Trap and Mask of 1000 faces Questions

1- If I play a Trap. The Trap stops after 3 rounds of combat without any card played. Has it to be 3 consecutive rounds or 3 rounds total. Ex : Round 1 : no card played Round 2 : I play a Fake Out Round 3 : no card played Round 4 : I play a Dodge Round 5 : no card played Round 6 : no card played Round 7 : no card played In this example, when does the Trap stops ? If I play a Boxed In to stop the automatic press from the Trap and the opposing minion play a Boxed In to continue combat, does the effect of the Trap's still active ? 2- Vampire A bleeds. Vampire B blocks. Vampire C makes a Mask of 1000 Faces in minor and goes to bleed instead of Vampire A. Does Vampire B have to block ? Can Vampire B changes his mind and decide not to block ? Thanks for your time, Rafid

In article <39d388a9...@news.videotron.ca>, Rafid Armani <ra...@videotron.ca> writes >1- If I play a Trap. The Trap stops after 3 rounds of combat without >any card played. Has it to be 3 consecutive rounds or 3 rounds total. 3 consecutive rounds. > > Ex : Round 1 : no card played > Round 2 : I play a Fake Out > Round 3 : no card played > Round 4 : I play a Dodge > Round 5 : no card played > Round 6 : no card played > Round 7 : no card played > >In this example, when does the Trap stops ? Round 7, the end thereof. > >If I play a Boxed In to stop the automatic press from the Trap and the >opposing minion play a Boxed In to continue combat, does the effect of >the Trap's still active ? Yes. Cancelling the press doesn't cancel the effect. If the combat is continued, anyway, to another round, Trap is still in effect. >2- Vampire A bleeds. Vampire B blocks. Vampire C makes a Mask of 1000 >Faces in minor and goes to bleed instead of Vampire A. Does Vampire >B have to block ? Can Vampire B changes his mind and decide not to >block ? The vampire is blocking. That's half the point of Mask - the "Surprise!" ability. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

Rafid Armani wrote: > > 1- If I play a Trap. The Trap stops after 3 rounds of combat without > any card played. Has it to be 3 consecutive rounds or 3 rounds total. Online card text: Only usable before range is determined on the first round of combat. Each round of combat has a press, only usable to continue combat. This continues until 3 [consecutive] rounds of combat pass with no cards played. > Ex : Round 1 : no card played > Round 2 : I play a Fake Out > Round 3 : no card played > Round 4 : I play a Dodge > Round 5 : no card played > Round 6 : no card played > Round 7 : no card played > > In this example, when does the Trap stops ? The trap fails to provide a press on Round 7. > If I play a Boxed In to stop the automatic press from the Trap and the > opposing minion play a Boxed In to continue combat, does the effect of > the Trap's still active ? Yes, since a card (Boxed In) is played. > 2- Vampire A bleeds. Vampire B blocks. Vampire C makes a Mask of 1000 > Faces in minor and goes to bleed instead of Vampire A. Does Vampire > B have to block ? Can Vampire B changes his mind and decide not to > block ? B is still "blocking". He will succeed if his intercept >= C's stealth. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote in message <39D396A6...@white-wolf.com>... >B is still "blocking". He will succeed if his intercept >= C's stealth. If I understand the rules correctly, the now-masking minion could then play an action modifier that had previously been played by the first minion? Example: CrazyMalooka: I'm bleeding with Aggripina. UpACreek: I will block with Meshenka. Crazy Malooka: Oh yeah, you think so. Aggripina plays Faceless Night (+1 st). Tap it up, buddy. UpACreek: Meshenka plays Enhanced Senses (+2 int). Eat me. Crazy Malooka: Hmmm...Hannibal takes over with Mask of a Thousand Faces and +1 Stealth. UpACreek: That's okay, I still have equal intercept. Crazy Malooka: Hannibal now plays Faceless Night (+1 stealth). Stay tapped. I know this is your stupid Meshenka Enhanced Senses deck. UpACreek: You can't do that! One type of modifier per action! CrazyMalooka: I can. Faceless Night is being played by a different minion. Go ahead and try to block with someone else. Tap them too! UpACreek: Well, I'm playing Dramatic Upheaval then! CrazyMalooka: You can't, it's not your turn! UpACreek: Watch me, @#!$! And UpACreek flips the card table over and storms out...

