[LSJ] Form of Mist + Mask of a Thousand?

I did some snooping around the newsgroup history, but couldn't find anything on point: Mask of a Thousand Faces requires that the masking minion be able to play the action card and any action modifiers that the acting minion played. But there's no restriction on combat cards played? Scenario: Soldat bleeds, is blocked, gets into combat, tears a post, grapples, hits for buckets. Presses to continue, second round, Form of Mist and continues his action. Guido Lucciano Masks (Soldat untaps) plays conditioning. No problem?

crispy wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Card text (with errata): "action modifiers {or other effects}" So it includes combat cards. Guido cannot mask (unless he has acquired superior Protean). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Superior Form of Mist is counted as an action modifier; since Guido couldn't play it, he can't Mask. "The superior counts as an action modifier when played by an acting vampire, so cannot be played more than once per action at superior. [RTR 19980623]" --Colin McGuigan

[ quoted text not captured ] That errata was made obsolete by the most recent printing. Form of Mist is just a combat card. The current rulings/errata on Mask still prevent a vampire from Masking after a superior Form of Mist if that vampire couldn't have played superior Form of Mist. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<R8Smc.29797$Ut1.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > Soldat bleeds, is blocked, gets into combat, tears a post, grapples, > > hits for buckets. Presses to continue, second round, Form of Mist and > > continues his action. Guido Lucciano Masks (Soldat untaps) plays > > conditioning. > > Card text (with errata): > "action modifiers {or other effects}" > > So it includes combat cards. > > Guido cannot mask (unless he has acquired superior Protean). Makes sense. I missed "combat cards" being "other effects". I must've been looking at dated errata. So I know special abilities of vampires also qualify as other effects, so what is the result where: Scenario A: Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Soldat wants to Mask to continue. Result A: He can't, since Lazverinus used his "+2 strength" special ability, which he must use if making a hand strike. Scenario B: Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Mateusz Gryzbowsky (w/ 2 Protean masters) wants to Mask to continue. Result B: He can, since he has +2 strength, so it's the "same" ability (he can strike with +2 strength in the same way he can play PRO cards at superior) The one that I can't grok from these principles is: Scenario C: Oliver Thrace (w/ 2 PRO masters) bleeds, blocked, strikes form of mist to continue. Opponent maybe can, or maybe can't, strike Majesty to untap. Soldat masks to continue. Result C: Don't know how it can be shown an ability which prohibits an action was used, short of the opponent showing the card and saying "well I _would_have_ played this." Or is it just impossible to mask an action where the acting vampire has an ability which prohibits something from happening, when it may have happened (can't Mask Aisling if a younger Tremere could have chosen to block)? I know it's ridiculous. I just want to know.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:gyVmc.30359$Ut1.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... [snip] > That errata was made obsolete by the most recent printing. > Form of Mist is just a combat card. > > The current rulings/errata on Mask still prevent a vampire from Masking > after a superior Form of Mist if that vampire couldn't have played > superior Form of Mist. So could the masking vampire also play superior Form of Mist if blocked and combat ensues? Relevant card text: Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting, he or she may burn 1 blood to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still be blocked). A vampire may play only 1 Form of Mist at superior each action. -- Mike Ooi "You have left the world. Click to continue."

crispy wrote: > Makes sense. I missed "combat cards" being "other effects". I > must've been looking at dated errata. So I know special abilities of > vampires also qualify as other effects, so what is the result where: > > Scenario A: > Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for > 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Soldat wants to > Mask to continue. > > Result A: > He can't, since Lazverinus used his "+2 strength" special ability, > which he must use if making a hand strike. Correct. > Scenario B: > Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for > 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Mateusz > Gryzbowsky (w/ 2 Protean masters) wants to Mask to continue. > > Result B: > He can, since he has +2 strength, so it's the "same" ability (he can > strike with +2 strength in the same way he can play PRO cards at > superior) Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after all. > The one that I can't grok from these principles is: > > Scenario C: > Oliver Thrace (w/ 2 PRO masters) bleeds, blocked, strikes form of mist > to continue. Opponent maybe can, or maybe can't, strike Majesty to > untap. Soldat masks to continue. > > Result C: > Don't know how it can be shown an ability which prohibits an action > was used, short of the opponent showing the card and saying "well I > _would_have_ played this." Or is it just impossible to mask an action > where the acting vampire has an ability which prohibits something from > happening, when it may have happened (can't Mask Aisling if a younger > Tremere could have chosen to block)? > > I know it's ridiculous. I just want to know. Soldat can. Same as Aisling bleeding and having some younger Tremere want to block but being forced to decline. Anyone else can Mask after the "I don't block" declaration, since the ability wasn't technically used (it's merely a prohibition). [ quoted text not captured ]

UniqueMaster wrote: > So could the masking vampire also play superior Form of Mist if blocked and > combat ensues? > > Relevant card text: > > Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting, he or she may burn 1 blood > to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still > be blocked). A vampire may play only 1 Form of Mist at superior each action. Yes. The Masking vampire could also play a Lost In Crowds even if the original vampire had played Lost In Crowds, for instance. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <409CC0A...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Scenario A: >> Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for >> 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Soldat wants to >> Mask to continue. >> >> Result A: >> He can't, since Lazverinus used his "+2 strength" special ability, >> which he must use if making a hand strike. > >Correct. related question: If a vampire with an inherent "+1 bleed" bleeds, can a vampire without this ability play a Mask? or is the "+1 bleed" ability only "used" when the bleed is successful? another question: Lazverius (with a Protean master) bleeds, is blocked, plays Form of Mist at superior. can Soldat now Mask, since Lazverinus didn't "use" his "+2 strength" ability? >> Scenario B: >> Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for >> 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Mateusz >> Gryzbowsky (w/ 2 Protean masters) wants to Mask to continue. >> >> Result B: >> He can, since he has +2 strength, so it's the "same" ability (he can >> strike with +2 strength in the same way he can play PRO cards at >> superior) > >Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after >all. this seems inconsistent with the ruling that says that if a Toreador with an Aching Beauty acts and is blocked (the blocker's controller then burns 1 pool), another Toreador who also has an Aching Beauty cannot Mask. since the second Toreador has an Aching Beauty, he could've made the blocker's controller lose a pool so it could've been him/her after all... no? >> The one that I can't grok from these principles is: >> >> Scenario C: >> Oliver Thrace (w/ 2 PRO masters) bleeds, blocked, strikes form of mist >> to continue. Opponent maybe can, or maybe can't, strike Majesty to >> untap. Soldat masks to continue. >> >> Result C: >> Don't know how it can be shown an ability which prohibits an action >> was used, short of the opponent showing the card and saying "well I >> _would_have_ played this." Or is it just impossible to mask an action >> where the acting vampire has an ability which prohibits something from >> happening, when it may have happened (can't Mask Aisling if a younger >> Tremere could have chosen to block)? >> >> I know it's ridiculous. I just want to know. > >Soldat can. Same as Aisling bleeding and having some younger Tremere >want to block but being forced to decline. Anyone else can Mask >after the "I don't block" declaration, since the ability wasn't >technically used (it's merely a prohibition). related question: Soldat bleeds. he is blocked by Masika St. John. Soldat plays Form of Mist at superior. can Aisling Sturbridge (with 2 Protean masters and at least one Obfuscate master) now Mask? if Aisling was the acting minion, she couldn't have been blocked by Masika... -- charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca

Charles Lechasseur wrote: > related question: If a vampire with an inherent "+1 bleed" bleeds, can a > vampire without this ability play a Mask? or is the "+1 bleed" ability > only "used" when the bleed is successful? Yes to both. > another question: Lazverius (with a Protean master) bleeds, is blocked, > plays Form of Mist at superior. can Soldat now Mask, since Lazverinus > didn't "use" his "+2 strength" ability? Yes. >>Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after >>all. > this seems inconsistent with the ruling that says that if a Toreador with > an Aching Beauty acts and is blocked (the blocker's controller then burns > 1 pool), another Toreador who also has an Aching Beauty cannot Mask. since > the second Toreador has an Aching Beauty, he could've made the blocker's > controller lose a pool so it could've been him/her after all... no? No. The explanation followed the "correct" was intended to help illustrate this. Its a hand strike for 3. > related question: Soldat bleeds. he is blocked by Masika St. John. Soldat > plays Form of Mist at superior. can Aisling Sturbridge (with 2 Protean > masters and at least one Obfuscate master) now Mask? if Aisling was the > acting minion, she couldn't have been blocked by Masika... No. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<Kh3nc.57552$Xj6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > UniqueMaster wrote: > > So could the masking vampire also play superior Form of Mist if blocked and > > combat ensues? > > > > Relevant card text: > > > > Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting, he or she may burn 1 blood > > to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still > > be blocked). A vampire may play only 1 Form of Mist at superior each action. > > Yes. > The Masking vampire could also play a Lost In Crowds even if the > original vampire had played Lost In Crowds, for instance. [common sense] 1. Striking for 3 hand damage prohibits anyone without a base strength of exactly 3 to mask the action. Explanation: the masking vampire could have been acting all along, if he has the requirements after all. 2. The acting vampire can play another Lost in Crowds even if the minion whose action was masked played it already. Following the same logic, the masking vampire could not have been the minion who started the action, because the same minion cannot play the same action modifier for the same action. From the common sense POV #1 and #2 contradict. [/common sense] Other question (nitpicky, but valid): Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike. Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2 strength now mask his action? Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike. > Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal > Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2 > strength now mask his action? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:aKonc.63854$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Daneel wrote: > > Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike. > > Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal > > Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2 > > strength now mask his action? > > No. Hey everyone : just play a sudden reversal on all those protean skils to avoid confusion ! or even better, play assamites + weakness, Kyasid + Steal the mind =D

In article <KOfnc.61283$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after >>>all. >> this seems inconsistent with the ruling that says that if a Toreador with >> an Aching Beauty acts and is blocked (the blocker's controller then burns >> 1 pool), another Toreador who also has an Aching Beauty cannot Mask. since >> the second Toreador has an Aching Beauty, he could've made the blocker's >> controller lose a pool so it could've been him/her after all... no? > >No. The explanation followed the "correct" was intended to help illustrate >this. Its a hand strike for 3. it's a hand strike for 3 that was made using a "+2 strength" ability. what is the difference between this and a 1 pool loss coming from an "Aching Beauty" ability? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <aKonc.63854$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Daneel wrote: >> Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike. >> Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal >> Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2 >> strength now mask his action? > >No. this means that a "+2 strength" ability is used when the strike is declared. is this the same with weapon strikes? if so, wouldn't a Molotov Cocktail be unusable (it would burn "after use", which is "after the strike is declared")? [ quoted text not captured ]

While we're on the subject of Masking... 1) Minion A attempts an action. Minion B attempts to block. Minion A plays Elder Impersonation at superior. Minion C Masks. Can Minion B attempt to block again? 2) Minion A attempts an action. Methuselah B declines to block. Minion B Masks. Does Methuselah B get another chance to declare block attempts? (A friend of mine says they do, but I couldn't find any ruling supporting this.) 3) Minion A attempts to call a political action. Minion B attempts to block. Khay'tall Masks the action at superior. Does the action now have an additional +2 stealth (one from Khay'tall's special, another from superior Mask)? Thanks. John Eno Prince of Pittsburgh

In article <vNync.66992$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> this means that a "+2 strength" ability is used when the strike is >> declared. is this the same with weapon strikes? if so, wouldn't a Molotov >> Cocktail be unusable (it would burn "after use", which is "after the >> strike is declared")? > >No. i assume that the "No" refers to both questions? :) i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i don't see why it should. [ quoted text not captured ]

Charles Lechasseur wrote: > i assume that the "No" refers to both questions? :) > > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i > don't see why it should. IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike. IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2 strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used. --Colin McGuigan

kushiel wrote: > While we're on the subject of Masking... > > 1) Minion A attempts an action. Minion B attempts to block. Minion A plays > Elder Impersonation at superior. Minion C Masks. Can Minion B attempt to > block again? No. > 2) Minion A attempts an action. Methuselah B declines to block. Minion B > Masks. Does Methuselah B get another chance to declare block attempts? (A > friend of mine says they do, but I couldn't find any ruling supporting > this.) No, this being one of the best points of Mask. > 3) Minion A attempts to call a political action. Minion B attempts to block. > Khay'tall Masks the action at superior. Does the action now have an > additional +2 stealth (one from Khay'tall's special, another from superior > Mask)? Yes. However, if Minion C masks the action from Khay'tall, they'd lose the extra +1 stealth Khay'tall had added (see also: Mask of 1000 Faces and Jost Werner) --Colin McGuigan

> >>>Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike. > >>>Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal > >>>Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2 > >>>strength now mask his action? Conversely, if a vampire, say Chandler Hungerford, was blocked and he strikes hands for one. Chandler also has the drums so he additional strikes FoM. Lazevernius would be prohibited from play M1kF because he cannot strike hands for 1. Is this correct? -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:aKonc.63854$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Daneel wrote: > > Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike. > > Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal > > Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2 > > strength now mask his action? > > No. This doesn't seem right. The strike isn't for 3 until it lands, I think. Consider the case of Lazverinus with a superior Disarm on him (for -2 strength). If Laz burns the Disarm before strike resolution, he should inflict 3 damage with the strike. It seems clear by analogy to Wolf Claws that the amount of damage from a hand strike is not irrevocably determined at strike declaration, but can be modified until strike resolution is reached. Given that, it seems like declaring a strike that would land for 3 damage shouldn't "taint" Lazverinus if the strike is cancelled (or if Laz is somehow reduced to 1 strength) before it lands. Josh oy, effects again?!

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:KOfnc.61283$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Charles Lechasseur wrote: > > related question: Soldat bleeds. he is blocked by Masika St. John. Soldat > > plays Form of Mist at superior. can Aisling Sturbridge (with 2 Protean > > masters and at least one Obfuscate master) now Mask? if Aisling was the > > acting minion, she couldn't have been blocked by Masika... > > No. How has an "effect" been "used" here? Aisling Sturbridge's ability can only be "used" while she is the acting minion. Before she becomes acting, the only effect that has been used in this action is the Form of Mist. Or is the "effect" in question the block itself? Either way, how does it make sense for it to be legal to Mask *away* from Aisling after her ability "has an effect" on block declaration, but not *to* Aisling when her ability *would* have had an effect (but didn't) on block declaration? Perhaps we need an explicit definition of "effect"? Your prior definition of "used" abilities seemed to be that if something was added during the action (as opposed to existing already before the action started), that counted as an ability (or effect) being "used". But in the Lazverinus example, he had his +2 strength before the action started, just as Muaziz would have had her +1 stealth already. Why is Lazverinus's use of his preexisting strength more of a Mask-prohibiting factor than Muaziz's use of her preexisting +1 stealth? Josh preexisting opacity

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Charles Lechasseur wrote: > > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon > > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the > > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the > > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i > > don't see why it should. > > IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is > declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike. > > IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for > 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2 > strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask > the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2g9ot5...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Is it possible to voluntarily reduce a minions + damage? Makes sense that you don't always have to clobber the opponent, some times just a gentle thrashing is sufficient. As such, can Laz declare a hand strike and hit for 1, allowing others to potential mask the action. Raille

Raille wrote: > Is it possible to voluntarily reduce a minions + damage? Makes sense that > you don't always have to clobber the opponent, some times just a gentle > thrashing is sufficient. > > As such, can Laz declare a hand strike and hit for 1, allowing others to > potential mask the action. No. See also, "Is is possible to not make a strike at all?" or "Is it possible not to use the +1 intercept from my sports bike?" --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:JESdnVzRxux...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] :( Well I knew it was No before I asked, but it just seems like you should have the option of striking for 1,2 or 3 if you have +2 str. Raille since when does it make sense?

