Bleeding for 0 (in relation to EC final)

Hi, Back to the context - sunday evening in Goteborg. Five minuts to time limit and Ferenc, already nearly sure to be European champion, bleeds Olivier with Yvette, the hopeless (3-cap vampire). Olivier has untapped Aranthebes, the immortal "+1 stealth action. Unique. Put this card into play. You may tap Aranthebes to give a minion controlled by your predator -1 stealth for the current action. While Aranthebes is untapped, vampires with a capacity less than 5 get -1 bleed when bleeding you. Any vampire with a capacity above 4 can move Aranthebes to your library as a (D) action. Shuffle afterward." Olivier asks: no block, do you modify? Ferenc: no, no modifiers Olivier: so it's a bleed for 0 LSJ then untaps Yvette and say "misplay" Among the watchers, a lot of questionnings arise between those who thought that LSJ has lost his nerves and those who were thinking that the problem had been ruled before. So, it took me some time to think about it, but I could not find the ruling about this situation Question 1: Has this situation previously ruled and if yes, what was said? Additional questions I was wondering in case the situation has not been clarified [Question 2: Does the fact that Yvette's bleed is a misplay depends on her potential bleed. Example: Would Mustafa Rahman who has dominate been treated differently in the same situation? Question 3: We are three players left. My prey controls neither Tremere nor !Tremere. But my predator controls ready Carna, the princess with and is at 1 pool. If Martin bleeds for 0 and no reactions/modifiers are played, what happens? Question 4: Can Samuel Haight bleed for 0, not be blocked, then choose not to pay 1 blood? What happens next? "Unique werewolf with 4 life. 3 strength, 0 bleed. Once each action, Samuel may burn a life to get +1 bleed. He may steal equipment as a strike. He may play cards requiring basic Celerity [cel] or basic Thaumaturgy [tha] as a vampire. Any vampire may call a referendum to make Samuel become Red List as a +1 stealth political action. If Samuel has less than 4 life during your untap phase, he gains 1 life from the blood bank."] Many Thanks Orian Gissler

On Aug 16, 2:58 pm, coincoinmas...@hotmail.com wrote: > Hi, > > Back to the context > - sunday evening in Goteborg. Five minuts to time limit and Ferenc, > already nearly sure to be European champion, bleeds Olivier with > Yvette, the hopeless (3-cap vampire). Olivier has untapped Aranthebes, > the immortal > > "+1 stealth action. Unique. Put this card into play. You may tap > Aranthebes to give a minion controlled by your predator -1 stealth for > the current action. While Aranthebes is untapped, vampires with a > capacity less than 5 get -1 bleed when bleeding you. Any vampire with > a capacity above 4 can move Aranthebes to your library as a (D) > action. Shuffle afterward." > > Olivier asks: no block, do you modify? > Ferenc: no, no modifiers > Olivier: so it's a bleed for 0 > LSJ then untaps Yvette and say "misplay" > > Among the watchers, a lot of questionnings arise between those who > thought that LSJ has lost his nerves and those who were thinking that > the problem had been ruled before.[...] You are missing something. Ferenc announced a bleed for 1 (with Yvette). The declaration of the action was illegal, since Yvette's default bleed was 0 due to Aranthebes, so the game had to be rewinded and Ferenc had to declare the action again. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

[ quoted text not captured ] A minion with a default bleed of zero, may attempt to bleed. Why would that be a misplay? Where in the rules does it say that you must have a default bleed of above zero to attempt to bleed? Relavent rules. "6.1.1. Bleed Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however. A minion cannot perform more than one bleed action each turn, even if he untaps. Conceptually, taking a bleed action represents the efforts of your minion to undermine the power and influence of the target Methuselah. You might picture bleeding as paying bribes, changing bank records, spreading rumors, etc. To bleed a Methuselah, announce the action and tap the acting minion (the minion who is taking the bleed action). If the action is successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount. By default, all minions have a bleed amount of one (most allies have card text that overrides the default). Additionally, if the action succeeds and the bleed amount is one or more, then the bleed is successful and the controller of the acting minion gets the Edge, taking it from the Methuselah who has it. " As far as these rules are concerned you can tap and bleed for zero with 18 Arms Dealers in one turn and if unblocked those actions would be successful, but since they would be for zero they would not be successful bleeds. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] Because he announced a bleed for 1. Similar to announcing a Minion Tap for 9 on a minion with only 0 blood. Rewind to the card play and replay it and re-announce it. Yes, you may Minion Tap for 0, but that isn't what you announced. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] The misplay wasn't that a bleed for 0 is not permitted. The misplay is that due to Aranthebes, Yvette was bleeding at 0, however Ferenc declared it as a 1 bleed at the start of the action, and didn't modify. The misplay was in the declaration of the action, rather than in its outcome. Indeed, if Ferenc had played a +1 bleed modifier at the point of interception, then it's possible the misplay wouldn't have been called, since it would have been announced as a bleed for 1, and finished as a bleed for 1. Possibly. John "BeAst" Best

