How I would relaunch V:TES (card reprint)

Lech wrote:

I think there should be different kind of bleed bounce, like one where two meths are bleed at once (and half rounded up is targeting chosen meth).

Would open a big can of worms blocking-wise.

Just sayin'...

Lönkka wrote:

Lech wrote:

I think there should be different kind of bleed bounce, like one where two meths are bleed at once (and half rounded up is targeting chosen meth).

Would open a big can of worms blocking-wise.

Just sayin'...

It would send the Rules Team into psychotherapy.

Actually, that is pretty easy to make work: resolve the bleed against the bouncing player, then the action continues against the new target. Besides, that opens new design space since one can play on both the bleed reduction and bounced amount to tune the power level and give different flavours to different disciplines.

There is something fundamentally unbalanced with bounce as it is currently implemented: the strongest possible bleed defense should not be coupled with one of the only offensive effects one can take out of turn, when both effects would be strong enough to warrant their own separate cards.

Non-existant user wrote:

Actually, that is pretty easy to make work: resolve the bleed against the bouncing player, then the action continues against the new target.

Well, that opens up an even bigger can of worms.

The two Methuselahs being bled (A and B, let's say): can either of them bounce the bleed? Can they bounce the bleed to each other? Deflection says: "Choose another Methuselah" - meaning you can't self-target redundantly - but if B is also being bled, can A choose them as "another" Methuselah? When can A play her bounce? Is there a gap 'after blocks are declined' when A declines to block before the action "continues" to B? The game already supports actions that target multiple Methuselahs - why is this a better option?

If the action is successful against B, is A still 'being bled'? (The action apparently continued against B, so it's not clear how this works.) For example, can Methuselah C (neither acting nor being bled) play Major Boon to target A? Does C play it after A declines to block, or when B declines to block also?

Do vampires with conditional bleed bonuses stack if both target Methuselahs meet the requirements?

If Cat Burglary is bounced in this way ("If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess."), who decides which Methuselah gets bled at all?

Various cards reduce bleeds "against you". Do they reduce the whole amount, or just the amount against you?

Azel wrote:

Frantic Phone Tree
Reaction
1 blood
Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah.
As above, and reduce the bleed by 1.

The [CEL] version seems... unlikely. Why would you want your prey to take 1 less pool damage? Why not just play it at [cel]? The circumstances in which you'd volunteer to harm the new target less seem pretty rare, short-changing the vampire with [CEL] somewhat.

The two Methuselahs being bled (A and B, let's say): can either of them bounce the bleed? Can they bounce the bleed to each other?

That is precisely that my wording avoids: at no point in time are A and B bled simultaneously. It's A first, then B. Then standard rules apply at all times, and there is no problem with B bouncing back to A. Same applies to all your questions after.

When can A play her bounce?

After A declines to block to follow the current timing, but that can be changed if one wants to (the current timing would prevent A from bouncing part of the bleed, then blocking his own part).

Is there a gap 'after blocks are declined' when A declines to block before the action "continues" to B?

You must have missed the most important word in my first post:
resolve the bleed against the bouncing player, then the action continues against the new target.
That "gap" is the first action resolution: A burns pool, the active methuselah gets the edge, then we move on to B. That is why A and B are never both targets at the same time.

The game already supports actions that target multiple Methuselahs - why is this a better option?

Says the guy who just raised a heap of problems that would only happen if A and B are both targets at the same time

If the action is successful against B, is A still 'being bled'? (The action apparently continued against B, so it's not clear how this works.)

If Blood Brother 1 enters combat and Blood Brother 2 plays Coordinate Attacks, is Blood Brother 1 still part of the second combat?

Various cards reduce bleeds "against you". Do they reduce the whole amount, or just the amount against you?

There is no "whole amount" anymore once the bounce is played, there is the current bleed against A, and there is a continuation against B that does not exist yet. If someone wants to reduce the bleed against B, they have to wait until B is actually bled to play it.

Back to the blood brothers: playing Coordinate Attacks does not make 2 part of the combat right away, so for example the opponent cannot play Taste of Vitae to gain the blood that 2 lost to Brother's blood. You have to wait for a continuation to trigger before you can act on it.