Justicar Retribution

I am curious abut the card Justicar Retribution. How does that card work and when do you play it? It just seems the bleed action would resolve before you call a vote.

You call the vote. (if the vote passes)Any vampire with bleed of 3 or more is burned. An IC with +2 bleed, a vamp with superior Heart of the City, or any vampire that bleeds for three by just declaring the bleed. I think a vampire like Francios Villon, who has +1 bleed, with a camera phone would not qualify. (This is how I understans it, others will let me know if I am incorrect I'm sure.) Justicar Retribution Political Action Requires a Camarilla vampire. Successful referendum burns all vampires with a current bleed of 3 or more. Artist(s): Andrew Trabbold; Michael Weaver Set(s): VTES:U, CE:U, KoT:U

François Villon with Tasha Morgan would qualify.

Its also errata-ed. (If you have a old copy). Can only be played by a camarilla vampire.

The check is easy: If Minion X would declare a basic cardless bleed would that be for 3+ on their prey? (e.g. Camera Phone is an action, Laptop is not) Justicar Retribution would potentially ping Constanza Vinti as the predator of a Ventrue Deck and so on. Those conditional bleeds can be a factor. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > The check is easy: > > Justicar Retribution would potentially ping Constanza Vinti as the predator of a Ventrue Deck and so on. Those conditional bleeds can be a factor. > I am not sure about this example: I thought she would get her +2 bleed only when actually bleeding a prey with a Ventrue ... National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Hakuron wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > The check is easy: > > > > Justicar Retribution would potentially ping Constanza Vinti as the predator of a Ventrue Deck and so on. Those conditional bleeds can be a factor. > > > I am not sure about this example: I thought she would get her +2 bleed only when actually bleeding a prey with a Ventrue ... > All bleed bonuses are only applied when actually bleeding. If Justicar Retribution didn't count bleed bonuses, it would only burn minions like the Great Beast and Political Ally who actually have 3 bleed as opposed to +2 bleed. If Constanza's prey has a Ventrue, she is seen as having 3 bleed and burns.

Indeed. From the Cards Rulings: > Justicar Retribution: > •Counts the bleed amount that each vampire would have when attempting to bleed his prey. [RTR 19980623] > "It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality" --- Hardy Range Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager

"Justicar Retribution checks the bleed amount the minion would have when bleeding his or her prey with a successful default bleed action." Interesting side note is that using equipment is optional, while using retainers is not. So a vampire will be burned with Tasha Morgan and J.S. Simmons Esq., but not with Tasaha Morgan and Laptop Computer.

> extrala wrote: > "Justicar Retribution checks the bleed amount the minion would have > when bleeding his or her prey with a successful default bleed action." > > Interesting side note is that using equipment is optional, while using retainers is not. So a vampire will be burned with Tasha Morgan and J.S. Simmons Esq., but not with Tasaha Morgan and Laptop Computer. > I'm pretty sure the laptop's not optional, and so will result in the minion burning. Equipment was explicitly made non-optional in VTES Rules Team Rulings, July 7, 1998 , and I'm not aware of anything later that contradicts that. -- National Coordinator South Africa

I was relating to this post from LSJ: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad regrading equipment and Justicar Retribution. But maybe Pascal can clarify.

Ralf, the ruling you cite here was written five months before the 7/7/98 ruling. That would mean that the 7/7/98 ruling is more current, so the bleed from the Laptop Computer is not optional.

> AaronC wrote: > Ralf, the ruling you cite here was written five months before the 7/7/98 ruling. That would mean that the 7/7/98 ruling is more current, so the bleed from the Laptop Computer is not optional. > Right. Ralf's link is only good for nostalgia. A lot of the rulings have changed since then. Notice also that at that time Queen Anne with a Tremere prey would not burn from Justicar Retribution. Now she would.

> vtesocrates wrote: > > Right. Ralf's link is only good for nostalgia. A lot of the rulings have changed since then. Notice also that at that time Queen Anne with a Tremere prey would not burn from Justicar Retribution. Now she would. > I think you have that reversed. I believe the old text (don't have a copy in my current location) said that Queen Anne got +1 bleed if your prey controls a ready Tremere. Now she gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Tremere, thus she's not burned by JR. Queen Anne Group: 2 Camarilla Prince of London: Anne gets an additional +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Tremere. +1 bleed.