> > No. See also, "Is is possible to not make a strike at all?" or "Is it > > possible not to use the +1 intercept from my sports bike?" > > Well I knew it was No before I asked, but it just seems like you should have > the option of striking for 1,2 or 3 if you have +2 str. > > since when does it make sense? > Actually, in a number of the RPG source books, they indicate that you can't always control certain disciplines. Potence in particular, but also Presence (odd that the Brujah have both of these...).

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<057a0229378f0aec...@news.teranews.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think this can be done. After all, you are not allowed to do a hand strike for 0 when you end up fighting with your grand-prey after a deflection, either. Regards, Patrick Columbus, OH

In article <eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>, vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote: >Colin McGuigan wrote: >> Charles Lechasseur wrote: >> > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon >> > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the >> > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the >> > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i >> > don't see why it should. >> >> IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is >> declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike. >> >> IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for >> 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2 >> strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask >> the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used. > >Correct. ok, that clears it up. it's not that the ability was "used", it's that declaring a "hand strike for 3" is an effect in itself. sorry for the confusion and thanks for all the answers. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > Colin McGuigan wrote: > > Charles Lechasseur wrote: > > > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon > > > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the > > > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the > > > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i > > > don't see why it should. > > > > IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is > > declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike. > > > > IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for > > 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2 > > strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask > > the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used. > > Correct. Sorry to repeat myself, but could you explain why declaring a strike with +2 strength counts as "using an effect" when taking an action at an additional +1 stealth (eg Muaziz) does not count as using an effect? Certainly the stealth is "used" on the action as much as the strength is "used" on the strike. Likewise, what effect has been used when a non-Aisling Sturbridge vampire is blocked that prohibits Aisling from Masking in after the block is attempted? If Hector Sosa played Torn Signpost and declared a strike for 3 strength, is that just as identical to Lazverinus's strike for 3 as Mateusz Gryzbowski's is (and therefore Laz or Mateusz could Mask in for Hector later)? Conversely, if Lazverinus played Torn Signpost and struck hands for 3, would Hector be allowed to Mask in because he also could play Torn Signpost, or prohibited because he doesn't strike hands for 3 without playing an effect? It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}". Josh or, something easier to interpret but less story-consistent might also work well...

"Patrick van der Reest" <sam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:92081c66.04051...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I was just stating that is you strike you have to hit. A hit is for one. Some vampires have the ability to hit for more. Question is why must this ability be forced when you select a hand strike. I can hit you, I can hit you hard, I hit you and rip your heart out, but I still have to hit you. Jyst becuase I have the ability, does not indicate I have the reason to hit you for X. Raille

> I was just stating that is you strike you have to hit. A hit is for one. No, a hit is for strength. No one can wilfully reduce their strength, not to 1, not below 1.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask > errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other > effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}". This is the same. If it works for you, OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3lnoc.82986$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask > > errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other > > effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}". > > This is the same. If it works for you, OK. No, by "applied to the action" I intend to draw a distinction between effects that affect the action itself and things that take place during the action but do not affect the status of the action in any way. Striking hands for 3, for example, does not affect the action. Adding a stealth to the action, or continuing the action as if unblocked would affect the action. It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2 strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2 allowing the action to remain Maskable. It's not logical to argue that the +1 bleed isn't "used" until resolution, either, as the +2 strength also isn't "used" until resolution. And Dimple isn't inherently able to declare a bleed of 2 any more than Olivia is inherently able to declare a strike for 3. It seems to me that the rulings line on Mask is now being drawn too far in the direction of the "there was only ever one vampire" concept. The card is far more intuitive to play and mechanically sensible if it restricts nothing but actions and action modifiers, and I don't see any significant abuse possible from such a wording. Josh mask of a thousand headaches

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2004051116...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I can, but I guess that makes me better than a vampire. :) I can pimp slap ya, bitch slap ya, or fist to the nut sack. Take yer pick Raille

Raille wrote: > > I can, but I guess that makes me better than a vampire. :) > > I can pimp slap ya, bitch slap ya, or fist to the nut sack. > > Take yer pick Let me be the first to point out that you also don't need someone to play a card to allow you to do any of those things. --Colin McGuigan

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3lnoc.82986$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask > > errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other > > effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}". > > This is the same. If it works for you, OK. > To Sum up: Any action that continues which employs any disciplines or card effects the new masked vampire could not have played at any point in the chain of masking vampires. Correct? Raille

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:4YydnWOq2Nq...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Thanks. Your reply got me a grin a mile wide. :) Still outside of game mechanics, it makes no sense to force a player to select a better strike that is needed. its like skipping first gear just because you can. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] It's more likely if they play a particular card though, like a fifth Ace for example... > --Colin McGuigan -- Nihil mutatem, omni delendum est...

Raille wrote: > Still outside of game mechanics, it makes no sense to force a player to > select a better strike that is needed. its like skipping first gear just > because you can. Also makes no sense that you must make a strike at all, eh? --Colin McGuigan

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2 > strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action > un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2 > allowing the action to remain Maskable. The amount of the strike damage is set prior to strike resolution. Prior to the continuance. The +2 is used to set that amount. The amount of the bleed is not set prior to the Masking. It can be modified, for example, with Telepathic Counter. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > > It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2 > > strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action > > un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2 > > allowing the action to remain Maskable. > > The amount of the strike damage is set prior to strike resolution. > Prior to the continuance. > The +2 is used to set that amount. Prior to strike resolution, perhaps ("immediately prior" I could see), but it must not be set on strike declaration. See the case of Absorb the Mind (at first strike) versus a declared hand strike by an older vampire against Basil: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D03C0DD.4A25B03C%40white-wolf.com The strike against Basil is declared at +1 strength but resolves at normal strength. So it must be possible to alter the amount of damage a strike is doing (just as it's possible to modify whether the damage is aggravated or not) between declaration and resolution. Therefore, the amount of the strike is not set until reaching the strike resolution phase (or at least pretty close). > The amount of the bleed is not set prior to the Masking. It can be > modified, for example, with Telepathic Counter. Sure, but no more so than the amount of a strike can be modified prior to resolution. It's true that the logic of my argument only goes as far as "a particular strike shouldn't make an action un-Maskable until the strike resolves". But I do think the larger point is also valid that having Mask mirror the "real world" to this extent isn't worth the annoyance of the rulings required to make that happen. Josh unresolved

> Card text (with errata): > "action modifiers {or other effects}" LSJ, These other effects, do they have to be the exact same effect or do they simply have to cause the smae outcome, i.e. Donal Oconner and Ricki Van Demsi with Camarilla Exemplary, or remover, etc...