Mike Ooi <sh...@texas.net> wrote in message news:ZITA5.54492$XT1.8...@news5.giganews.com... > > And UpACreek flips the card table over and storms out... > Ahhh, I see you are familiar with the 4 stage 'crisis management' strategy employed by many South UK players. Or mayhap you have just stumbled upon it ??? Stage 1 - Flip the table. ~ Provides a good barrier, lots of noise, a show of force and aggression as well as laying down your intentions early. Rob

Mike Ooi wrote: > > LSJ wrote in message <39D396A6...@white-wolf.com>... > >B is still "blocking". He will succeed if his intercept >= C's stealth. > > If I understand the rules correctly, the now-masking minion could then play > an action modifier that had previously been played by the first minion? Yes. > UpACreek: You can't do that! One type of modifier per action! "Type" is not appropriate for modifiers. And the rule is "A given minion cannot play the same action modifier more than once in a single action". [ quoted text not captured ]

So what is the total stealth available to Malooka in that situation? LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:39D47D36...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

Matt Bell wrote: > > So what is the total stealth available to Malooka in that situation? The total stealth that was applied to the action. From the web page: Mask of 1000 Faces - Action Modifier (obf) * All action modifiers remain in effect, but inherent modifiers (a minion's inherent +1 bleed, e.g.) do not. Effects applied to a minion (e.g., Backways) also do not carry over to the new (masking) vampire. [RTR 19951110] [ quoted text not captured ]