To highlight how this works... Justicar Retribution Type: Political Action Requires: camarilla Requires a Camarilla vampire. Successful referendum burns all vampires with a current bleed of 3 or more. Constanza Vinti Clan: Brujah (group 2) Capacity: 8 Disciplines: CEL DOM POT Camarilla Prince of Rome: Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue. If my prey controls ANY READY Ventrue, then Constanza's base bleed (without cards) will be a 3-bleed. Justicar Retribution will immediately check to see that Constanza would declare a 3-bleed when announcing the action and burns her. Alexis Sorokin Clan: Ravnos (group 4) Capacity: 8 Disciplines: CEL CHI OBF PRO for Independent. Red List: Once each combat, Alexis may dodge as a strike. She may steal an equipment card as a action. She gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Toreador. Week of Nightmares Type: Master Requires: Ravnos Master. Put this card in play with 10 nightmare counters. Ravnos get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. A Ravnos may steal a blood from another Ravnos as a +1 stealth hunt action. During each Methuselah's untap phase, he or she may move a nightmare counter from this card to a Ravnos. If this card has no counters, each Ravnos burns a blood for each nightmare counter or is burned, then burn this card and the counters. Only one Week of Nightmares may be played in a game. Alexis' prey flicked Alexis to a AAA deck (which changed her 2-bleed to 3-bleed) and her Predator has called Justicar Retribution. Alexis' prey does not control a Toreador, so her bleed would be for 2. Justicar Retribution ignores her. Smudge the Ignored has a J.S.Simmons and Laptop Computer. +1 Bleed from J.S.Simmons, +1 bleed from Laptop Computer and the result would be a 3-bleed on your prey. Smudge gets destroyed by Justicar Retribution. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> AaronC wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > > > Right. Ralf's link is only good for nostalgia. A lot of the rulings have changed since then. Notice also that at that time Queen Anne with a Tremere prey would not burn from Justicar Retribution. Now she would. > > > I think you have that reversed. I believe the old text (don't have a copy in my current location) said that Queen Anne got +1 bleed if your prey controls a ready Tremere. Now she gets +1 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Tremere, thus she's not burned by JR. > No, I wasn't talking about any change to her card text at all. In the link Ralf provided LSJ ruled that Queen Anne's conditional +1 bleed only applied while she was bleeding a prey with a ready Tremere, so she would be considered to have 2 bleed at all times until she's actually bleeding and therefore Justicar Retribution would not affect her even if her prey controls a ready a Tremere. That ruling was later reversed. Conditional bleeds do count for Justicar Retribution if the condition is true. Queen Anne will burn to a successful Justicar Retribution if her prey controls a ready Tremere.

groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7dfe785e24872bf8 Oh my God, I see where you all are getting this stuff. LSJ's ruling from 1998 was really bad. > Bleed: A minion's "current bleed" is the amount the minion would be > bleeding for when he announces a bleed action against his Prey. > # > # This affects only Justicar Retribution, but is a general ruling. > Wow. I don't even know what to say about this. Some more "wisdom" from LSJ: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/498b665b64b7188b/63de7bf47d9bfee4?lnk=gst&q=justicar+retribution#63de7bf47d9bfee4 According to LSJ, Justicar Retribution burns a vampire whose bleed when bleeding its controller's prey would be 3 or more. Question: instead of issuing a separate ruling covering just this card, why not just rewrite the card to actually say that? The interpretation of the word "current" in the ruling covering the term "current bleed" is NOT what it means in English. You must have access to the ruling to tell you what the card text actually means. Bad, bad, bad. Otherwise "+X bleed while bleeding" seems clearly to only add to the "current" bleed during a bleed action, not a Justicar Retribution political action. If LSJ wanted it to work that way, then he shouldn't have changed the text of all those "if your prey has a ready X, vampire gets an additional +Y bleed" (since a positive 'if' condition clearly adds to the current bleed) OR he should have changed the text of Justicar Retribution to clearly state how it should be played. Bleuch, I need to brush my teeth now to get out the bad taste.

