Justicar Retribution

Pascal wrote:

So, you'd rather have an updated non-printed cardtext than a ruling in the Rulings page. It's a fair call, but there's no reason to be that harsh. OK.

That ruling was made in 1998, and the card was reprinted in 2002 and 2008. The card text could have been updated at those times to make it so the ruling was unnecessary. Another part of the card text was in fact changed at one of those printings, so it's not like changing the card text was out of the question.

I am "harsh" when I see something that could be done better, and you aren't substantively disagreeing with my argument. When a ruling can be eliminated by updating card texts in later printings, yes, I think that is what should be done. I am criticizing the fact that it wasn't done. I believe that relying on rulings less is good. This ruling in particular is bad because the interpretation of one word, "current", does not agree with common English usage.

You yourself have changed the card text of a large number of cards with errata and argued for a literal interpretation of card text. I don't think that you have a philosophical disagreement with my suggestion that the card could either be given an erratum or that the ruling could be eliminated in favor of a literal reading of the card.

AaronC wrote:

That is why you do not calculate the extra bleed from Cybele's bleed action, the extra bleed from a Camera Phone action, or the additional bleed from Spiridonas's special when determining the current bleed for the purposes of JR. They only exist during a bleed action.

No, that isn't why. It's because Cybele's bleed action isn't mandatory, nor is the Camera Phone action nor is Spiridonas burning blood. Constanza's +2 bleed when bleeding into Ventrue is mandatory and thus it is counted by Justicar Retribution.

The text makes it seem as if someone has to currently be bleeding which is very confusing how one would pull that off... lol.

However, I see that someone would have to have met the requirements at base like Lucian or have a permanent modifier or a conditional modifier like Queen Anne in order for this to work. Nice to know.

vtesocrates wrote:

Constanza's +2 bleed when bleeding into Ventrue is mandatory and thus it is counted by Justicar Retribution.[/quote]

You've left out the part that the +2 bleed is only considered if Constanzs's controller's prey controls a ready Ventrue. The grandprey of Constanza's controller who controls Ventrue might wish that Constanza could be affected by his JR when all her bleeds get bounced to him.

I think the source of my rant is the fact that no one posting to this thread besides RoddiumusPrime has acknowledged that using the term "current" in the text of a political action to describe bleed modifiers that only occur "during" a bleed action is contradictory. The term "current" seems to be added to specifically rule out bleed modifiers gain during actions. It does rule them out, except for one exception that requires a separate ruling.

I am also troubled, and interested, by the question as to whether "bleed" is a characteristic of a vampire or the characteristic of an action. As far as I can tell, "bleed" is a characteristic of a minion. Vtesocrates' idea that + bleed is not counted in calculating a vampire's bleed characteristic is just bizarre to me.

AaronC wrote:

I think the source of my rant is the fact that no one posting to this thread besides RoddiumusPrime has acknowledged that using the term "current" in the text of a political action to describe bleed modifiers that only occur "during" a bleed action is contradictory.

No, the source of your rant is that no one say they agree with you. There is no "inherent" contradiction, just people who think it's contradictory and other not.

I, for one, do not think the problem is here, and don't understand your argument in a game where you cannot easily bleed someone else than your prey.

If anything would need to be addressed, it's more as a whole to put into the rulebook or somewhere a concise summary of the main reasonings for ruling. Like "bleed should be evaluated as if a standard bleed action was in the doing" or "passive denote environemental damage, active vampire damage". It would both make easier to remember ruling and silence thoses peoples who believe that if they disagree that's because the ruling is dumb and not because they disagree.

AaronC wrote:

That ruling was made in 1998, and the card was reprinted in 2002 and 2008. The card text could have been updated at those times to make it so the ruling was unnecessary.

I agree with this with all my heart.

And also, if it was up to me, I would have excluded all conditional bonuses from the JR check (so Constanza and Cybele would be safe but Arika and Al-Muntaquim with 2+ burned Caitifs or Francois with a lap top would burn).

And on a side note, would Hazimel burn himself if we used the superior version of Fata Morgana (not sure he would be allowed to, but contrary to bonding it doesn't say "only usable during a bleed action) to get past intercept to play a JR? The stealth card would clearly put his current bleed at 3, but only for this action and not if he would just tap to bleed his prey without any cards or special actions.