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: >>>It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2 >>>strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action >>>un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2 >>>allowing the action to remain Maskable. >> >>The amount of the strike damage is set prior to strike resolution. >>Prior to the continuance. >>The +2 is used to set that amount. > > Prior to strike resolution, perhaps ("immediately prior" I could see), > but it must not be set on strike declaration. See the case [...] No need to see the case - I chose my words properly. That my words as written (as opposed to how you seem to have filtered them upon reading them to morph them into something about declaration) agree with yours and the case you've found only reinforces the point. >>The amount of the bleed is not set prior to the Masking. It can be >>modified, for example, with Telepathic Counter. > > Sure, but no more so than the amount of a strike can be modified prior > to resolution. See again my choice of wording over your filtered reading of them. Namely: "prior to Masking". Case Lazvernius: When you go to play Mask, you've already resolved the Form of Mist, and, therefore, reached strike resolution (so that Form of Mist, a strike, could resolve and end the combat), so the amount of the Laz's hand strike had been set at 3, by way of using his +2 strength. The amount was finalized. It passed the point at which it could be changed. It cannot be changed. Case Ozmo: When you go to play the Mask, you've not yet reached action resolution. The bleed amount has not yet been set. The amount of the bleed can be changed. > It's true that the logic of my argument only goes as far as "a > particular strike shouldn't make an action un-Maskable until the strike > resolves". But I do think the larger point is also valid that having > Mask mirror the "real world" to this extent isn't worth the annoyance of > the rulings required to make that happen. That larger point is your point. That the rulings happen to agree with the backstory is simply fortuitous. This clarification follows from the current state of rules, card text, and errata, however. It is not additional errata enacted out of a desire to better model the backstory - the existing errata, rules, and card text do that sufficiently in this case by themselves. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Case Lazvernius: > When you go to play Mask, you've already resolved the Form of Mist, > and, therefore, reached strike resolution (so that Form of Mist, a > strike, could resolve and end the combat), so the amount of the Laz's > hand strike had been set at 3, by way of using his +2 strength. The > amount was finalized. It passed the point at which it could be changed. > It cannot be changed. ? But this is moot anyway - if he strikes with Form of Mist, then he cannot be striking with hands. How did we move out of corner cases into the impossible? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ijyoc.86378$Xj6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >LSJ wrote: >> Case Lazvernius: >> When you go to play Mask, you've already resolved the Form of Mist, >> and, therefore, reached strike resolution (so that Form of Mist, a >> strike, could resolve and end the combat), so the amount of the Laz's >> hand strike had been set at 3, by way of using his +2 strength. The >> amount was finalized. It passed the point at which it could be changed. >> It cannot be changed. > >? >But this is moot anyway - if he strikes with Form of Mist, then he >cannot be striking with hands. How did we move out of corner cases >into the impossible? I believe we were talking about Lazverinus declaring a hand strike for 3, then using Primal Instinct to change his strike to a superior Form of Mist. in this case, you previously answered that another vampire without +2 strength cannot Mask. however, in the message quoted above, you mention that the amount of damage inflicted by a strike is set "prior to strike resolution" - is this also the case for a strike that is *canceled*? is the amount of damage it would've inflicted calculated when Primal Instinct is played? this does seem a bit weird... [ quoted text not captured ]

Also, if a non-toreador is bleeding and plays a Aire of Elation, can a toreador mask the action? if so, does the bleed amount increase by one? If a toreador plays Aire, can a non-toreador mask? if so, does the bleed decrease by one? salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2gc5jtF...@uni-berlin.de... [snip] > Sorry to repeat myself, but could you explain why declaring a strike > with +2 strength counts as "using an effect" when taking an action at an > additional +1 stealth (eg Muaziz) does not count as using an effect? > Certainly the stealth is "used" on the action as much as the strength is > "used" on the strike. I would like this clarified. For instance: Muaziz initiates an action normally at zero stealth, but modified by her inherent +1 stealth. A block attempt at zero intercept is declared. The block is deemed unsuccessful. Could the action then be masked to another minion without inherent +1 stealth? Does the declaration of a block attempt doomed to fail make this different from a "not blocking" declaration? Is this different from a non-Muazizish minion taking a +1 stealth action and masking over to a minion with a -1 stealth modifier? -- Mike Ooi "You have left the world. Click to continue."

Charles Lechasseur wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>But this is moot anyway - if he strikes with Form of Mist, then he >>cannot be striking with hands. How did we move out of corner cases >>into the impossible? > > I believe we were talking about Lazverinus declaring a hand strike for 3, > then using Primal Instinct to change his strike to a superior Form of > Mist. > > in this case, you previously answered that another vampire without +2 > strength cannot Mask. however, in the message quoted above, you mention > that the amount of damage inflicted by a strike is set "prior to strike > resolution" - is this also the case for a strike that is *canceled*? is > the amount of damage it would've inflicted calculated when Primal Instinct > is played? this does seem a bit weird... Oh. OK. Sorry about that. Yes, Laz's +2 strength isn't used to set his strike's damage if the strike is canceled to select another strike with Primal Instincts. (Ah, the old Laz, PI, FoM, Mask trick. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > Also, if a non-toreador is bleeding and plays a Aire of Elation, can a > toreador mask the action? Yes. The effect is "+1 bleed; +2 bleed if Toreador". > if so, does the bleed amount increase by one? Yes. > If a toreador plays Aire, can a non-toreador mask? > if so, does the bleed decrease by one? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

UniqueMaster wrote: > Muaziz initiates an action normally at zero stealth, but modified by her > inherent +1 stealth. > A block attempt at zero intercept is declared. > The block is deemed unsuccessful. > Could the action then be masked to another minion without inherent +1 > stealth? > Does the declaration of a block attempt doomed to fail make this different > from a "not blocking" declaration? > Is this different from a non-Muazizish minion taking a +1 stealth action and > masking over to a minion with a -1 stealth modifier? All cases above can be Masked. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:OrqcnaxojqN...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] True However the strike phase indicates you must make a strike, I'm just advocating pulling your punch to inflict a bit less than maximum damage each time. Raille

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:PjIoc.50096$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Daneel brought it up. You said it couldn't be done because the strike was set for 3 on declaration. That made no sense. That is why I was posting. I don't think it's good for anyone's brain to count events in combat as "effects" for Mask purposes, but in general it doesn't affect anything, it's true. It's just another weird complication that people have to know to play by the official rules. But I can't agree that the rulings agree with the backstory simply out of coincidence: there is no visible reason for the 19-May-2003 errata (or ruling, if you prefer) other than backstory. There were no significant balance issues, nor am I aware of any way in which the old rule was more complicated than the new one. Josh and weren't we trying to move away from altering card-function without reprinted correct text?

Raille wrote: > True > However the strike phase indicates you must make a strike, I'm just > advocating pulling your punch to inflict a bit less than maximum damage each > time. Now you're really, really reaching. =P --Colin McGuigan

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Oh. OK. Sorry about that. >>Yes, Laz's +2 strength isn't used to set his strike's damage if the strike >>is canceled to select another strike with Primal Instincts. > > Daneel brought it up. You said it couldn't be done because the strike > was set for 3 on declaration. That made no sense. That is why I was > posting. Corrected above. It is set to 3 before moving to strike resolution. > I don't think it's good for anyone's brain to count events in combat as > "effects" for Mask purposes, but in general it doesn't affect anything, > it's true. It's just another weird complication that people have to > know to play by the official rules. It hurts your brain to treat effects as effects? It seems like it would be more complicated to attempt to distinguish which effects are effects for Mask and which effects are not effects. "Effects are effects" is the simple route, not the complication. > But I can't agree that the rulings agree with the backstory simply out > of coincidence: there is no visible reason for the 19-May-2003 errata > (or ruling, if you prefer) other than backstory. There were no > significant balance issues, nor am I aware of any way in which the old > rule was more complicated than the new one. What "errata" is that? The one overturned/corrected above? It was not made for backstory. The clarification was an error made by misapplying the rules and misremembering/overlooking previous rulings. Apologies again for the error. > and weren't we trying to move away from altering card-function without > reprinted correct text? Yes. As stated, this is following current card function, not altering it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:jlIoc.50100$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > salem wrote: > > Also, if a non-toreador is bleeding and plays a Aire of Elation, can a > > toreador mask the action? > > Yes. The effect is "+1 bleed; +2 bleed if Toreador". > > > if so, does the bleed amount increase by one? > > Yes. > > > If a toreador plays Aire, can a non-toreador mask? > > if so, does the bleed decrease by one? > > Yes. That's interesting. So Aire of Elation's effect ("+1 bleed" or "+2 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador", etc) isn't locked in when the card is played; rather it is an ongoing effect of "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador" that lasts until the bleed resolves? If The Missing Voice at [mel] were played, and the action were then taken over with Mask by an older vampire (also with [mel] of course), would the effect "Allies and younger vampires get -1 intercept when attempting to block this action" now affect vampires younger than the Masking-in vampire instead of just vampires younger than the original acting vampire? It seems like this goes against the "if inferior Redirection is played by a vampire of age X, vampires with age X or above cannot Mask to take over the action" example from the original "effects (not just action modifiers and actions) count for Maskability" ruling. That is, I would have thought that using Aire of Elation at the "Toreador level" would have made the action no longer Maskable by non-Toreador. Josh not a toreador