> AaronC wrote: > If LSJ wanted it to work that way, then he shouldn't have changed the text of all those "if your prey has a ready X, vampire gets an additional +Y bleed" (since a positive 'if' condition clearly adds to the current bleed) OR he should have changed the text of Justicar Retribution to clearly state how it should be played. > Doesn't work with Deflections. Anyways, the current ruling is: Justicar Retribution burns vampires who would bleed for 3 or more if they declared a default bleed action right now. Some examples: Leandro would burn. (base bleed of 1+2) Smudge with Robert Carter would burn (base bleed of 1+2, using retainers is mandatory) François Villon with a Laptop Computer would burn (base bleed of 1+1+1, using equipments is mandatory) Little Taylor of Prague with a Camera Phone would not burn (base bleed of 1+1) Niklaus Vermeulen with a Legendary Vampire would burn. Now, the conditional parts: Constanza Vinti would burn if her prey controls a ready Ventrue. Alexis Sorokin with a Week of Nightmares would burn if her prey controls a ready Toreador. Queen Anne would burn if the prey controls a ready Tremere. An Anarch with Bear Beating would get +2 bleed if the Bear Beating's "target" is the prey. And those who wouldn't burn: If Stick has a Codex of the Edenic Groundskeepers and all his prey's minions are tapped, he won't burn. Esau won't burn. And the fun part: Arika with a Pentex Subversion will burn ( [LSJ 20100527] ) Rabbat with a Legendary Vampire will burn ( [LSJ 20100527] )

> Pascal wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > If LSJ wanted it to work that way, then he shouldn't have changed the text of all those "if your prey has a ready X, vampire gets an additional +Y bleed" (since a positive 'if' condition clearly adds to the current bleed) OR he should have changed the text of Justicar Retribution to clearly state how it should be played. > > > Doesn't work with Deflections. > Uh, sure it did. In the past, if Contanza Vinti's prey controlled a ready Ventrue and then changed the target of Constanza's bleed (using, for example, Deflection), Constanza Vinti still got her +2 bleed. Plus, at the time that the Justicar Retribution was played, it would be apparent to anyone who read English that Constanza's current bleed was 3. > Anyways, the current ruling is: Justicar Retribution burns vampires who would bleed for 3 or more if they declared a default bleed action right now. > Right. It's a ruling. It's not card text. When card text says "+X bleed durng a bleed action" then it would require a ruling to add that bleed to the vampire's current bleed total during a referendum. That's bad rules management. Wow, it could have been so straight forward.

> AaronC wrote: > Plus, at the time that the Justicar Retribution was played, it would be apparent to anyone who read English that Constanza's current bleed was 3. > It's also apparent now. Or at least exactly as apparent than with your ruling. > > AaronC wrote: > Right. It's a ruling. It's not card text. When card text says "+X bleed durng a bleed action" then it would require a ruling to add that bleed to the vampire's current bleed total during a referendum. > But it's a pretty understandable and solid ruling. Ruling are just clarification / disambiguation. > > AaronC wrote: > That's bad rules management. Wow, it could have been so straight forward. > I don't see a way for Justicar Retribution to be straightforward without reshaping entirely the rules. I just don't understand your rant, you propose a ruling exactly as unintuitive and arbitrary than the existing one and rant against the existing one because ... it's not the one you would have done if you were LSJ ?

> Ohlmann wrote: > I don't see a way for Justicar Retribution to be straightforward without reshaping entirely the rules. I just don't understand your rant, you propose a ruling exactly as unintuitive and arbitrary than the existing one and rant against the existing one because ... it's not the one you would have done if you were LSJ ? > Justicar Retribution should have counted base bleed plus static bleed modifiers. In other words, it should check bleed during the referendum of the political action. Other bleed modifiers are not "current" during the referendum; they are hypothetical. Bleed modifiers that are gained during a bleed should not be considered part of the current bleed for the purposes of Justicar Retribution because JR cannot be played during a bleed. Checking to see what a vampire's bleed might be when bleeding prey should be irrelevant because vampires are not restricted to bleeding their controller's prey because of the existence of reaction cards like Deflection and action cards like Kindred Spirits. This card was reprinted in KoT, and with good rules management, the definition of "current bleed" would have been incorporated into the text of the card rather than forcing those who buy the card to have to gain access to online rulings. Example: Successful referendum burns all vampires who bleed their controller's prey for 3 or more when taking the default bleed action.