> > If I understand the rules correctly, the now-masking minion could then play > > an action modifier that had previously been played by the first minion? > > Yes. This aply only for stealth or also for +bleed ? Exemple : Vamp A play Govern the Unaligned Vamp B block Vamp A play Faceless Night (+1 stealth) Vamp B play Spirit's Touch (+1 intercept) Vamp A play Bonding (+1 bleed +1 stealth) Vamp B play Precognition (+1 intercept) Vamp A play superior Mask of a Thousand Faces (+1 stealth) Vamp B dont play other intercept cards Vamp A play Conditioning For me, the Conditioning can not be played because Bonding card text said : After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed for this action. But since it's not the same vampire... Bye, -- Khaleph Alendis, High Priest of Maizerets VEKN Setite Prince of Beauport http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8r2ggs$2ed$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Khaleph Alendis <kha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > If I understand the rules correctly, the now-masking minion could > then play > > > an action modifier that had previously been played by the first > minion? > > > > Yes. > > This aply only for stealth or also for +bleed ? Exemple : > > Vamp A play Govern the Unaligned > Vamp B block > Vamp A play Faceless Night (+1 stealth) > Vamp B play Spirit's Touch (+1 intercept) > Vamp A play Bonding (+1 bleed +1 stealth) > Vamp B play Precognition (+1 intercept) > Vamp A play superior Mask of a Thousand Faces (+1 stealth) > Vamp B dont play other intercept cards > Vamp A play Conditioning > > For me, the Conditioning can not be played because Bonding card text > said : After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier > to further increase the bleed for this action. > > But since it's not the same vampire... Bravo! an excellent example of why the current ruling of treating the mask-ee and the mask-er as two different vampires while good intentioned is ultimately ill-suited. The spirit of the card is that the two are the same vampire (one masquerading as the other) whilst the ruling treats them as separate entities. Wouldn't it not be better to treat them as the same entity for purposes of cards like Uncontrollable Rage? MY $.02 Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Khaleph Alendis wrote: > > > > If I understand the rules correctly, the now-masking minion could > then play > > > an action modifier that had previously been played by the first > minion? > > > > Yes. > > This aply only for stealth or also for +bleed ? Exemple : It applies as far as card text doesn't prohibit it. > Vamp A play Bonding (+1 bleed +1 stealth) > Vamp A play superior Mask of a Thousand Faces (+1 stealth) > Vamp A play Conditioning That should be Vamp C plays Mask, Vamp C plays Conditioning. > For me, the Conditioning can not be played because Bonding card text > said : After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier > to further increase the bleed for this action. > > But since it's not the same vampire... "You" is the Methuselah, not the vampire. Since you cannot play another action modifier to increase the bleed, you cannot play Conditioning. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Khaleph Alendis <kha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > For me, the Conditioning can not be played because Bonding card text > > said : After playing this card, you cannot play another action > modifier > > to further increase the bleed for this action. > > > > But since it's not the same vampire... > > Bravo! an excellent example of why the current ruling of treating the > mask-ee and the mask-er as two different vampires while good intentioned > is ultimately ill-suited. The spirit of the card is that the two are The current "ruling" is well-suited from your apparent POV to the above situation since it prohibits the playing of Conditioning, as described. If this is not your POV, my apologies and please clarify. It's not a "ruling" that treats the two separate minions as two separate minions, BTW - its an obvious result of the fact that no effect says that they are to be treated otherwise. > the same vampire (one masquerading as the other) whilst the ruling > treats them as separate entities. Wouldn't it not be better to treat > them as the same entity for purposes of cards like Uncontrollable Rage? Better from a "spirit of the card" POV, obviously, but not from a logistical perspective. Too many piecewise rulings would then be involved. The current errata serves to bring the "spirit of the card" out as much as possible while still leaving the card well-defined and playable, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39D4CE18...@white-wolf.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps I errorneously jumped in on the Conditioning and Bonding and those are specifically barred by card text. But what about a Command of the Beast being played at superior by the first vampire and a second Command of the Beast being played at superior by the second vampire? What about a third vampire Masking as the second vampire and playing a third? What about a Elder Impersonation being played at superior by each vampire until none of the reacting Methuselahs vampires can block? How does the errata treat these issues? [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Perhaps I errorneously jumped in on the Conditioning and Bonding and > those are specifically barred by card text. But what about a Command of > the Beast being played at superior by the first vampire and a second > Command of the Beast being played at superior by the second vampire? That's OK. > What about a third vampire Masking as the second vampire and playing a > third? What about a Elder Impersonation being played at superior by > each vampire until none of the reacting Methuselahs vampires can block? Those are OK. > How does the errata treat these issues? The same as the card did with no errata. The restriction on modifiers is per minion, so the same rule that allows you to play superior Cloak with more than one vampire allows you to play more than one Command of the Beast with different vampires (so long as each of the vampires in question is elligible to play the modifier). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39D4E087...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > Perhaps I errorneously jumped in on the Conditioning and Bonding and > > those are specifically barred by card text. But what about a Command of > > the Beast being played at superior by the first vampire and a second > > Command of the Beast being played at superior by the second vampire? > > That's OK. > > > What about a third vampire Masking as the second vampire and playing a > > third? What about a Elder Impersonation being played at superior by > > each vampire until none of the reacting Methuselahs vampires can block? > > Those are OK. > > > How does the errata treat these issues? > > The same as the card did with no errata. > > The restriction on modifiers is per minion, so the same rule that allows > you to play superior Cloak with more than one vampire allows you to > play more than one Command of the Beast with different vampires (so > long as each of the vampires in question is elligible to play the > modifier). I wish I had the cards to make this deck. I hope they print alot of Command of the Beast's in Sabbat War. I can't wait to build a horrific stealth bleed deck around this concept. Oh yeah, I can do it on JOL. Does anyone know how to get to JOL? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Perhaps I errorneously jumped in on the Conditioning and Bonding and > > those are specifically barred by card text. But what about a Command of > > the Beast being played at superior by the first vampire and a second > > Command of the Beast being played at superior by the second vampire? > That's OK. Woah. > > What about a third vampire Masking as the second vampire and playing a > > third? What about a Elder Impersonation being played at superior by > > each vampire until none of the reacting Methuselahs vampires can block? > Those are OK. This is way too cool. > > How does the errata treat these issues? > The same as the card did with no errata. > The restriction on modifiers is per minion, so the same rule that allows > you to play superior Cloak with more than one vampire allows you to > play more than one Command of the Beast with different vampires (so > long as each of the vampires in question is elligible to play the > modifier). Holy crap, I can see it now. 3 minions - Joe: obf DOM Bob: obf DOM Briggs: OBF DOM Briggs: Ok, I'm going to bleed you with Govern and Command of the Beast Blocker: I'm not afraid of you, bring it on! Joe: It was really me! Did the Mask fool you? Oh, I'm going to Command the Beast, too. Blocker: Ok, a bleed of 5. I'm still blocking... Bob: So? It wasn't Joe, it was me really. I swear. But while I'm here, I'm Commading your Beast, too. Sit, Ubu! Blocker. Whatever Briggs: Now that I got your head spinning, I'll Mask right by you. Oh, btw, I'll do a little Conditioning because I can. Paint your walls, too? So that's a bleed of 9 with 2 untapped minions left. Granted, the above is an 8 card combo but it is possible. And it's even more plausable with just 2 minions. That's just plain evil. Hmm, time to drag out all my Masks... Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

> I wish I had the cards to make this deck. I hope they print alot of > Command of the Beast's in Sabbat War. I can't wait to build a horrific > stealth bleed deck around this concept. Oh yeah, I can do it on JOL. > Does anyone know how to get to JOL? Norm, did you see the scenario I presented? :p www.deckserver.net/jol Sorrow --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us

