Justicar Retribution

jamesatzephyr wrote:

AaronC wrote: Could you please do some more digging got support your position?

[LSJ 19970917]

LSJ wrote: The ruling that you can't play Bonding on a non-bleed action didn't "fix"
Bonding - Bonding wasn't broken. It corrected some players' attempts to
use the card in a manner that they felt was consistent with card text but
which violated a general rule (you can't play bleed modifiers on a
non-bleed action).

Since that ruling is quite important, I'd assume to find it in the rulebook. But it seems it is not there - or did I miss it?

Does the same go for abilities to burn blood to get +x bleed? The quotes you added only takes about action modifiers. And even if so I'd like it if someone could play along in my hypothesis: Would a vampire burn itself with a JR if it boosted it's bleed during the referendum? As the card is written I would say so, but the ruling suggests it wouldn't, since "current" in the spirit of that ruling means 'if the vampire would make a basic bleed on it's prey without any optional modifiers' (if I haven't got it all wrong).

Amenophobis wrote: Since that ruling is quite important, I'd assume to find it in the rulebook. But it seems it is not there - or did I miss it?

The only time it comes up is when people try to play Bonding on a vote. Or Fata Morgana, back when it didn't have a bleed-only level. (Or possibly some similar cards.) Card text is sufficient for those, because it's been changed. Oh, there's Confusion too. The only card I can find quickly that doesn't directly address this is Power of One.

I cannot ever recall seeing someone try to play Conditioning on a Banishment, for example.

So it's not really that important a ruling.

donk wrote: Does the same go for abilities to burn blood to get +x bleed? The quotes you added only takes about action modifiers. And even if so I'd like it if someone could play along in my hypothesis: Would a vampire burn itself with a JR if it boosted it's bleed during the referendum? As the card is written I would say so, but the ruling suggests it wouldn't, since "current" in the spirit of that ruling means 'if the vampire would make a basic bleed on it's prey without any optional modifiers' (if I haven't got it all wrong).

Likely moot. How do you increase bleed during a political action?

donk wrote: Does the same go for abilities to burn blood to get +x bleed?

Yes. You can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist, and bleed modifiers are temporary for the action.

[LSJ 20020106]

LSJ wrote: Argument) Apply (and ignore) the +bleed.
Response) Can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. (as James also said, with
citations)

Note: Confusion modifies the bleed, not the minion. The +bleed would carry
over through a Mask, for example.

And attempting to use, say, Spiridonas's special on an action to equip Sport Bike would be attempting to modify a bleed that doesn't exist.

If there were some way of getting permanent bleed that way (so it didn't just modify the action), it might well be possible. (Would depend on the wording, obviously.)

vtesocrates wrote: Likely moot. How do you increase bleed during a political action?

In theory, Spiridonas (for example) has a special that doesn't restrict its use to just bleed actions.

So, in theory, you could use it on a Banishment. (Except you can't.)