> AaronC wrote: > Right. It's a ruling. It's not card text. When card text says "+X bleed durng a bleed action" then it would require a ruling to add that bleed to the vampire's current bleed total during a referendum. > If this were the ruling, then Justicar Retribution would be one of the most useless cards in the game. It would only burn the Great Beast, who was not in print at the time Justicar Retribution came out. Arika's text says +2 bleed and it of course follows that the bleed is only added during a bleed action. The Great Beast is the only vampire that has 3 bleed straight up. There are two allies with 3 bleed, but Justicar Retribution only burns vampires. So when you realize the card is intended to do something, it's not that hard to figure out what it should do.

> AaronC wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > AaronC wrote: > > > If LSJ wanted it to work that way, then he shouldn't have changed the text of all those "if your prey has a ready X, vampire gets an additional +Y bleed" (since a positive 'if' condition clearly adds to the current bleed) OR he should have changed the text of Justicar Retribution to clearly state how it should be played. > > > > > > > > Doesn't work with Deflections. > > > Uh, sure it did. In the past, if Contanza Vinti's prey controlled a ready Ventrue and then changed the target of Constanza's bleed (using, for example, Deflection), Constanza Vinti still got her +2 bleed. Plus, at the time that the Justicar Retribution was played, it would be apparent to anyone who read English that Constanza's current bleed was 3. > Past rulings are important, as they show the intent of the designer (when the designer issued the ruling). I'll rephrase my sentence: With the current wording of Constanza Vinti, your suggestion "doesn't work with Deflections", i.e. you're changing the behaviour of a card (in our case, Constanza). > > Anyways, the current ruling is: Justicar Retribution burns vampires who would bleed for 3 or more if they declared a default bleed action right now. > > > Right. It's a ruling. It's not card text. When card text says "+X bleed durng a bleed action" then it would require a ruling to add that bleed to the vampire's current bleed total during a referendum. > > That's bad rules management. Wow, it could have been so straight forward. > So, you'd rather have an updated non-printed cardtext than a ruling in the Rulings page. It's a fair call, but there's no reason to be that harsh. OK.

> vtesocrates wrote: > If this were the ruling, then Justicar Retribution would be one of the most useless cards in the game. It would only burn the Great Beast, who was not in print at the time Justicar Retribution came out. Arika's text says +2 bleed and it of course follows that the bleed is only added during a bleed action. The Great Beast is the only vampire that has 3 bleed straight up. There are two allies with 3 bleed, but Justicar Retribution only burns vampires. > > So when you realize the card is intended to do something, it's not that hard to figure out what it should do. > Bleed is a calculated number. Vampires have a base bleed of 1. When they have card text or card in play that changes it, then the bleed number is increased or decreased accordingly. If the bonus (or negative) is permanent, then the change to bleed is permanent. For instance, Arika's bleed when she is in play is 3. 1 (base) +2 (card text) = 3. That is why you do not calculate the extra bleed from Cybele's bleed action, the extra bleed from a Camera Phone action, or the additional bleed from Spiridonas's special when determining the current bleed for the purposes of JR. They only exist during a bleed action. Or maybe it says in the rulebook that bleed modifiers are only calculated during a bleed action, and that case, I would be interested in seeing it.

> Pascal wrote: > So, you'd rather have an updated non-printed cardtext than a ruling in the Rulings page. It's a fair call, but there's no reason to be that harsh. OK. > That ruling was made in 1998, and the card was reprinted in 2002 and 2008. The card text could have been updated at those times to make it so the ruling was unnecessary. Another part of the card text was in fact changed at one of those printings, so it's not like changing the card text was out of the question. I am "harsh" when I see something that could be done better, and you aren't substantively disagreeing with my argument. When a ruling can be eliminated by updating card texts in later printings, yes, I think that is what should be done. I am criticizing the fact that it wasn't done. I believe that relying on rulings less is good. This ruling in particular is bad because the interpretation of one word, "current", does not agree with common English usage. You yourself have changed the card text of a large number of cards with errata and argued for a literal interpretation of card text. I don't think that you have a philosophical disagreement with my suggestion that the card could either be given an erratum or that the ruling could be eliminated in favor of a literal reading of the card.