[ quoted text not captured ] > John "BeAst" Best- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - Ok, my mistake then. But to me, this is even more incredible to come back to an initial misplay when all phases have been passed... would have we come back if Olivier had declared a block?

[ quoted text not captured ] Whenever possible, the game has to be rewinded to the illegal move. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > -Robert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That's a sweet ruling! Imagine: I have a disarmed vampire (already rescued), having hand damage of 0. I am acting, let's say I bleed. I am blocked, I say "hands for one". Prey says "Burning Wrath for three aggro!" I shout "MISPLAY!" and play Majesty. built-in Rapid Thought? priceless! :))

[ quoted text not captured ] > built-in Rapid Thought? priceless! :))- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Do you seriously need an answer to refute this one? :) Tobias

On Aug 16, 8:23 am, "tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com" [ quoted text not captured ] I know what you mean. I started to type a response and just deleted it. He put a smiley in there, afterall. -Robert

Alias wrote: > I have a disarmed vampire (already rescued), having hand damage of 0. > I am acting, let's say I bleed. > I am blocked, I say "hands for one". > Prey says "Burning Wrath for three aggro!" > I shout "MISPLAY!" and play Majesty. > > built-in Rapid Thought? priceless! :)) Of course, if you deliberately misplay, that's called cheating.

[ quoted text not captured ] tomayto tomarto :-P --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Also, since we rewind back to Acting Minion Strike Declaration, the blocking minion's stike has yet to be declared and he gets his Burning Wrath blood back. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On 17 Ago, 07:41, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Of course, if you deliberately misplay, that's called cheating. And how a judge is supposed to prove that Alias is cheating?

[ quoted text not captured ] The judge doesn't have to *prove* anything. From the information at hand, the judge will make a judgment. -Robert

On 17 Ago, 18:53, Robert Goudie <robe...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > The judge doesn't have to *prove* anything. From the information at > hand, the judge will make a judgment. > > -Robert You reminded me an old song (I am the law - Anthrax), Respect the badge? Sorry but there's no way to make a judgement for that situation. Also if a judge mustn't prove anything, it has at least to act clearly and be a good judge. There's no way to read a player's mind, and to rule that situation you have to render his thoughts, not to analyse some *information*. If you rule that performance, You aren't a judge, but the 6th player at the table.

In message <1187431413.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Vragozakas <vrago...@2die4.com> writes: >On 17 Ago, 18:53, Robert Goudie <robe...@vtesinla.org> wrote: >> The judge doesn't have to *prove* anything. From the information at >> hand, the judge will make a judgment. >> >> -Robert > >You reminded me an old song (I am the law - Anthrax), >Respect the badge? No. The judge has to make judgement calls. That's their job. >Sorry but there's no way to make a judgement for that situation. Similarly, what proof are you going to use to distinguish between: - slow play (unintentional) and stalling (intentional) - dropping a card by accident (unintentional) and dropping a card in order to reveal it to someone cross-table (intentional) - mis-counting your 13 pool and saying 12 (unintentional) and saying you have 12 pool in order to avoid a Parity Shift (intentional) ? If you can cope with the judge using their judgement in these cases, cope here. If you can't cope with those cases, sell your cards and head for the hills. >Also >if a judge mustn't prove anything, it has at least to act clearly and >be a good judge. Well, duh. The judge makes the best decision they can. >There's no way to read a player's mind, and to rule that situation you >have to render his thoughts, not to analyse some *information*. No, there's no way to read a player's mind, so you can NEVER EVER EVER punish a player for cheating EVER because it was just the player having a brain haemorrhage and doing it by accident. Go on, prove that it wasn't. >If you rule that performance, You aren't a judge, but the 6th player >at the table. No, you're the judge. One part of the role of the judge is to make judgement calls when necessary. Seriously, if you can't deal with the fact that the judge will have imperfect information in *every* situation but will need to punish cheating, how on earth do you ever punish cheating ever? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

