Announce actions and cards you play

Hi, some doubts about that.

The Rules says:

1. Announce the Action

All details of the action are defined when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, and so on. Any card required for the action is played (face up) at this time. Lock the acting minion (only ready unlocked minions can perform actions).


1) Player A declares "bleed" with Iadanza, player B does not realize wich vampire is bleeding him and decline blocks, no action modifiers, player B takes 1 pool left and player A says the bleed is for 2. Player B argue that he have to announce how much is the initial bleed so he wants to come back and try to block. Do we have to rollback to the block attempt ?

2) Player A plays Break the Bonds and announce "bleed for 2". He cannot choose the obf effect in this moment but pre can, but he just says "bleed for 2". The bleeds succes and he puts 1 blood on uncontrolled vamp that has not been choosed in the announce action. Player B says he cant put the blood on uncontrolled, that is correct ?

3) Same as Protocol Platinum, just says "bleed for 2", does not benefit of ofs effect because didnt announce.

I think the word "can be used" are the key in cases 2 and 3, but in case 1 the rules have to be followed in case of misunderstanding.


Platinum Protocol, The

Requires an Anarch. More than one Discipline can be used to play this card. Ⓓ Bleed.
Obfuscate This is a +1 stealth action.
Presence The bleed is with +1 bleed.
Protean Put 1 corruption counter on a minion controlled by the target Methuselah if the bleed is successful (for 1 or more).



Break the Bonds

Requires an Anarch. More than one Discipline can be used to play this card. Ⓓ Bleed.
Animalism The bleed is with +1 bleed.
Obfuscate If the bleed is successful, you can lock a minion controlled by the target Methuselah.
Presence If the bleed is successful, add 1 blood to a vampire in your uncontrolled region.

Ankha wrote:

Millicent wrote:

1) Player A declares "bleed" with Iadanza, player B does not realize wich vampire is bleeding him and decline blocks, no action modifiers, player B takes 1 pool left and player A says the bleed is for 2. Player B argue that he have to announce how much is the initial bleed so he wants to come back and try to block. Do we have to rollback to the block attempt ?

It looks like A declared correctly the action: Iadanza is the acting minion, and she does the "bleed" action.
B looks faulty for saying "no block" without caring about who is acting, and what is the bleed amount.
A assumed that B knew what was going on.

Shouldn't A declare what is the bleed amount and not just "bleed"?

Questions 2 and 3 are as I expected, but question 1 raises many doubts for me.

If, according to the rules, all possible information must be given when announcing the action, I don't understand how the amount of bleed is not relevant enough to be ignored, since it is an intrinsic part of the action.

You say that in situation 1, a judge can determine a rollback if he understands that there has been a lack of understanding between the two players and not a clear intention to take advantage of a mistake/distraction. I think this could apply every time a judge is called for this issue. I certainly believe that this response is too open to a judge's discretion and should perhaps be more clearly supported by the rules.

Apart from the rules, whenever I have played in European championships, people have taken this into account, announcing “bleed for 1” or “bleed for 3,” etc., as part of the information to be disclosed so as not to generate doubts or induce errors such as the one I gave in point 1. Unfortunately, this does not happen as regularly in my area, probably due to ignorance or habit.

I think this example that appears in the rules is conclusive, but I need definitive confirmation. I think it is graphic enough that it cannot be refuted, but I am often surprised by this game.

1. Announce the Action

All details of the action are defined when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, and so on. Any card required for the action is played (face up) at this time, but is temporarily set aside (out of play) until the action resolves. Lock the acting minion (only ready unlocked minions can perform actions).

During Sarah’s minion phase, she decides that one of her unlocked minions, Belinde, will take an action to bleed her prey, Alexis. Sarah locks Belinde and says, “Belinde bleeds Alexis for 1 (meaning 1 pool).”

[...]

Clearly, when I am acting as a judge and this situation arises, I would like to know if determining the rollback each time for not providing sufficient information would be correct according to my criteria, since the arguments I hear from the players will always revolve around the same thing. distraction and rules.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

KoRneeshon wrote:

Ankha wrote:

Millicent wrote:

1) Player A declares "bleed" with Iadanza, player B does not realize wich vampire is bleeding him and decline blocks, no action modifiers, player B takes 1 pool left and player A says the bleed is for 2. Player B argue that he have to announce how much is the initial bleed so he wants to come back and try to block. Do we have to rollback to the block attempt ?

It looks like A declared correctly the action: Iadanza is the acting minion, and she does the "bleed" action.
B looks faulty for saying "no block" without caring about who is acting, and what is the bleed amount.
A assumed that B knew what was going on.

Shouldn't A declare what is the bleed amount and not just "bleed"?

B should have asked if needed but didn't really care of the action declaration.

Regards,
Rémi.

Why didnt care ? Why is not important that information and are important all other effects, costs, targets, etc ? All is about information of the action.