> AaronC wrote: > > That is why you do not calculate the extra bleed from Cybele's bleed action, the extra bleed from a Camera Phone action, or the additional bleed from Spiridonas's special when determining the current bleed for the purposes of JR. They only exist during a bleed action. > No, that isn't why. It's because Cybele's bleed action isn't mandatory, nor is the Camera Phone action nor is Spiridonas burning blood. Constanza's +2 bleed when bleeding into Ventrue is mandatory and thus it is counted by Justicar Retribution.

The text makes it seem as if someone has to currently be bleeding which is very confusing how one would pull that off... lol. However, I see that someone would have to have met the requirements at base like Lucian or have a permanent modifier or a conditional modifier like Queen Anne in order for this to work. Nice to know.

> vtesocrates wrote: > Constanza's +2 bleed when bleeding into Ventrue is mandatory and thus it is counted by Justicar Retribution.[/quote] You've left out the part that the +2 bleed is only considered if Constanzs's controller's prey controls a ready Ventrue. The grandprey of Constanza's controller who controls Ventrue might wish that Constanza could be affected by his JR when all her bleeds get bounced to him. I think the source of my rant is the fact that no one posting to this thread besides RoddiumusPrime has acknowledged that using the term "current" in the text of a political action to describe bleed modifiers that only occur "during" a bleed action is contradictory. The term "current" seems to be added to specifically rule out bleed modifiers gain during actions. It does rule them out, except for one exception that requires a separate ruling. I am also troubled, and interested, by the question as to whether "bleed" is a characteristic of a vampire or the characteristic of an action. As far as I can tell, "bleed" is a characteristic of a minion. Vtesocrates' idea that + bleed is not counted in calculating a vampire's bleed characteristic is just bizarre to me.

> AaronC wrote: > I think the source of my rant is the fact that no one posting to this thread besides RoddiumusPrime has acknowledged that using the term "current" in the text of a political action to describe bleed modifiers that only occur "during" a bleed action is contradictory. > No, the source of your rant is that no one say they agree with you. There is no "inherent" contradiction, just people who think it's contradictory and other not. I, for one, do not think the problem is here, and don't understand your argument in a game where you cannot easily bleed someone else than your prey. If anything would need to be addressed, it's more as a whole to put into the rulebook or somewhere a concise summary of the main reasonings for ruling. Like "bleed should be evaluated as if a standard bleed action was in the doing" or "passive denote environemental damage, active vampire damage". It would both make easier to remember ruling and silence thoses peoples who believe that if they disagree that's because the ruling is dumb and not because they disagree.

> AaronC wrote: > That ruling was made in 1998, and the card was reprinted in 2002 and 2008. The card text could have been updated at those times to make it so the ruling was unnecessary. > I agree with this with all my heart. And also, if it was up to me, I would have excluded all conditional bonuses from the JR check (so Constanza and Cybele would be safe but Arika and Al-Muntaquim with 2+ burned Caitifs or Francois with a lap top would burn). And on a side note, would Hazimel burn himself if we used the superior version of Fata Morgana (not sure he would be allowed to, but contrary to bonding it doesn't say "only usable during a bleed action) to get past intercept to play a JR? The stealth card would clearly put his current bleed at 3, but only for this action and not if he would just tap to bleed his prey without any cards or special actions.

> donk wrote: > And on a side note, would Hazimel burn himself if we used the superior version of Fata Morgana (not sure he would be allowed to, but contrary to bonding it doesn't say "only usable during a bleed action) to get past intercept to play a JR? > You cannot add bleed to a non-bleed action. He can't play Fat Morgana at sup while calling a Justicar Retribution. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > You cannot add bleed to a non-bleed action. > That rule is not in the rulebook nor the "All Rulings" page of this webpage. What do you base this statement on?

> AaronC wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > You cannot add bleed to a non-bleed action. > > > That rule is not in the rulebook nor the "All Rulings" page of this webpage. > > What do you base this statement on? > groups.google.com/group/alt.games.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/d69ce32eebf5fa8a/2c5d22288784feae?lnk=gst&q=bonding+non+bleed#2c5d22288784feae > 3.6. Can Bonding be played on a non-bleed action? > No. You may not play superior Bonding on a non-bleed action just to > get the stealth. In general, you may only play action modifiers which > are appropriate to the action. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> 3.6. Can Bonding be played on a non-bleed action? > No. You may not play superior Bonding on a non-bleed action just to > get the stealth. In general, you may only play action modifiers which > are appropriate to the action. > This doesn't actually say that you can't play bleed modifiying action modifiers during a non-bleed action. It is a question about the the card Bonding, and it doesn't explain how you determine which action modifiers are appropriate to which actions. It certainly implies that bleed modifiers can't be played during a non-bleed action, but it does not actually say it. This FAQ answer would not cover reaction modifiers or card text effects, such as that of Anu Diptinatpa. Additionally, according to that link, that FAQ is not authored by any past or present rules team member. Could you please do some more digging got support your position?