My probleme is that he could have play empowering the puppet kink with an untaped vampirer. I Thought I'm taking a risk (I was at somthing like 5 pool or less), but I think the player is making a mistake, so I decline the block and ask if there was any incrase bleed? The anser was no... Then I said Bleed for one minus one so it's zero... I think that LSJ made a mistake in Judjing... What would have happend if I would have pla a determind? Would it have been illegal to play it?... But this mistake had no effect on the final. So it's not important, it's just important to know it was a mistake.

[ quoted text not captured ] The declaration was "bleed for 1", not "bleed for 1 minus 1 so it's zero". The declaration of "bleed for 1" was in error, so the error was corrected (no action declared). That is not a mistake in judging. It is proper judging -- correcting erroneous play. At that point, the player could declare any new action, including a bleed of zero with that same vampire.

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I must agree with LSJ, I was considering a judging error at first but after I discussed the situation with him it became clear to me. Correct play is announcing every aspect of the action correctly. So in that case Ferenc should have announced : "Yvette bleeds for one at zero stealth". People are used to sloppy play, because they think that it is faster, but LSJ is really right, announcing the action correctly doesn´t consume a considerable amount of extra time. Much less in any case than correcting things afterwards. Anyway, back to the situation. The action was only rolled back because the game state was not altered at all between the announcement of the action and the judgement. If Olivier would have played an On the Qui Vive, Determine or if a block attempt would have been resolved the game state would have been changed and I am certain that LSJ would not have rolled back the game at this point. An error in announcing something correctly should *not* lead to any advantage of the player. Also bleeding for 0 would have been a mistake on Ferenc´s side. He was assuming a bleed for 1 and that is a good action to take at the moment, so his mistake was not the bleed but the incorrect announcement of the action (overlooking Aranthebes). We should not punish players for overlooking one of the 30 cards an Imbued player has on the table, after all it is a strategy game and not checking every information before doing something (we all agree that would horrible, I guess). So the only conclusion I was drawing for myself is that I will be working hard on my playstyle to announce everything as correct as possible, and I think others should do the same. Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Then it wouldn't have been a mistake to declare "bleed" without mentionning an amount, right ? Does this mean that when there's a bleed we have to remind the bleeder if there is a modifier that reduces the bleed (therefore leaving no place to mistake) ? It doesn't seem fair to me compared to other situations : for instance, when a non-Prince calls a Parity Shift, the common judgement I have seen is to discard the card and leave the vampire tapped ; here, in a situation where the action was also wrong (not illegal but illegally called) you get a rectification instead of a punishment. Sure, one is illegal play and one isn't, but both result from a distraction of the acting player. I understand going back in the case of the illegal play, I have trouble considering that a simple misplay justifies rewind instead. Orpheus

Orpheus schrieb: > It doesn't seem fair to me compared to other situations : for instance, when > a non-Prince calls a Parity Shift, the common judgement I have seen is to > discard the card and leave the vampire tapped ; No. As long as he didn´t replace the card I would have him get the card back and just untap the vampire. If he replaced the card either let him put the card he was drawing (if you trust him) back in his library (shuffle) or pick a card at random from his hand and let him shuffle it back. If you think that he did it on purpose it is cheating and then you disqualify him. > here, in a situation where > the action was also wrong (not illegal but illegally called) you get a > rectification instead of a punishment. Sure, one is illegal play and one > isn't, but both result from a distraction of the acting player. I understand > going back in the case of the illegal play, I have trouble considering that > a simple misplay justifies rewind instead. Only if a rewind is easily possible because the game state didn´t change. Johannes Walch

