Bleeding to oust with Lorrie Dunsirn at 1 pool

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

@PB:

So explain why the two costs result in 'different ousts'?
All you've said is "We've ruled one to do X and another to do Y" there is no logical pattern to it.

Yes, I have read the rulebook. Yes, I do know the simultaneous oust rule. Yes, it is obvious with cards like Anarchist Uprising/Domain Challenge.

So,

1) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that 'checking for being ousted' occurs only AFTER resolving a card and not when the card is paid for?

Where it reads that cost is paid and action is resolved are "simultaneous".
Rulebook 6.2.3: "If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. "
"and" makes the trick.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

i.e. If Lorrie Dunsirn had instead called Autarkis Persecution and not taken an action which would oust your prey, would you be ousted?

Yes. The action to call the referendum is successful. Pay cost (1 pool) and call the referendum. Now, you're ousted.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

2) Where in the rulebook/CRR does it state that ousting is not part of a card resolution?

i.e. Tensions in the Ranks + Force of Will bleed + ousting your prey while you are on 1 pool... is this a simultaneous oust or not? If so why so and if not why not? In addition, how is this process different to playing Eternals of Sirius when on 4 pool?

That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:

Name: Force of Will
[DS:C2, FN:PR2, Anarchs:PAG/PG2, KMW:PG, Third:C]
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Fortitude
Only usable by a tapped vampire.
[for] Bleed with +1 bleed. After resolution, this vampire takes 2 unpreventable aggravated damage even if the action is blocked.
[FOR] As above, but with +2 bleed, and the acting vampire takes only 1 unpreventable aggravated damage.

Here's a closer example of what you're trying to use:

Previous rulings show it isn't.

Please notice it is likely you won't like these rulings. They are, however, what they are: rulings, applied to scenarii.
Bima + Tension in the Ranks + Govern : [LSJ 20080506] wrote:

> 1/ Bima has a Dominate skill card, 2 life and
> bleeds with Govern the Unaligned (cost : 1 blood).
> Bima is not blocked and plays Conditioning (cost : 1 blood).
>
> Bima burns due to having zero life, but the bleed of 5 is still resolved,
> meaning the target of the bleed loses 5 pool, right ?

Correct.

(notice this one doesn't show how effects are ordered).

[LSJ 20080512] wrote:

> Say there are two players left in the game:
> Player A has a Bima in play with Dominate with one life left, Player A
> has one pool left and has a Govern the Unaligned in his hand.
> Player B has no cards in hand and no minoins in play, but has 3 pool,
> a Tension in the Ranks and an Anarch Revolt in play.
>
> It is the minion phase of Player A, and he bleeds with Govern. Which
> is the right order of the events:
> - The Bima burns before the pool is lost due to the successful bleed
> thus ousting player A as the Tension kicks in, or
> - Player B looses the 3 pool due to the bleed before the Bima burns,
> or
> - Burning the Bima and the pool due to the bleed happens at the same
> time, thus both players are ousted with the same action.

The second.

Bima burns a blood to cause the Methuselah B to burn 3 pool and be ousted.

Assuming nothing interrupts that, you then handle the effects that arise from
that -- the main one being "game ends (with only A remaining)".

For completeness, let's add player C so the game doesn't end.

So B is ousted and Tension leaves play and A gains 6 pool.
Bima burns from being empty.
A now completes his turn.

If the Tension had been controlled by A (or C):

B is ousted and A gains 6 pool.
Bima burns from being empty.
A burns 1 pool for the Tension.
A completes his turn.

You can see here that Tension in the Ranks is a "slow" effect: [LSJ 20090414]

> Player A has 3 pool and player B has 1. Tension is in play. They are
> the only players left. Player B bleeds for 4 and Player A plays Archon
> Investigation to burn the vampire so Tension kicks in. How are the
> VP's handled and who gets the last VP? Would there be any difference
> if there was a player C? I.e. can Player B survive it by collecting
> the 6 pool first?

AI is played and costs 3 pool.
It leaves its "owner" empty (ousted) and the acting vampire burned.
So A is ousted. B gets 1 VP. Last remaining player gets B an additional VP.
Game ends (before Tension can kick in).

Let's take another example:
Lorrie, with 2 Quietus and 2 Thaumaturgy Discipline cards (making her an 8-cap vampire) plays Dark Mirror of the Mind while her controller is on 1 pool.
If the action isn't blocked, her controller now has 2 pool after resolution.

That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:

Ya know, you saying there that the oust is part of the resolution of the action is actually an argument in favor of Lorrie not killing you with the bleed.

Because resolving the action *and* paying the cost (the *and* here, according to you, implying it happening simultaneously) then include the gaining of 6 pool. Which means I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool and thus, according to the Eternals ruling, means I end up at 6 pool.

Unless of course, you didn't actually mean to say that the oust is part of the resolution.

And what happens when she bleeds with Kindred Spirits?

Izaak wrote:

That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:

Ya know, you saying there that the oust is part of the resolution of the action is actually an argument in favor of Lorrie not killing you with the bleed.

Because resolving the action *and* paying the cost (the *and* here, according to you, implying it happening simultaneously) then include the gaining of 6 pool. Which means I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool and thus, according to the Eternals ruling, means I end up at 6 pool.

Unless of course, you didn't actually mean to say that the oust is part of the resolution.

And what happens when she bleeds with Kindred Spirits?

Here is how I see it :
The resolution of the action has a first step which is "do the effects of the action" which happen simultaneously whith "pay the cost" then, you check other effect which are induced by those thing : for example someone(s) is (are) ousted, a combat occur, a referendum occur etc. And during all those things if you are not ousted, you can play action modifier, reaction, effects etc.

So about KS, considering the dark mirror of the mind example, my guess would be, you pay the cost simultaneously with gaining 1 pool and your prey loosing pools.

Izaak wrote:

That's an easy one, as Force of Will's aggravated damage is inflicted after resolution (== after the oust). Per Force of Will's cardtext:

Ya know, you saying there that the oust is part of the resolution of the action is actually an argument in favor of Lorrie not killing you with the bleed.

Because resolving the action *and* paying the cost (the *and* here, according to you, implying it happening simultaneously) then include the gaining of 6 pool. Which means I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool and thus, according to the Eternals ruling, means I end up at 6 pool.

Unless of course, you didn't actually mean to say that the oust is part of the resolution.

What I meant to say was "The oust is part of the resolution [of the bleed]."

What you got wrong is this: "I simultaneously lose 1 pool and gain 6 pool "
You simultaneously are ousted and oust your prey. The Rulebook covers that (see reference above).

Izaak wrote:

And what happens when she bleeds with Kindred Spirits?

You gain 1 pool. If you were on 1 pool, you stay on 1 pool. If that also ousts your prey, you now have 7 pool.

what I'm taking away from this is that ousting happens after, and is resolved separately from a card effect or action.

If a card effect costs pool and gains pool before the effect is totally and completely over, the player is not ousted.

Effectively, the game does not 'check' for ousting during the resolution of a card effect, but checks after the act is concluded..

So, if I am reading this correctly, if Lorrie uses bum's rush to enter combat with a minion who is Anathema (while her controller is at 1 pool) and manages to gain the pool from anathema, her controller is not ousted.