In article <Vb4B5.2524$mC.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > I wish I had the cards to make this deck. I hope they print alot of > > Command of the Beast's in Sabbat War. I can't wait to build a horrific > > stealth bleed deck around this concept. Oh yeah, I can do it on JOL. > > Does anyone know how to get to JOL? > > Norm, did you see the scenario I presented? :p > > www.deckserver.net/jol I did see how you illustrated in a scenario the points I made. I think that is so amazingly broken it is not even funny. You know because Malkavian Stealth and Bleed isn't powerful enough <sar>. This scenario is really easy to set up. and the first minion doesn't even need obfuscate, you could start it with Igrid Russo or Gloria Giovanni. It is actually really easy to put together four minions of medium size that could get this combo cranking up to obscene levels. To make it worse you could start tapping people out using a faceless night and elder impersonation combo (which is also so broken because of the errata which makes elder impersonation even more powerful). Use 3 and 4 caps with skill cards dropped on them. I can't believe some of this errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I did see how you illustrated in a scenario the points I made. I think >that is so amazingly broken it is not even funny. You know because >Malkavian Stealth and Bleed isn't powerful enough <sar>. This scenario >is really easy to set up. and the first minion doesn't even need >obfuscate, you could start it with Igrid Russo or Gloria Giovanni. It >is actually really easy to put together four minions of medium size that >could get this combo cranking up to obscene levels. To make it worse >you could start tapping people out using a faceless night and elder >impersonation combo (which is also so broken because of the errata which >makes elder impersonation even more powerful). Use 3 and 4 caps with >skill cards dropped on them. > >I can't believe some of this errata. > >Comments Welcome, >Norman S. Brown Jr. >XZealot >Archon of the Swamp But how many times do you estimate you could do this in a game, Norm? HOW MANY? TELL ME HOW MANY!!! I MUST KNOW HOW MANY!!! I WANT THE TRUTH!!! I CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! I CAN'T HAndle it...<whimper>

In article <Ry7B5.55938$XT1.8...@news5.giganews.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Oh, I don't know maybe 3 or 4 times. I would probably pack some spying missions so that when my bleeds get bounced I just reduce them. Or even better I could do this with only Malkavians and act out of turn with the Madness Network. Just so that I could DI any bounce that came my way. Boy, this is going to make tournaments really fun. I can create an even more obsene stealth bleed that acts outside of turns. Hell, why not throw in a little Disguised Weapon/ White Phosphorous/ Rotshrect to hose all those people who want to rush my vampires. Oh look sparklers! How pretty! XZealot likes sparklers. rub the sparkler. pet the sparkler. Sparkler burn XZealot. Bad sparkler. Bad sparkler. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > I did see how you illustrated in a scenario the points I made. I think > that is so amazingly broken it is not even funny. You know because > Malkavian Stealth and Bleed isn't powerful enough <sar>. This scenario > is really easy to set up. and the first minion doesn't even need > obfuscate, you could start it with Igrid Russo or Gloria Giovanni. It > is actually really easy to put together four minions of medium size that > could get this combo cranking up to obscene levels. To make it worse > you could start tapping people out using a faceless night and elder > impersonation combo (which is also so broken because of the errata which > makes elder impersonation even more powerful). Use 3 and 4 caps with > skill cards dropped on them. > > I can't believe some of this errata. Again, the errata did not enable this strategy - this strategy has been available ever since the cards were printed. It is not as easy to pull off as you seem to think, based on the frequency with which the "combo" is used in tournaments. YMMV. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

<X_Ze...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:8r2vaa$gs5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > I did see how you illustrated in a scenario the points I made. I think > that is so amazingly broken it is not even funny. You know because It's not broken if it's not blocked. Which, I'm sure is small comfort for some, but if I saw this pulled (assuming I was even bothering to block in the first place), I'd *definitely* stop blocking after the first time. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

> > I did see how you illustrated in a scenario the points I made. I think > > that is so amazingly broken it is not even funny. You know because > It's not broken if it's not blocked. Umm, I can still play Mask at inferior if you don't block. So regardless of whether or not you attempt to block, I can still pull off that combo. > Which, I'm sure is small comfort for some, but if I saw this pulled (assuming > I was even bothering to block in the first place), I'd *definitely* stop > blocking after the first time. Doesn't matter. I'd still be able to do it. Sorrow