Orpheus wrote: >> Olivier_PEREZ wrote: >>> My probleme is that he could have play empowering the puppet kink with >>> an untaped vampirer. I Thought I'm taking a risk (I was at somthing >>> like 5 pool or less), but I think the player is making a mistake, so I >>> decline the block and ask if there was any incrase bleed? The anser >>> was no... Then I said Bleed for one minus one so it's zero... >>> I think that LSJ made a mistake in Judjing... What would have happend >>> if I would have pla a determind? >>> Would it have been illegal to play it?... >>> >>> But this mistake had no effect on the final. So it's not important, >>> it's just important to know it was a mistake. >> The declaration was "bleed for 1", not "bleed for 1 minus 1 so it's zero". >> >> The declaration of "bleed for 1" was in error, so the error was corrected >> (no action declared). >> >> That is not a mistake in judging. It is proper judging -- correcting >> erroneous play. >> >> At that point, the player could declare any new action, including a bleed >> of zero with that same vampire. > > Then it wouldn't have been a mistake to declare "bleed" without mentionning > an amount, right ? Perhaps. That depends on what is judged to be meant by declaring an action with just the word "bleed" (while tapping minion Bob). Usually this means "Bob bleeds Bob's prey for 1 at 0 stealth". So it would be in error, too. Unless the group is used to having Arika with Repulsion and a Laptop bleed for 4 at 1 stealth being announced as "bleed". Anyway, it gets less clear when actions aren't properly declared. So, if you want to make sure you don't get a judgment going against you, the safest bet is to properly declare your actions. > Does this mean that when there's a bleed we have to remind the bleeder if > there is a modifier that reduces the bleed (therefore leaving no place to > mistake) ? > It doesn't seem fair to me compared to other situations : for instance, when > a non-Prince calls a Parity Shift, the common judgement I have seen is to > discard the card and leave the vampire tapped ; here, in a situation where > the action was also wrong (not illegal but illegally called) you get a > rectification instead of a punishment. Yes. Judging's primary purpose isn't punishment. It's promoting legal play. When illegal play is made, it is corrected (rectified). This is the epitome of "fair", not of unfairness. > Sure, one is illegal play and one > isn't, but both result from a distraction of the acting player. I understand > going back in the case of the illegal play, I have trouble considering that > a simple misplay justifies rewind instead. All misplays justify corrections. Indeed, they demand correction. When rewinding is logistically feasible (which is almost always is when the error is caught when it is announced), then rewinding is usually the best choice for correction.

On Aug 21, 8:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Perhaps. That depends on what is judged to be meant by declaring an action with > just the word "bleed" (while tapping minion Bob). > > Usually this means "Bob bleeds Bob's prey for 1 at 0 stealth". > > So it would be in error, too. Unless the group is used to having Arika with > Repulsion and a Laptop bleed for 4 at 1 stealth being announced as "bleed". > Interesting point. Usually I hear "I bleed with Gratiano" and the prey goes "Grumble. That's a bleed of two, right?" With my Wolves Feed deck, I usually say "I bleed for 3" (with Govern or Guarded Rubrics) "at 1 stealth", but frankly, that has more to do with me being happy that my brand new deck is working than with the way people usually announce actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 21, 8:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Perhaps. That depends on what is judged to be meant by declaring an action with >> just the word "bleed" (while tapping minion Bob). >> >> Usually this means "Bob bleeds Bob's prey for 1 at 0 stealth". >> >> So it would be in error, too. Unless the group is used to having Arika with >> Repulsion and a Laptop bleed for 4 at 1 stealth being announced as "bleed". >> > > Interesting point. Usually I hear "I bleed with Gratiano" and the prey > goes "Grumble. That's a bleed of two, right?" When I notice it at a table, I follow with "he means bleed for two". A: "Gratiano bleeds" B: "he means bleeds for two". > With my Wolves Feed deck, I usually say "I bleed for 3" (with Govern > or Guarded Rubrics) "at 1 stealth", but frankly, that has more to do > with me being happy that my brand new deck is working than with the > way people usually announce actions. It's usually more interesting when additional cards are involved, yes. Many (but not all) groups will assume that "Gratiano bleeds" means "for two". But few assume that "Teresita bleeds" means "at +1 stealth". Meaning, again, that players should properly announce all actions.