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:cOOoc.890$hH.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>Oh. OK. Sorry about that. > >>Yes, Laz's +2 strength isn't used to set his strike's damage if the strike > >>is canceled to select another strike with Primal Instincts. > > > > Daneel brought it up. You said it couldn't be done because the strike > > was set for 3 on declaration. That made no sense. That is why I was > > posting. > > Corrected above. It is set to 3 before moving to strike resolution. Sorry to get snippy... I felt like you had been either missing or ignoring the argument I was making. > It hurts your brain to treat effects as effects? It seems like it would > be more complicated to attempt to distinguish which effects are effects > for Mask and which effects are not effects. "Effects are effects" is > the simple route, not the complication. It's not necessarily intuitive that when you declare a hand strike, having +2 strength is an effect. And then, once you know that it is, it's not obvious why Lazverinus's +2 strength is "the same as" Mateusz's when Anneke's Aching Beauty is *not* the same as Anson's Aching Beauty. Also, I don't think you've said yet whether Hector Sosa using a Torn Signpost makes his action un-Maskable by someone else with [POT]? Either it doesn't because Anvil also could have played that Torn Signpost, or it does because Anvil doesn't have 3 strength naturally. And then, does Hector Sosa using a Torn Signpost make his action Maskable by Lazverinus, or is Torn Signpost 3-strength different from Laz 3-strength? > > But I can't agree that the rulings agree with the backstory simply out > > of coincidence: there is no visible reason for the 19-May-2003 errata > > (or ruling, if you prefer) other than backstory. There were no > > significant balance issues, nor am I aware of any way in which the old > > rule was more complicated than the new one. > > What "errata" is that? The one overturned/corrected above? > It was not made for backstory. The clarification was an error made by > misapplying the rules and misremembering/overlooking previous rulings. > Apologies again for the error. Sorry, I was referring to the 19-May-2003 RTR that set Mask to its current "text". http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid%3a3EC8F35...@white-wolf.com In the current online text of "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion who is capable of performing the action. Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other effects}= have been {used} that could not have been {used} if this vampire were the acting vampire." I believe the bits in brackets are the result of that ruling. They aren't on the most recently printed copies of the card, as far as I know. That alteration of card function - going beyond "capable of performing the action" and "action modifiers" in restricting who can play Mask - is what I'm arguing was not necessary and generally more complicated than less. Somewhat late, admittedly, but I did also mention it at the time. :-) The rules team doesn't generally give detailed arguments or reasoning, of course, but I never found any compelling argument for why that ruling helped the game in terms of balance or intuition. Josh night of a million billion masks

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Yes. The effect is "+1 bleed; +2 bleed if Toreador". > > That's interesting. So Aire of Elation's effect ("+1 bleed" or "+2 > bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador", etc) isn't locked in when the > card is played; rather it is an ongoing effect of "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if > the acting vampire is Toreador" that lasts until the bleed resolves? Yes (above). > If The Missing Voice at [mel] were played, and the action were then > taken over with Mask by an older vampire (also with [mel] of course), > would the effect "Allies and younger vampires get -1 intercept when > attempting to block this action" now affect vampires younger than the > Masking-in vampire instead of just vampires younger than the original > acting vampire? Yes. > It seems like this goes against the "if inferior Redirection is played > by a vampire of age X, vampires with age X or above cannot Mask to take > over the action" example from the original "effects (not just action > modifiers and actions) count for Maskability" ruling. That is, I would > have thought that using Aire of Elation at the "Toreador level" would > have made the action no longer Maskable by non-Toreador. No. For parallel, if 6-cap vamp plays Missing Voice [mel] to give 4-cap -1 intercept, then the action cannot be Masked by a vampire of capacity four or less, but only by a vampire of capacity 5 or above (with mel, of course). Matching the Redirection ruling. (Redirection offers a poor parallel, of course, since it is a one-time effect, not an on-going one like the others you bring up above). There is no "Toreador" level on Aire. It has only a [pre] and a [PRE] level. See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The rules team doesn't generally give detailed arguments or reasoning, >of course, but I never found any compelling argument for why that ruling >helped the game in terms of balance or intuition. I wish it would. Other games' rules sources have given detailed explanations of rulings. Every Saturday, there's a rules Q&A for Magic off of Wizards site where Rune Horvik details every answer even for the dumb questions. Now, they have loads more people and money. But. It doesn't help to understand the game to get no explanation. If there are consistent rulings concepts in place, then having more insight into those means having to ask fewer rules questions as one can figure out on one's own what the right answer is. Currently, if I don't understand something, I don't feel like I can work out the correct answer. Oh, I can come up with some answer, but I have no confidence in whether it's right or not. I generally learn more about the tricky aspects of the game from Josh's posts where he asks how a ruling is consistent with previous than I do from the rulings posts. Also doesn't help that there isn't a comprehensive database for rulings on cards/card combinations. I often search the rulings file on WW's site and come up empty on cards I know have had clarifications (if not additional errata). I know it's a pain, but it is possible to create a database where good rules questions with answers are included under the card's entry.

In article <2gerkbF...@uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2 >strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action >un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2 >allowing the action to remain Maskable. > >It's not logical to argue that the +1 bleed isn't "used" until >resolution, either, as the +2 strength also isn't "used" until >resolution. And Dimple isn't inherently able to declare a bleed of 2 >any more than Olivia is inherently able to declare a strike for 3. correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought LSJ "reversed" the ruling about declaring a hand strike for 3 - it has to resolve for the action to become unmaskable, as the strike's damage amount is set prior to strike resolution (see the reply he made to my message mentioning the strike declaration followed by Primal Instinct). in this case everything is perfectly logical - if the strike resolves, then the +2 strength has been "used". if the strike doesn't resolve, then it hasn't been "used" and thus the action is maskable to anyone. for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky, but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss effect of another Aching Beauty? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Charles Lechasseur" <da...@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message news:danov-17050...@192.168.1.4... > In article <2gerkbF...@uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" > <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2 > >strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action > >un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2 > >allowing the action to remain Maskable. > > > >It's not logical to argue that the +1 bleed isn't "used" until > >resolution, either, as the +2 strength also isn't "used" until > >resolution. And Dimple isn't inherently able to declare a bleed of 2 > >any more than Olivia is inherently able to declare a strike for 3. > > correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought LSJ "reversed" the ruling about > declaring a hand strike for 3 - it has to resolve for the action to become > unmaskable, as the strike's damage amount is set prior to strike > resolution (see the reply he made to my message mentioning the strike > declaration followed by Primal Instinct). He did. The message you responded to above was from 12-May-2004; on 13-May-2004 LSJ posted a response to you agreeing that the strike damage didn't "use" Lazverinus's +2 strength until the strike resolves. > in this case everything is perfectly logical - if the strike resolves, > then the +2 strength has been "used". if the strike doesn't resolve, then > it hasn't been "used" and thus the action is maskable to anyone. Yes, this makes sense as far as "strength bonuses are used when the strike using them resolves". I don't like the Mask interaction, but that's a problem I have with Mask's current wording rather than a rules "problem" per se. :-) > for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is > Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky, > but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss > effect of another Aching Beauty? Right. That's why I posted again on 13-May-2004 saying basically the same thing. :-) I guess the logic is supposed to be that "Aching Beauty Copy #1" has an effect, and "Aching Beauty Copy #2" has an effect, but they are not "the same" effect because they are from different instances of cards in play and each has its own special card text. By contrast (well, supposedly by contrast), "Lazverinus's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play and "Mateusz's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play, but their effect is to result in a "strike: hands for 3 damage", which is the same across any vampire who can strike hands for 3 damage. (But apparently not the same as "playing a Fists of Death to gain the ability to say "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2 strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from Fists of Death's +2 strength.) I don't find that especially intuitive or logical myself, no. Josh eyebrows of death!