The FAQ has been reviewed numerous times by LSJ. Nothing new was ever added without his knowledge. That particular question has been in the FAQ since its inception, in 1998.

> AaronC wrote: > Could you please do some more digging got support your position? > [LSJ 19970917] > LSJ wrote: > The ruling that you can't play Bonding on a non-bleed action didn't "fix" > Bonding - Bonding wasn't broken. It corrected some players' attempts to > use the card in a manner that they felt was consistent with card text but > which violated a general rule (you can't play bleed modifiers on a > non-bleed action). >

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > Could you please do some more digging got support your position? > > > [LSJ 19970917] > > > LSJ wrote: > > The ruling that you can't play Bonding on a non-bleed action didn't "fix" > > Bonding - Bonding wasn't broken. It corrected some players' attempts to > > use the card in a manner that they felt was consistent with card text but > > which violated a general rule (you can't play bleed modifiers on a > > non-bleed action). > > Since that ruling is quite important, I'd assume to find it in the rulebook. But it seems it is not there - or did I miss it? pckvtes.wordpress.com

Does the same go for abilities to burn blood to get +x bleed? The quotes you added only takes about action modifiers. And even if so I'd like it if someone could play along in my hypothesis: Would a vampire burn itself with a JR if it boosted it's bleed during the referendum? As the card is written I would say so, but the ruling suggests it wouldn't, since "current" in the spirit of that ruling means 'if the vampire would make a basic bleed on it's prey without any optional modifiers' (if I haven't got it all wrong).

> Amenophobis wrote: > Since that ruling is quite important, I'd assume to find it in the rulebook. But it seems it is not there - or did I miss it? > The only time it comes up is when people try to play Bonding on a vote. Or Fata Morgana, back when it didn't have a bleed-only level. (Or possibly some similar cards.) Card text is sufficient for those, because it's been changed. Oh, there's Confusion too. The only card I can find quickly that doesn't directly address this is Power of One. I cannot ever recall seeing someone try to play Conditioning on a Banishment, for example. So it's not really that important a ruling.

> donk wrote: > Does the same go for abilities to burn blood to get +x bleed? The quotes you added only takes about action modifiers. And even if so I'd like it if someone could play along in my hypothesis: Would a vampire burn itself with a JR if it boosted it's bleed during the referendum? As the card is written I would say so, but the ruling suggests it wouldn't, since "current" in the spirit of that ruling means 'if the vampire would make a basic bleed on it's prey without any optional modifiers' (if I haven't got it all wrong). > Likely moot. How do you increase bleed during a political action?

> donk wrote: > Does the same go for abilities to burn blood to get +x bleed? > Yes. You can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist, and bleed modifiers are temporary for the action. [LSJ 20020106] > > LSJ wrote: > Argument) Apply (and ignore) the +bleed. > Response) Can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. (as James also said, with > citations) > > Note: Confusion modifies the bleed, not the minion. The +bleed would carry > over through a Mask, for example. > And attempting to use, say, Spiridonas's special on an action to equip Sport Bike would be attempting to modify a bleed that doesn't exist. If there were some way of getting permanent bleed that way (so it didn't just modify the action), it might well be possible. (Would depend on the wording, obviously.)

> vtesocrates wrote: > Likely moot. How do you increase bleed during a political action? > In theory, Spiridonas (for example) has a special that doesn't restrict its use to just bleed actions. So, in theory, you could use it on a Banishment. (Except you can't.)