[ quoted text not captured ] I have read the rest of this thread, and I am still confused as to why the action was illegally declared (regardless of intention or mistake). Aranthebes states that a minion has -1 bleed when bleeding you. This surely does not change Yvette's default bleed of 1 and should surely be seen as a modifier once the bleed is resolved to be happening against Aranthebes controller. If Aranthebes controller redirected the bleed, then Yvette would be bleeding for 1, as she is no longer bleeding Aranthebes controller. I'm sure this was ruled for vampires who have in text +/-1 bleed against a Methuselah who controls a ready <clan/sect>. This way declaring Yvette bleeds for 1 I choose not to block, you are therefore bleeding me for 0 with Aranthebes modifier which would be equivalent to a) I bleed with Yvette for 1 b) I choose not to block but aus vampire reduces the bleed by 1 with Telepathic Counter In case 1, if it was Ohanna rather than Yvette a) Ohanna bleed for 1 b) I choose not to block, you are therefore bleeding me for 0 with Aranthebes modifier Further steps a) I increase with a Bonding so now for 1 -1 +1 = 1 b) I redirect to my prey c a) Ok c, I am now bleeding you for 1 (default) + 1 (bonding) c) b*gg*r I'm probably wrong here, but clarity always helps. Andy VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge

In message <1187767235.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Slytherin <an...@operamail.com> writes: >I have read the rest of this thread, and I am still confused as to why >the action was illegally declared (regardless of intention or >mistake). He declared a bleed for 1, when the bleed was for 0. Similarly, declaring "Hands for 1" with Quinton McDonnell (+1 strength) would be misdeclaring your strike, even though he has a base strength of 1. (And so the judge would be entitled to rewind the combat to allow your opponent to change their strike from, say, strike for hands to a Dodge.) >Aranthebes states that a minion has -1 bleed when bleeding you. And so the bleed was for 0, not for 1. >This >surely does not change Yvette's default bleed of 1 It doesn't, but bleed is still for 1. >and should surely >be seen as a modifier once the bleed is resolved to be happening >against Aranthebes controller. If Aranthebes controller redirected the >bleed, then Yvette would be bleeding for 1, as she is no longer >bleeding Aranthebes controller. Right, and you'd declare that to the new target when it was bounced. > I'm sure this was ruled for vampires >who have in text +/-1 bleed against a Methuselah who controls a ready ><clan/sect>. Yes. >This way declaring Yvette bleeds for 1 Except she's not bleeding for 1. She's bleeding for zero. If nothing else happens this bleed and it's successful, she'll bleed for zero. It's that simple. >I choose not to block, you are therefore bleeding me for 0 with >Aranthebes modifier No. Aranthebes does not say "When a bleed is successful, it resolves for 1 less." It says "vampires... get -1 bleed when bleeding you." So Yvette was bleeding for zero, right from the start. >which would be equivalent to > >a) I bleed with Yvette for 1 >b) I choose not to block but aus vampire reduces the bleed by 1 with >Telepathic Counter Except that Telepathic Counter is a card played during the bleed. Aranthebes isn't. Similarly, if Yvette had a laptop computer and no Aranthebes, you wouldn't say "bleed for 1" and handle the Laptop as an action modifier, because it isn't. >In case 1, if it was Ohanna rather than Yvette >a) Ohanna bleed for 1 >b) I choose not to block, you are therefore bleeding me for 0 with >Aranthebes modifier Aranthebes isn't an action modifier and it isn't applied at that point. It's always been there. Note that, for example, a weenie vampire who bleeds with base bleed (1) + Govern the Unaligned (+2) + Conditioning (+1) would be in range of Archon Investigation. If they are bleeding a Methuselah who has Aranthebes, they are bleeding for 3, and so are not in range of Archon Investigation. You don't "apply" Aranthebes at some arbitrary point in the action. All weenie vampires get -1 bleed when bleeding you. [ quoted text not captured ]

