Question on Bleeding (LSJ)

Greetings LSJ Our playgroup recently had a disagreement which we need resolved by Authority. Player A bleeds for one. Player B declares that he is taking the bleed and removes pool Player A plays conditioning Player B plays deflection At this point two conflicting points of view are presented: 1) Player B already declared that he was taking the bleed, and should be held to that. He may not play deflection. 2) Player B's failure to block is the only part of his decision that is final. Otherwise he has the right to respond to any new effects presented. He may deflect the bleed. Thank you in advance. -- John Whelan

John Whelan wrote: > Player A bleeds for one. > Player B declares that he is taking the bleed and removes pool > Player A plays conditioning > Player B plays deflection > > At this point two conflicting points of view are presented: > > 1) Player B already declared that he was taking the bleed, and should be > held to that. He may not play deflection. > > 2) Player B's failure to block is the only part of his decision that is > final. Otherwise he has the right to respond to any new effects > presented. He may deflect the bleed. 2) is correct. After declaring "no block" (which is all that "I'll take it" can mean at this point), the acting Methuselah gets first opportunity to play an effect - she chooses to play Conditioning. The she gets the opportunity to play the next effect. Sh chooses to play no further effects, so the target Methuselah gets the opportunity to play an effect - she chooses to play Deflection. After this event, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the next effect, and so on. See "Sequencing" in the rulebook. [1.6.1.5] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <39B77F55...@white-wolf.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Is it important to point out that Player B does not actually lose pool until after all modifiers have been played? I only mention this because in the original poster's example, it seemed as though Player B lost pool for the base bleed and then played a deflection to pass on the remaining bleed after Player A played a Conditioning - which is obviously incorrect. Comments are, as Norm would say, welcome. David -- David Anderson-Dávila Creator of the Elder Library Deck Builder© http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/eldb/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8p8if6$1r4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yes it was, since I was gonna ask about that ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No. The "removes pool" detail was merely a fact presented (in position 1) to argue the finality of player A's decision. Player A, naturally, wished to bounce the entire bleed. -- John Whelan