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Yes. You can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist, and bleed modifiers are temporary for the action. > What is "bleed" exactly? Bleed is a kind of action. Bleed is also the amount of pool burned by a bleed action. Bleed is also a characteristic of some or all minions, depending on how you interpret card text and the rulebook. According to the rulebook, all minions have a "bleed amount". According to card text, allies have "bleed". Many effects that give +/- bleed do not say "during a bleed action", implying that bleed is a minion characteristic the same as strength, intercept, or stealth. Minions have strength, intercept, and stealth. Do minions have bleed or do bleed actions have bleed?

> AaronC wrote: > Minions have strength, intercept, and stealth. Do minions have bleed or do bleed actions have bleed? > Both - every minion has a base bleed of one, for example. Modifiers that modify the action's bleed require the action to actually have a bleed element. That is, bleed must exist for the action. [LSJ 20020106] (linked previously) If there were some sort of hybrid bleed/hunt action, you could modify the action's bleed because the bleed element would exist. You can't play Threats on a Choir action, because it doesn't have a bleed element. I can't think of any modifiers (that you could activate during the action) that aren't just ones modifying the current action, rather than the underlying minion.

Divine Image, If played on a non-bleed action at superior, could be this 'I can burn myself with a Justicar Retribution' modifier in conjecture.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > I can't think of any modifiers (that you could activate during the action) that aren't just ones modifying the current action, rather than the underlying minion. > Stealth and intercept modifiers modify a minion, according to the rulebook. From 6.2.2. (emphasis mine): > > To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. The action is blocked if the blocker's intercept is equal to or greater than the acting minion's stealth. By default, minions have 0 stealth and 0 intercept. So a block attempt will normally succeed unless the action has inherent stealth (such as hunting) or a card or effect is used to increase the acting minion's stealth. > > Some actions have an inherent stealth, as noted in the action list (sec. 6.1) and on some action cards. The minion taking such an action starts with greater stealth than normal. Additionally, some cards and other effects can be used to increase a minion's stealth or intercept, as noted on card text. > Please also consider that action modifier cards to not "modify an action", per se. Action modifier cards are simply played during an action by the acting Methuselah's minions. According to the rulebook, action modifiers that increase stealth or intercept modify a minion, not an action. One wonders why it works differently for a minion's "bleed".

> AaronC wrote: > Stealth and intercept modifiers modify a minion, according to the rulebook. > ... > One wonders why it works differently for a minion's "bleed". > Yes and no. Regarding stealth and intercept, the distinction is somewhat less relevant these days than it was. In the distant past (1995 or so), action modifiers were held to modify the action, but certain other effects - such as Backways - were not. This was important for the interaction with Mask of a Thousand Faces. What carried over to the new acting vampire, and what didn't? Lost in Crowds did, Backways didn't. Rules Team Rulings: 11/10/95 (Note that there has been a substantial reversal of this RTR.) These days, the distinction is pretty much irrelevant, since pretty much all non-inherent effects are carried over. (There is an annoyance involving inherent bleed vs inherent stealth, and when they're applied to the action.) However, this pretty much isn't something that the rulebook is likely to go into - it's really corner-case stuff. As to what might motivate a designer to treat them differently? Jyhad was designed with several mechanisms to (hopefull) make deck construction non-trivial in a no-limits environment. One such example is the fact that you can't play stealth uselessly, aside from a brief hiatus in a spectacularly odd WotC ruling. (You were prevented from playing unnecessary stealth during a block attempt but could then dump as much as you liked afterwards. Rules Team Rulings - 04/25/97 Again, reversed later.) Ditto, intercept. It strikes me that designers who didn't want you to dump stealth unnecessarily or intercept unnecessarily - though they can potentially be played on more or less any action - might also think that not being able to dump Threats or Bonding on an equip action would be kinda groovy.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > It strikes me that designers who didn't want you to dump stealth unnecessarily or intercept unnecessarily - though they can potentially be played on more or less any action - might also think that not being able to dump Threats or Bonding on an equip action would be kinda groovy. > Hmm. I guess we don't really know, since no rule or explicit ruling exists that says that bleed modifiers may not be played during a non-bleed action. One would think it would be an easy enough rule to add or to explicitly state, but apparently not. When we talk about a vampire's bleed, it seems that we are talking about what the rulebook refers to as bleed amount. I say that it is better design to talk about bleed in terms of being a minion characteristic as opposed to an action characteristic. That is because minions carry inherent bleed amount and bleed modifiers even while not acting. The rulebook supports this, even though some isolated and contradictory rulings do not. Just as minions have bleed amount when not acting, they have stealth and intercept when not acting. They also have strength when not in combat. This is a useful, since it allows cards, such a Justicar Retribution, that may give certain effects based on minions' bleed amount, stealth, intercept, or strength. However, this kind of effect is almost unknown in the game outside of Justicar Retribution. When I read Justicar Retribution, my understanding is that I add the minion's inherent bleed amount plus any modifiers that are in effect during the Justicar Retribution action, since, by the definition of the word "current", they are current. Even though it uses the word "bleed", which is a kind of action, it must be referring to "bleed amount", since Justicar Retribution is not a bleed action. If a bleed modifier is only "current" during a bleed action against a specific Methuselah, by definition that modifier is not current and therefore not part of the minion's bleed amount at the time of the vote. It seems simple enough, but whoever made the ruling about Justicar Retribution decided that "bleed" must be referring to an action, not a minion characteristic, when it seems clear enough that "bleed" in this context is referring to "bleed amount" not "bleed action".