OK LSJ and Johannes, I understand your point of view, and I use to agree with it. But know try to think of what effect on the game has that kind of judging? If you don't give warning for "mistake" or if you not hard on "mistake" the game might be less interesting. For exemple it is forbinden to show a card in your hand. X play a Parity shift and there is no eligible player... X is sorry and has not replace. He call the judge. The judge say: take it back in your hand. X continue to play. He's predator know he's got a Parity so he will bleed him differently. His ally know he can help... etc... In Switzerland we have try to judge this way. If you make a mistake that is not bringing you any advantage tof for you. If you do a mistake that might have give you an advantage. You get a warning. After 2 tornement like this, everyone is much more carefull about what they do and how. Because LSJ choose to rule it like that we might change hower way to judge, but the effect will be bad I think. What is your opinion on this matter.

Olivier_PEREZ wrote: > OK LSJ and Johannes, > > I understand your point of view, and I use to agree with it. But know > try to think of what effect on the game has that kind of judging? > > If you don't give warning for "mistake" or if you not hard on > "mistake" the game might be less interesting. > > For exemple it is forbinden to show a card in your hand. > X play a Parity shift and there is no eligible player... > X is sorry and has not replace. He call the judge. The judge say: take > it back in your hand. > X continue to play. He's predator know he's got a Parity so he will > bleed him differently. His ally know he can help... etc... In which case the judge makes additional arrangements so as to restore balance. The case in question involved no card play, so this wasn't an issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

But I agree with you, I'm just asking myself and every one else what kind of impact this way of judjing has on the game. No offense. You are the "ultimate" judge. I will adapte my way of judging in Switzerland.

In message <1187913661.6...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Could you adapt your way of posting, so that you quote the relevant points (trimmed down as necessary) from the preceding article? Google ask you to do this when using Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46492&query=quote&topic=&type= [ quoted text not captured ]

Similar question but comes up frequently a my playgroup. Vampire A has inherent bleed of 2. The Meth A taps said vampire and says "bleed". The Meth B says "no block, how much" Meth A states "2" [meaning bleed of 2 no modifiers played] Upon which Meth B claims that he didn't know that the Vamp had a built in bleed of 2. (he would have done the previous if the bleed was for only 1) Where is the misplay(s)? What should or shouldn't be taken back? Adam Baron of New York

On 24 aug, 15:56, "adam.hu...@gmail.com" <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Similar question but comes up frequently a my playgroup. > > Vampire A has inherent bleed of 2. > The Meth A taps said vampire and says "bleed". > > The Meth B says "no block, how much" > > Meth A states "2" [meaning bleed of 2 no modifiers played] > > Upon which Meth B claims that he didn't know that the Vamp had a built > in bleed of 2. > (he would have done the previous if the bleed was for only 1) > > Where is the misplay(s)? The misplay is that meth A didn't fully announce his action. He should have said: 'bleed for 2' (well, if you really want to exagerate: 'vampire A will use the default bleed action targeted at meth B to bleed for 2 at 0 stealth.') > What should or shouldn't be taken back? if possible, the whole action. No-one played any cards in your example, so that's easy to do.

[ quoted text not captured ] I talked on this point back in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/319b383f5b208bac Result: It depends on what was actually communicated by tapping said vampire and saying "bleed". Or, rather, on what the judge or arbiter determines/guesses was communicated. Again, this is why one should properly announce plays.

On Aug 24, 10:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > adam.hu...@gmail.com wrote: > > Similar question but comes up frequently a my playgroup. > > > Vampire A has inherent bleed of 2. > > The Meth A taps said vampire and says "bleed". > > > The Meth B says "no block, how much" > > > Meth A states "2" [meaning bleed of 2 no modifiers played] > > > Upon which Meth B claims that he didn't know that the Vamp had a built > > in bleed of 2. > > (he would have done the previous if the bleed was for only 1) > > > Where is the misplay(s)? > > What should or shouldn't be taken back? > > I talked on this point back inhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/319b... > > Result: It depends on what was actually communicated by tapping said vampire and > saying "bleed". > > Or, rather, on what the judge or arbiter determines/guesses was communicated. > > Again, this is why one should properly announce plays.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Whoops! Sorry missed that LSJ. Thanks for the answers.