Impulse for increase bleed

Player A anounce bleed with an action card (example: govern). So bleed for 3.
Player B: no block.
Player A : 3.
Player B remove 3 pool.
Player A play now action modifier card (lets say Conditioning),so +3 more.

Q1: can player A play Conditioning after B remove 3 pool?


Q2: if player B all did correct?
Q3: player B call judge,because A increase bleed after him remove his pool,judge say,is tricky but A can do that,is judge correct?

Q4: if A play correct and can do this,if is bleed 3+3,or for 6,i mean if B can now take his pool back and say: bleed is for 6 i can play Archon Investigation?

Q5: if A play correct can B take 3 pool back and play deflection to redirect bleed for 6?

Q6: if A correct can B take his 3 pool back and play new card:Visions of Zapathasura (sup:Lock this vampire to reduce a bleed against you to 0.)

Or maybe A and B dont play everthign correct? can we get official rule for : Impulse for increase bleed?

beslin wrote:

Player A anounce bleed with an action card (example: govern). So bleed for 3.
Player B: no block.
Player A : 3.
Player B remove 3 pool.

If no one played anything to give the impulse back to the acting Methuselah, as in this case, the declared bleed was 3, 3 was taken, the action has reached resolution. If reduction was played, Player A could certainly respond by increasing the bleed.

beslin wrote:

Player A play now action modifier card (lets say Conditioning),so +3 more.

This is illegal. There is no timing window given for this, since they passed on playing the Conditioning when declaring a bleed of 3.

beslin wrote:

Q1: can player A play Conditioning after B remove 3 pool?

No.

beslin wrote:

Q2: if player B all did correct?

Yes.

beslin wrote:

Q3: player B call judge,because A increase bleed after him remove his pool,judge say,is tricky but A can do that,is judge correct?

The judge is absolutely wrong. A's play was illegal.

beslin wrote:

Q4: if A play correct and can do this,if is bleed 3+3,or for 6,i mean if B can now take his pool back and say: bleed is for 6 i can play Archon Investigation?

Moot.

beslin wrote:

Q5: if A play correct can B take 3 pool back and play deflection to redirect bleed for 6?

Moot.

beslin wrote:

Q6: if A correct can B take his 3 pool back and play new card:Visions of Zapathasura (sup:Lock this vampire to reduce a bleed against you to 0.)

Moot.

beslin wrote:

Or maybe A and B dont play everthign correct? can we get official rule for : Impulse for increase bleed?

Explained above when I broke down the initial script.

Player A anounce bleed with an action card (example: govern). So bleed for 3.
Player B: no block. (B is declining to block which passes the impulse to the next player.)

**if all other players also decline to block it triggers the impulse to go back to A**

Player A : 3. (here is where bleed modifiers can be played which A didn´t by confirming it is for 3)
Player B remove 3 pool. (here is where B can deflect the bleed but didnt in this case)
Player A play now action modifier card (lets say Conditioning),so +3 more. (illegal play and should have been reversed)


Q1: No, it is too late to modify the bleed.

Q2: No, the modifier was incorrectly played

Q3: No, the judge is wrong and it is unfortunate that they didn´t know better

Q4/5/6: No, besides the fact that it is an illegal play it would be to late to play AI/bleed reduction/VoZ as it has to be played before action resolution



Official answer for your scenario : A1 -> A3 -> A4 -> C1 -> C3 cannot go to A2 as it is an illegal play

Ankha wrote:

If it complies with the following rules, then yes:

The action has been announced.

A - there is no current block attempt
1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
2. in addition to any effect that can be used during an action (playing an action modifier or reaction card, using effects of cards in play etc.), a Methuselah who can block (see Who May Attempt to Block) can declare a block attempt, switching to B - there is a current block attempt
3. if a Methuselah passes, that Methuselah cannot declare any block attempt until the end of the action unless the target of the action changes.
4. once every Methuselah has passed, switch to C - blocks have been declined

B - there is a current block attempt
1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
2. the target of the action cannot be changed
3. the Methuselah who has declared the current block attempt may use effects that force the currently blocking to attempt to block (no other minion can attempt to block until this block attempt is resolved)
4. once every Methuselah has passed, the block attempt is resolved: if it is successful, the action is unsuccessful and blocked. Otherwise, switch back to A - there is no current block attempt

C - blocks have been declined
1. the sequencing rule applies as normal
2. if the target of the action is changed, switch to A - there is no current block attempt
3. once every Methuselah has passed, the action is successful and resolves

In the OP scenario, the important part is :

Player A : 3.

At this exact moment, the acting player have the impulse and can play an action modifier. When he says "3", he is confirming that the bleed is not modified. So we go to the resolution of the action which is the loss of 3 pools.

Thanks,kschaefer inm8 and Timo,i think same,im player B in this scenario.

I have 2 questions now for the ruling director.
Q1) Can the director confirm if the player whose answer is correct?
Q2) What if the judge is wrong with a decision? What can players do, find a link with the correct answer, or?

The exact interaction and exchange, and what players understood on the table, matters.

Player A: "bleed with Govern the Unaligned at inferior"
Player B: "no block."
Player A : *mumbles*
Player B removes 3 pool.
Player A: "wait, Conditioning"

might or might not be legal depending on what was mumbled and what players understood on the table.

Also:

Player A: "bleed with Govern the Unaligned at inferior"
Player B: *mumbles*
Player A: It's 3
Player B removes 3 pool.
Player A: wait, Conditioning

might be valid from A's perspective if they think B was asking for the amount, but might be perceived as invalid from B if they were answering "no block" in a way that was not understood or in another language.

And maybe a harder one for you all to ponder:

Player A: "Bleed with Govern the Unaligned at inferior"
Player B: "no block"
Player A: Well, it's a Govern, so it's 3, pl...
Player B quickly removes 3 pool.
Player A: wait, I was going to say, it's 3, plus a Conditioning, so 6.

How about this one? It's very very close to Igor's scenario, but not as clear cut as it was now, is it?

I think the exact interaction, and good faith, matter. Ultimately, it has to be a judge's call. If the judge's call does not agree with you, you can and should call the head judge. If the head judge's call does not agree with you, sadly you're left with just your tears to cry >_>