> AaronC wrote: > Hmm. I guess we don't really know, since no rule or explicit ruling exists that says that bleed modifiers may not be played during a non-bleed action. > Rulings stating that you can't play (for example) Bonding on a non-bleed action have been cited in this very thread. A general ruling that you can't modify a non-existent bleed have been cited in this very thread.

> 3.6. Can Bonding be played on a non-bleed action? > No. You may not play superior Bonding on a non-bleed action just to > get the stealth. In general, you may only play action modifiers which > are appropriate to the action. > The ruling is about Bonding specifically. You seemed to cite two different rulings, but I couldn't find the second, the one about modifying an non-existent bleed. The point that I made previously about this ruling (and that ruling is not in this site under "All Rulings", by the way) does not explicitly say what action modifiers are "appropriate" to which actions. The ruling was not made by the original game designer, I don't think. It does not even specifically rule out playing superior Bonding on a non-bleed action in order to cycle the card as opposed to in order to increase stealth. The intention of rules team could have been made very clear simply by saying: "You may not play bleed modifiers on a non-bleed action". But it does not actually say that anywhere, as far as I can tell. I mean, say what you mean, right? Yes, that's a side rant. My main point is that the word "bleed" on card texts when used to refer to a minion must refer to the minion's "bleed amount". Effects that change the minion's "bleed" change a characteristic of the minion, not the characteristic of an action. A bleed action has no inherent value. The bleed amount of the minion is the actual value of the amount of pool that might be burned by the action. The ruling on Justicar Retribution says that you judge a minion's current bleed (amount) as it would be during a bleed action, when there is no reason to do so and it is counter-intuitive to do so since such a bleed amount would not be "current" during the referendum of a political action.

> AaronC wrote: > > > 3.6. Can Bonding be played on a non-bleed action? > > No. You may not play superior Bonding on a non-bleed action just to > > get the stealth. In general, you may only play action modifiers which > > are appropriate to the action. > > > It does not even specifically rule out playing superior Bonding on a non-bleed action in order to cycle the card as opposed to in order to increase stealth. > Yes, it does. "In general, you may only play action modifiers which are appropriate to the action." Bonding is not appropriate to a hunt action.

> AaronC wrote: > > > 3.6. Can Bonding be played on a non-bleed action? > > No. You may not play superior Bonding on a non-bleed action just to > > get the stealth. In general, you may only play action modifiers which > > are appropriate to the action. > > > The ruling is about Bonding specifically. You seemed to cite two different rulings, but I couldn't find the second, the one about modifying an non-existent bleed. > Ask someone to fix your computer for you, then. For example, we have: [LSJ 19970917] LSJ wrote: The ruling that you can't play Bonding on a non-bleed action didn't "fix" Bonding - Bonding wasn't broken. It corrected some players' attempts to use the card in a manner that they felt was consistent with card text but which violated a general rule (you can't play bleed modifiers on a non-bleed action). This is the very simple ruling you said doesn't exist. You can't play bleed modifiers on non-bleed actions. [LSJ 20020106] LSJ wrote: Argument) Apply (and ignore) the +bleed. Response) Can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. (as James also said, with citations) Note: Confusion modifies the bleed, not the minion. The +bleed would carry over through a Mask, for example. You can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. And the many rulings on Bonding.