da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote: > for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is > Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky, > but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss > effect of another Aching Beauty? Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz and Mat are capable of doing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote: > > for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is > > Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky, > > but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss > > effect of another Aching Beauty? > > Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz > and Mat are capable of doing. Does the mitigating effect of Mat at long range change his to "I strike: hands strike for 2" or does the reduction occur during resolution? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3gToc.53182$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > For parallel, if 6-cap vamp plays Missing Voice [mel] to give 4-cap > -1 intercept, then the action cannot be Masked by a vampire of > capacity four or less, but only by a vampire of capacity 5 or above > (with mel, of course). Matching the Redirection ruling. > (Redirection offers a poor parallel, of course, since it is a > one-time effect, not an on-going one like the others you bring > up above). Sure. The one-time/on-going difference seems not to matter too much, though. It sounds like you're saying, then, that the "use" of the Missing Voice only becomes "locked in" when a younger vampire actually receives -1 intercept because of trying to block the action - it is not a one-time effect applied to the action like "from now on, allies and vampires with capacity 5 or below get -1 intercept trying to block this action"? So if a 6-cap plays Missing Voice at [mel] "just to cycle" when a block attempt has not yet been declared, it is still legal for a 4-cap to Mask to take over the action? But if the 6-cap plays Missing Voice when a 4-cap attempts to block, and that causes the block to fail, *then* an effect has been "used" that a 4-cap would-be Mask-playing-vampire would not have been able to use? > There is no "Toreador" level on Aire. It has only a [pre] and a [PRE] > level. See above. Sure. Consider a hypothetical action modifier: "[pre]: +1 bleed, +2 bleed if the acting vampire's capacity is above 6." If a 7-cap plays that card, can any vampire with the right discipline Mask in, as with Aire of Elation, and the Masking vampire simply loses the bleed bonus if its capacity is below 7? Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if *this* vampire's capacity is above 6"? Would the use of "this" vampire mean that the vampire *did* play an effect giving the action +2 bleed, so no other vampire can Mask it unless it also could have played that action modifier for +2 bleed? Pasting in from the other subthread: "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote: > > for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is > > Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky, > > but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss > > effect of another Aching Beauty? > > Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz > and Mat are capable of doing. Sorry to keep beating this topic to death, and to jump back and forth from email to newsgroup, but since I still haven't reached enlightenment I can't help it. :-) If Torn Signpost is played at superior, any vampire who can play Torn Signpost at superior can Mask to take over the action. Is that hand strike for 3 also "the same" as Lazverinus's hand strike for 3? So Laz could Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? But not vice versa? (At least, so far, it sounds like a vampire's ability to play an effect to gain strength of 3 does not make him or her eligible to Mask to take over from Laz - the vampire has to have "always on" strength of 3 to have that ability). Presumably Seal of Veddartha's "bleed for 2" is the same as Sheila Mezarin's "bleed for 2" as well, yes? And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each combat"? But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs, that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so Mask would be prohibited in that case? If so, I may be approaching understanding of your thoughts here. But then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could lay out to make it more clear...? Josh seeker on the fivefold path: untap master minion influence discard

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I guess the logic is supposed to be that "Aching Beauty Copy #1" has an > effect, and "Aching Beauty Copy #2" has an effect, but they are not "the > same" effect because they are from different instances of cards in play > and each has its own special card text. By contrast (well, supposedly > by contrast), "Lazverinus's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play > and "Mateusz's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play, but their > effect is to result in a "strike: hands for 3 damage", which is the same > across any vampire who can strike hands for 3 damage. (But apparently Right. The effect is "strike: hands for 3". > not the same as "playing a Fists of Death to gain the ability to say Well, Fists of Death is not a strike. It is an effect itself (a card that requires potence, for example). > "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2 > strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from > Fists of Death's +2 strength.) They aren't different. They're all +2 strength. Fist of Death also happens to be a card that requires potence. See also Ozmo's +1 strength (which won't preclude Mask) vs. inferior Threats (which, when played, will prevent a vampire without Dominate from Masking). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> I guess the logic is supposed to be that "Aching Beauty Copy #1" has an >> effect, and "Aching Beauty Copy #2" has an effect, but they are not "the >> same" effect because they are from different instances of cards in play >> and each has its own special card text. By contrast (well, supposedly >> by contrast), "Lazverinus's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play >> and "Mateusz's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play, but their >> effect is to result in a "strike: hands for 3 damage", which is the same >> across any vampire who can strike hands for 3 damage. (But apparently > > > Right. The effect is "strike: hands for 3". > >> not the same as "playing a Fists of Death to gain the ability to say > > > Well, Fists of Death is not a strike. It is an effect itself (a card that > requires potence, for example). > >> "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2 >> strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from >> Fists of Death's +2 strength.) > > > They aren't different. They're all +2 strength. Fist of Death also happens > to be a card that requires potence. See also Ozmo's +1 strength (which +1 bleed, I meant. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