> Again, the errata did not enable this strategy - this strategy has > been available ever since the cards were printed. Actually the errata did enable this strategy. Enlighten me if I am mistaken, but prior to errata that combonation did not work because of how the cards were played and the order they were played in. 1)Acting minion bleeds 2)Reacting minion blocks 3)Acting minion plays faceless night at superior. This taps the reacting vampire whether the block was successful or not. 4) reacting minion plays spirits touch 5) Acting minion plays Elder Impersonation at superior. Block fails a)by card text the Elder Impersonation would untap the reacting vampire that was tapped by Faceless Night. b)by errata Elder Impersonation does not untap the blocking vampire, so now a combonation has been created that effectively makes and action unblockable and taps a blocker for the cost of one blood. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the errata makes the card, Elder Impersonation, more powerful. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:X6mB5.32488$Ao1.5...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > Umm, I can still play Mask at inferior if you don't block. So regardless of > whether or not you attempt to block, I can still pull off that combo. Hmm. I suppose you're right. That's what I get for responding after my 12-hour shift. Still...there are easier, less card-intensive ways of getting big bleeds. I really don't think this is that much of a threat. Bounce still works, rush is still an effective counter, intercept still works, and if you want to count it, Archon Investigation still works. I think that you're overestimating the "brokenness" of this combo. The previous example, which was a bleed for 9, used an 8 card combo, one minion ended up tapped, and total stealth was +1. Given the same situation, you could: Pull off a bleed for 7 with GtU, Conditioning, Command of the Beast, and a stealth card. That's a 4 card combo, resulting in only 2 less bleed...much more likely to happen (and be repeatable), and at slightly higher potential stealth. Assuming Malkavians, you could add in a Pulse to the combo above, resulting in 2 actions, but a bleed for 9 each successive time. With 3 minions, you could pull 3 card combos each, GtU, Conditioning, +stealth, for bleeds of 6 each at stealth, total bleeds of 6...18 per turn, double that of the "broken" combo, harder to bounce, and requiring only 1 more card for the "combo." Okay...I agree that the combo you came up with is a little over the top...*but* (and this is a big but) you could pull it off at best...11 times in a tournament situation. If your cards flowed perfectly. Which never happens.It's fragile, it's at +1 stealth each action (which isn't a whole hell of a lot), and it leaves you no room to do anything else with the deck. If you bring it down to a reasonable amount by including say 15 masters, a little more stealth (let's say 10 cards), and a little combat defense (8 cards)...that leaves you 57 cards, or 7 attempts to pull off the combo. Whee. Total bleed of 56. It's not as scary as you're making it out to be. Most normal defenses still work against it, and it's just not that viable, as the combo is so fragile. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39D4C9A8...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Khaleph Alendis wrote: > > > > > > If I understand the rules correctly, the now-masking minion could > > then play > > > > an action modifier that had previously been played by the first > > minion? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > This aply only for stealth or also for +bleed ? Exemple : > > It applies as far as card text doesn't prohibit it. If duplicate action modifiers can be played to the same action by different vampires, does that mean you can stack Masks on top of each other until you run out of minions or Masks? -- William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com. HTH. HAND. * <--- Perth Support peer pressure -- kick a lemming off a cliff. Go Slugs! Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/

In article <8r518t$vr6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > Again, the errata did not enable this strategy - this strategy has > > been available ever since the cards were printed. > > Actually the errata did enable this strategy. Enlighten me if I am > mistaken, but prior to errata that combonation did not work because of > how the cards were played and the order they were played in. > > 1)Acting minion bleeds > 2)Reacting minion blocks > 3)Acting minion plays faceless night at superior. This taps the > reacting vampire whether the block was successful or not. > 4) reacting minion plays spirits touch > 5) Acting minion plays Elder Impersonation at superior. Block fails > a)by card text the Elder Impersonation would untap the > reacting vampire that was tapped by Faceless Night. > b)by errata Elder Impersonation does not untap the blocking > vampire, so now a combonation has been created that effectively makes > and action unblockable and taps a blocker for the cost of one blood. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the errata makes the card, Elder > Impersonation, more powerful. We were talking about the errata to Mask 1K up until this point. The "strategy" in question prior to this point was using Mask to enable the same action modifier to be played by multiple acting minions. That strategy was just as possible (even stronger in some cases) under the original card texts as it is now. The errata on Elder Impersonation is another story, and matches the original intent, backstory, and logic, with the added benefit of consistency with the errata on similar cards, like Change of Target, Obedience, etc. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Passenger Pigeon <passenge...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If duplicate action modifiers can be played to the same action by > different vampires, does that mean you can stack Masks on top of each > other until you run out of minions or Masks? Until you run out of ready minion capable of playing obfuscate cards, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]