About Appolonius ADV.

Reading the text of Appolonius ADV., I saw a problem or an overpower. It´s written " Appolonius get +1 bleed for each titled vampire controlled by the target of the bleed.", since the target of the bleed can change the +1 bleed is already sumed to the action. Appolonius ADV. is bleeding Methuselah A Which controls 4 titled vampires, acquiring +4 bleed, the target of a minimun 5 bleed action is Methuselah A, Methuselah A redirects the bleed to Methuselah B which controls 2 titled vampires, it´s already a 5 bleed action and the card says to add +2 bleed turning it into a minimum 7 bleed action!!! After all the target is Methuselah B. And the action gains +2bleed as the modifier says. In the end Methuselah B redirects the bleed to Methuselah C which controls no titled vampire but it´s already a minimum 7 bleed action!!!!!

I think it´s not the objective of the text? But we must obey what is written.

If I misinterpreted, sorry, but since the card is a pre-release, It´s better to correct before the release, or I´m wrong and OK, i´m living with it.


It would be the biggest bleed ever a Brujah would achieve in a VtES game.

Thanks

I think you're completely wrong with the subject. IMO it should be :

Appolonius ADV bleeds Methuselah A (controlling 4 titled vampires) -> bleed for 5
Methuselah A bounces the bleed to Methuselah B (controlling 2 titled vampires) -> bleed for 3
Methuselah B bounces the bleed to Methuselah C (controlling 0 titled vampires) -> bleed for 1

I guess it works like Constanza Vinti's special.


I'm more concerned about the built-in baron than the floating +1 bleed BTW.

I´m OK with your interpretation, but Constanza´s text is " Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue."

It´s completely different from Appolonius ADV.

If it was written in Appolonius ADV´s text " Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each titled vampire a Methuselah control when bleeding " I would have no question.

Henrique_Sorocaba wrote:

I´m OK with your interpretation, but Constanza´s text is " Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue."

It´s completely different from Appolonius ADV.

If it was written in Appolonius ADV´s text " Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each titled vampire a Methuselah control when bleeding " I would have no question.

If your initial interpretation would be correct :

Constanza bleeds methuselah A (controlling 1 ventrue) -> bleed for 3
Methuselah A bounces to methuselah B (controlling 1 ventrue) -> bleed for 5

It's not the case, methuselah B will be bled for 3 en in any case.

It doesn't say that he would gain +x bleed for the duration of the action, so I would say it works just like Constanza's special, or any of the variety of other gain +bleed against x abilities lot of vampires have. So in other words, he only gains +bleed equal to the number of titled vampires controlled by the current target of the bleed, not from every methuselah he has been bleeding during the action.

This is Appolonius text

Appolonius get +1 bleed for each titled vampire controlled by the target of the bleed.

This is Constanza text

Constanza gets +2 bleed when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue.

My suggestion is that Appolonius text turn to this:

Appolonius gets +1 bleed for each titled vampire a Methuselah control when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a titled vampire.


I don´t want Appolonius to gain a +1 bleed everytime the bleed bounces, but the insertion of "controlled by the target of the bleed" is not a good idea. But I didn´t designed the card, and the card is not released, then if the idea, was the bleed to get higher and higher the text can be interpreted this way too, the way it´s written is the problem to me.