UniqueMaster wrote: > Does the mitigating effect of [Mateusz] at long range change his to "I strike: > hands strike for 2" or does the reduction occur during resolution? The former. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>For parallel, if 6-cap vamp plays Missing Voice [mel] to give 4-cap >>-1 intercept, then the action cannot be Masked by a vampire of >>capacity four or less, but only by a vampire of capacity 5 or above >>(with mel, of course). Matching the Redirection ruling. >>(Redirection offers a poor parallel, of course, since it is a >>one-time effect, not an on-going one like the others you bring >>up above). > > Sure. The one-time/on-going difference seems not to matter too much, > though. > > It sounds like you're saying, then, that the "use" of the Missing Voice > only becomes "locked in" when a younger vampire actually receives -1 > intercept because of trying to block the action - it is not a one-time > effect applied to the action like "from now on, allies and vampires with > capacity 5 or below get -1 intercept trying to block this action"? No. When you play Missing Voice, it is used (at one of three effects). Those three effects are ongoing. When you apply -1 intercept to a minion (another ongoing effect applied from the MV ongoing effect), that is used as well. That's why I note that it is a bit different than an instantaneous effect. > So if a 6-cap plays Missing Voice at [mel] "just to cycle" when a block > attempt has not yet been declared, it is still legal for a 4-cap to Mask > to take over the action? But if the 6-cap plays Missing Voice when a Yes, if he has [mel], since he could've play the MV effect. > 4-cap attempts to block, and that causes the block to fail, *then* an > effect has been "used" that a 4-cap would-be Mask-playing-vampire would > not have been able to use? Correct, since the -1 intercept application could not have been done if the 4-cap were the acting vampire. >>There is no "Toreador" level on Aire. It has only a [pre] and a [PRE] >>level. See above. > > Sure. Consider a hypothetical action modifier: "[pre]: +1 bleed, +2 > bleed if the acting vampire's capacity is above 6." If a 7-cap plays > that card, can any vampire with the right discipline Mask in, as with > Aire of Elation, and the Masking vampire simply loses the bleed bonus if > its capacity is below 7? If the acting vampire's capacity were reduced during the action, would the bleed amount be reduced? > Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if > *this* vampire's capacity is above 6"? Would the use of "this" vampire > mean that the vampire *did* play an effect giving the action +2 bleed, > so no other vampire can Mask it unless it also could have played that > action modifier for +2 bleed? Probably not. > Pasting in from the other subthread: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > >>da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote: >> >>>for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is >>>Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz > > Gryzbowsky, > >>>but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same > > pool-loss > >>>effect of another Aching Beauty? >> >>Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz >>and Mat are capable of doing. > > > Sorry to keep beating this topic to death, and to jump back and forth > from email to newsgroup, but since I still haven't reached enlightenment > I can't help it. :-) > > If Torn Signpost is played at superior, any vampire who can play Torn > Signpost at superior can Mask to take over the action. Is that hand > strike for 3 also "the same" as Lazverinus's hand strike for 3? So Laz Yes. > could Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? But not > vice versa? (At least, so far, it sounds like a vampire's ability to If Laz had played TS, he'd be striking for 5. If TS hadn't been played, the dingus vampire couldn't have struck for 3. > play an effect to gain strength of 3 does not make him or her eligible > to Mask to take over from Laz - the vampire has to have "always on" > strength of 3 to have that ability). Right. Just like a vampire's ability to play Bonding doesn't make him eligible to Mask an action modified by Fata Morgana. > Presumably Seal of Veddartha's "bleed for 2" is the same as Sheila > Mezarin's "bleed for 2" as well, yes? No. Actions have always been distinct by "granted by card in play". > And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage > each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each > combat"? Sure. > But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs, > that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so Mask > would be prohibited in that case? Sure. > If so, I may be approaching understanding of your thoughts here. But > then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could lay > out to make it more clear...? Just the ones already laid. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:aBlqc.18909$hH.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Sure. Consider a hypothetical action modifier: "[pre]: +1 bleed, +2 > > bleed if the acting vampire's capacity is above 6." If a 7-cap plays > > that card, can any vampire with the right discipline Mask in, as with > > Aire of Elation, and the Masking vampire simply loses the bleed bonus if > > its capacity is below 7? > > If the acting vampire's capacity were reduced during the action, would > the bleed amount be reduced? I would say yes, as this hypothetical card was written to closely parallel Aire of Elation. > > Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if > > *this* vampire's capacity is above 6"? Would the use of "this" vampire > > mean that the vampire *did* play an effect giving the action +2 bleed, > > so no other vampire can Mask it unless it also could have played that > > action modifier for +2 bleed? > > Probably not. Probably it can't be Masked, you mean, or probably my statement is wrong? Hopefully the former, although it's true that there may not be any existing cards written like this. :-) > > If Torn Signpost is played at superior, any vampire who can play Torn > > Signpost at superior can Mask to take over the action. Is that hand > > strike for 3 also "the same" as Lazverinus's hand strike for 3? So Laz > > Yes. So Laz can indeed Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? If I am approaching understanding, this is because Laz both can strike for 3 just like the Torn Signpost-playing vamp *and* Laz could have played the Torn Signpost. If the vampires in question were Sargon and Koko, and Koko played inferior Torn Signpost, that would prohibit Sargon from Masking, I think, since while Sargon could strike hands for 2, he could *not* have played the Torn Signpost. Is that right? > > could Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? But not > > vice versa? (At least, so far, it sounds like a vampire's ability to > > If Laz had played TS, he'd be striking for 5. > If TS hadn't been played, the dingus vampire couldn't have struck for 3. > > > play an effect to gain strength of 3 does not make him or her eligible > > to Mask to take over from Laz - the vampire has to have "always on" > > strength of 3 to have that ability). > > Right. Just like a vampire's ability to play Bonding doesn't make him > eligible to Mask an action modified by Fata Morgana. > > > Presumably Seal of Veddartha's "bleed for 2" is the same as Sheila > > Mezarin's "bleed for 2" as well, yes? > > No. Actions have always been distinct by "granted by card in play". But Sheila Mezarin is also a card in play. I'm not sure that "I declare a bleed, currently for 2 because of Sheila Mezarin's special ability" should be treated differently from "I declare a bleed, currently for 2 with the Seal of Veddartha ability". This may make sense, though, if my interpretations below are correct - basically, I'm thinking that you're thinking that "declare a bleed" is an effect, but using the +1 bleed on Sheila is not an effect until the bleed resolves (ie the effect is not "declare a bleed for 2" with Sheila, it is "declare a bleed with no card, which will be for 2 later"). With Seal, the effect is "declare a bleed with Seal of Veddartha's bonus"; even though it's a cardless bleed it's still using a "special effect". A sort of related question (sorry if this has been answered before and I missed it): If Jason the World's Voice uses his "burn 1 blood for +1 bleed" ability, can the bleed still be Masked away from him? I would think not, since that effect can't be played by any other vampire (even if that vampire also has a "burn 1 blood for +1 bleed" special) - even though the +1 bleed won't matter until the bleed resolves, using it was an effect and no other vampire could have used that effect. Is that right? > > And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage > > each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each > > combat"? > > Sure. > > > But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs, > > that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so Mask > > would be prohibited in that case? > > Sure. It seems to me like this, logically, should be the same as the Aabbt Kindred/Omaya situation. Omaya and Aabbt Kindred are also cards in play; their "prevent 1 damage" abilities should be distinct just as Flak Jacket #1's "prevent 1 damage" ability is distinct from Flak Jacket #2's ability. At least, that's what I think would make sense of the Torn Signpost/+2 strength examples: with those, it seems that the principle is that the making of a strike for 3 hand damage is an effect that restricts Maskability, but the playing of Torn Signpost is *also* an effect that restricts Maskability. If you can do the first without the second, you have only used one effect (and all "strike hands for 3" strikes are the same), but if you need the second to accomplish the "strike hands for 3", you have an additional restriction on the Maskability. I can understand this idea from the position that "all strikes of hands for 3 are the same" just like "all cardless bleed actions are the same". But even if all "prevent 1 damage" effects are the same, it seems to me like using one *specific* prevent 1 damage effect should "lock in" the use of *that card's* effect (just like Aching Beauty) rather than counting as a "generic" prevent 1 damage effect. (I apologize for having phrased the questions in the Omaya and Flak Jacket examples before as if I thought I knew what the answers were; I think I was thinking at the time that "vampire abilities" always match while library-card-in-play abilities don't, but that idea wouldn't make sense given other rulings, I think.) > > If so, I may be approaching understanding of your thoughts here. But > > then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could lay > > out to make it more clear...? > > Just the ones already laid. :-) I meant to ask if you could enumerate the axioms in one place. If you've used axioms so far to build a model for how Mask-restrictions work (ie what is an effect, and what effects are the same as each other), I don't think you've done it explicitly. Josh mask of a thousand (and one) questions

>>> for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is >>> Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky, >>> but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss >>> effect of another Aching Beauty? >> >>Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz >>and Mat are capable of doing. > >and what is the effect generated by Aching Beauty? > >if the effect is "you lose one pool to attempt to block", it seems like >two vampires with Aching Beauties would both be capable of generating this >effect... Then again, two vampires with identical rush abilities aren't able to Mask over the action. And one Archon can't Mask over the rush action started by another Archon. Etc. Halcyan 2

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:HTkqc.18759$hH.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2 > > strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from > > Fists of Death's +2 strength.) > > They aren't different. They're all +2 strength. Fist of Death also happens > to be a card that requires potence. See also Ozmo's +1 strength (which > won't preclude Mask) vs. inferior Threats (which, when played, will prevent > a vampire without Dominate from Masking). This makes sense to me now, more or less. But what still doesn't make sense to me is why a vampire with +1 stealth - even if it's an inherent ability - isn't "using" that ability as soon as he or she declares an action. The action is declared as "action X, at +1 stealth because of vampire Y's ability". How is that not the use of an effect from a card in play just as much as the use of, say, Seal of Veddartha to declare a bleed at +1 bleed? Stealth, unlike +bleed, is not used only when the action resolves. It is used at every instant that the action is going on. At least, so it seems to me. Josh ninja vanish!

