Andre LeRoux + spying mission

I know the timing is the same ... but could you play a spying mission with a vampire and use Andre's special on the same bleed of 1 in any order?

Andre LeRoux
Capacity: 3
Group: 5
Camarilla: When a vampire you control would successfully bleed, you may reduce the bleed amount by 1 to give Andre +2 bleed this turn.

Spying Mission
Action Modifier
Obfuscate
inf:+1 stealth.
sup: Only usable when a bleed would be successful. The bleed burns no pool; it is unsuccessful. Instead, put this card on the acting vampire. The next time this vampire would successfully bleed the same Methuselah, burn this card for +2 bleed.

To me, it seems that using spying mission supp renders the bleed unsuccesfull so apparently Andre can not be used anymore after that; Using spying mission first will always disable the possibility to use Andre's effect.

The other way around reducing by one through Andre could make a bleed for one to 0 and therefore unsuccesfull, blocking the use of Spying mission supp.

In conclusion I think it will only work on a bleed for 2 or more; on a bleed for 2+ you can reduce by one for Andre's effect and still have 1 bleed left that is (would be) succesfull for triggering Spying mission supp.

Makes sense ... spying mission doesn't reduce the bleed and since the timing is the same I thought there might have been a window to reduce.

gotcha wrote:

I know the timing is the same ... but could you play a spying mission with a vampire and use Andre's special on the same bleed of 1 in any order?

Just for confirmation's sake, [FZD 20121011] heavily implies that it's possible to use both if (and only if) the bleed is for more than one, and you use Andre's special first, so the bleed is still successful. Any other combination means that by the time you try to play the second effect, you no longer have a successful bleed.

Pascal wrote:

Azel wrote:

Hmm, well to keep this topic relevant here, I do have one. It has to do with ordering effects. In a bleed of greater than 1, can I Andre LeRoux's special and then Spying Mission on the same bleed?

Yes.

Azel wrote:

Both require a "would be successful" bleed therefore the bleed must equal at least 1 by the time Spying Mission goes off. So a "would be successful" bleed for 2 can be reduced by one to get +2 for LeRoux, then since it's still at least 1, play Spying Mission to store +2 bleed for a future bleed. Naturally this only works in this order, but it's legal, yes?

Sure.

Correct.
You cannot have both (Andre + play Spying Mission) simultaneously, becuse nothing is simultaneous (*) in V:TES.
So you would have to use one before the other. Using Spying Mission makes the bleed unsuccessful (**), making Andre's ability no longer usable.
Using Andre's ability first reduces the bleed to n-1. If the initial amount (n) was 2 or more, you can still play Spying Mission. Otherwise, since the bleed is now for 0 (and unsuccessful), you cannot play Spying Mission.


(*) Except for strike resolution.
(**) in future revisions of the card, the bleed will be reduced to 0 (and be unsuccessful).

Pascal wrote:

Correct.
You cannot have both (Andre + play Spying Mission) simultaneously, becuse nothing is simultaneous (*) in V:TES.
So you would have to use one before the other. Using Spying Mission makes the bleed unsuccessful (**), making Andre's ability no longer usable.
Using Andre's ability first reduces the bleed to n-1. If the initial amount (n) was 2 or more, you can still play Spying Mission. Otherwise, since the bleed is now for 0 (and unsuccessful), you cannot play Spying Mission.


(*) Except for strike resolution.
(**) in future revisions of the card, the bleed will be reduced to 0 (and be unsuccessful).

I strongly believe the interaction of these 2 effects as outlined above exists because of sloppy card text, specifically the phrases "would successfully bleed" and "bleed would be successful.” Replacing these phrases with "successfully bleeds" and "bleed is successful," respectively, would clarify that you cannot use both effects together no matter the order of effects, and there'd instead be a much clearer (but different) way in which these cards interact.

The “would” conditional verb form is used on approximately 1.2% of cards. I can't figure out what the advantage of using this verb form is for any of those cards. Is there any?