enkil Cog.

That is incorrect.

Ah, you are right. I definitely misspoke in my last post. Please disregard.