Joshua Duffin wrote: > This makes sense to me now, more or less. But what still doesn't make > sense to me is why a vampire with +1 stealth - even if it's an inherent > ability - isn't "using" that ability as soon as he or she declares an > action. The action is declared as "action X, at +1 stealth because of > vampire Y's ability". How is that not the use of an effect from a card > in play just as much as the use of, say, Seal of Veddartha to declare a > bleed at +1 bleed? Stealth, unlike +bleed, is not used only when the > action resolves. It is used at every instant that the action is going > on. At least, so it seems to me. Time for a reversal of that long-standing ruling, maybe? I'll add it to the RT list. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Joshua Duffin wrote: >>If the acting vampire's capacity were reduced during the action, would >>the bleed amount be reduced? > > I would say yes, as this hypothetical card was written to closely > parallel Aire of Elation. Then there you go - it's Maskable. >>>Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed >>Probably not. > > Probably it can't be Masked, you mean, or probably my statement is > wrong? Hopefully the former, although it's true that there may not be > any existing cards written like this. :-) Probably the answer doesn't change, I meant. > So Laz can indeed Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn > Signpost? If I am approaching understanding, this is because Laz both Yes. > can strike for 3 just like the Torn Signpost-playing vamp *and* Laz > could have played the Torn Signpost. If the vampires in question were > Sargon and Koko, and Koko played inferior Torn Signpost, that would > prohibit Sargon from Masking, I think, since while Sargon could strike > hands for 2, he could *not* have played the Torn Signpost. Is that > right? Yes. >>No. Actions have always been distinct by "granted by card in play". > > But Sheila Mezarin is also a card in play. I'm not sure that "I declare Sheila doesn't offer an action ability. She has +1 bleed. > a bleed, currently for 2 because of Sheila Mezarin's special ability" > should be treated differently from "I declare a bleed, currently for 2 > with the Seal of Veddartha ability". This may make sense, though, if my It is. You don't "(declare a bleed of 2) because of Sheila", you "declare a bleed (of two because of +1 bleed)". The Seal gives an action option. > interpretations below are correct - basically, I'm thinking that you're > thinking that "declare a bleed" is an effect, but using the +1 bleed on > Sheila is not an effect until the bleed resolves (ie the effect is not > "declare a bleed for 2" with Sheila, it is "declare a bleed with no > card, which will be for 2 later"). With Seal, the effect is "declare a > bleed with Seal of Veddartha's bonus"; even though it's a cardless bleed > it's still using a "special effect". It's not a "cardless bleed". It's a bleed action allowed by a card in play. > A sort of related question (sorry if this has been answered before and I > missed it): If Jason the World's Voice uses his "burn 1 blood for +1 > bleed" ability, can the bleed still be Masked away from him? I would > think not, since that effect can't be played by any other vampire (even > if that vampire also has a "burn 1 blood for +1 bleed" special) - even > though the +1 bleed won't matter until the bleed resolves, using it was > an effect and no other vampire could have used that effect. Is that > right? Yes. >>>And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage >>>each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each >>>combat"? >> >>Sure. >> >> >>>But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs, >>>that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so > > Mask > >>>would be prohibited in that case? >> >>Sure. > > > It seems to me like this, logically, should be the same as the Aabbt > Kindred/Omaya situation. Omaya and Aabbt Kindred are also cards in > play; their "prevent 1 damage" abilities should be distinct just as Flak > Jacket #1's "prevent 1 damage" ability is distinct from Flak Jacket #2's > ability. You've got a point. Fortunately, it'll never come up :-) There is no default prevention thing that Flak/Omaya are invoking, so it's all just card-based (non-maskable) effects. (Reversal of above). >>>then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could > lay >>>out to make it more clear...? >> >>Just the ones already laid. > > :-) I meant to ask if you could enumerate the axioms in one place. If > you've used axioms so far to build a model for how Mask-restrictions > work (ie what is an effect, and what effects are the same as each > other), I don't think you've done it explicitly. I haven't been collecting them, no. The extreme corner-case aspect of power-up combat + S:CE and continue + Mask lands compiling such a list pretty far off the back of the stove. :-) If anyone cares to sift through my ramblings on this thread, though, feel free to email me the distilled version for archival. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:Dxzqc.2676$fF3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: [re Seal of Veddartha vs Sheila Mezarin] > > With Seal, the effect is "declare a > > bleed with Seal of Veddartha's bonus"; even though it's a cardless bleed > > it's still using a "special effect". > > It's not a "cardless bleed". It's a bleed action allowed by a card in play. OK, sensible. If Donatien attempts to bleed your prey using his "As a (D) action, Donatien may bleed any Methuselah who has attempted an unsuccessful bleeding action since your last minion phase" ability, is it un-Maskable because he declared it using his special ability? Or Maskable because any other vampire could have taken a default bleed action against your prey, and it would be "the same action"? I think the former, but I'm not 100% sure. Not that there's any real reason to use the ability to bleed your prey, of course... [re Flak Jacket prevention vs Omaya/Aabbt Kindred prevention] > You've got a point. Fortunately, it'll never come up :-) > There is no default prevention thing that Flak/Omaya are invoking, so > it's all just card-based (non-maskable) effects. (Reversal of above). Well yeah, these are kind of unlikely to ever matter. But I think clarity is increasing for me, so I'm happy. :-) > I haven't been collecting them, no. > The extreme corner-case aspect of power-up combat + S:CE and continue + > Mask lands compiling such a list pretty far off the back of the stove. > :-) Heh, reasonable... > If anyone cares to sift through my ramblings on this thread, though, > feel free to email me the distilled version for archival. :-) I may write up a FAQ answer for what does and doesn't alter Maskability... Josh faq of a thousand faces

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:Exzqc.2677$fF3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > This makes sense to me now, more or less. But what still doesn't make > > sense to me is why a vampire with +1 stealth - even if it's an inherent > > ability - isn't "using" that ability as soon as he or she declares an > > action. The action is declared as "action X, at +1 stealth because of > > vampire Y's ability". How is that not the use of an effect from a card > > in play just as much as the use of, say, Seal of Veddartha to declare a > > bleed at +1 bleed? Stealth, unlike +bleed, is not used only when the > > action resolves. It is used at every instant that the action is going > > on. At least, so it seems to me. > > Time for a reversal of that long-standing ruling, maybe? > I'll add it to the RT list. I am satisfied. :-) Josh well, i'll be more satisfied if it does get reversed, heh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>It's not a "cardless bleed". It's a bleed action allowed by a card in > play. > > OK, sensible. > > If Donatien attempts to bleed your prey using his "As a (D) action, > Donatien may bleed any Methuselah who has attempted an unsuccessful > bleeding action since your last minion phase" ability, is it un-Maskable > because he declared it using his special ability? Or Maskable because > any other vampire could have taken a default bleed action against your > prey, and it would be "the same action"? I think the former, but I'm > not 100% sure. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]