Vamp A bleeds.
Prey's Imbued declares use of Champion, making the action fail and
entering combat with Vamp A.
at this point:
1) can Vamp B play Mask of a Thousand Faces, resuming the action and
entering combat with the Imbued instead of Vamp A?
2) can Vamp C play Inspire Greatness to grant Vamp A +1/+2 strength in
the ensuing combat?
3) in general: exists a window to play action modifiers between the
activation of Champion and its resolution, or it's automatically
'combat time' (only red cards allowed)?
AntiChrist wrote:
> Vamp A bleeds.
> Prey's Imbued declares use of Champion, making the action fail and
> entering combat with Vamp A.
> at this point:
>
> 1) can Vamp B play Mask of a Thousand Faces, resuming the action and
> entering combat with the Imbued instead of Vamp A?
Yes. Similarly, Mask can be played after the action fails in the usual manner
(i.e., "is blocked") and before combat begins.
> 2) can Vamp C play Inspire Greatness to grant Vamp A +1/+2 strength in
> the ensuing combat?
Yes.
> 3) in general: exists a window to play action modifiers between the
> activation of Champion and its resolution, or it's automatically
> 'combat time' (only red cards allowed)?
Window.
See also the slave rule:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8a7cfd44bff5ec95
LSJ wrote:
> AntiChrist wrote:>> Vamp A bleeds.
>> Prey's Imbued declares use of Champion, making the action fail and
>> entering combat with Vamp A.
>> at this point:
>>
>> 1) can Vamp B play Mask of a Thousand Faces, resuming the action and
>> entering combat with the Imbued instead of Vamp A?>
> Yes. Similarly, Mask can be played after the action fails in the
> usual manner (i.e., "is blocked") and before combat begins.
>
Just one more question regarding mask:
if an effect such as toreador grand ball kicks in an action (thus making the
action unblockable), can another of my minion resume the action via Mo1kF ?
Eg: Nakhthorheb takes a D action against my prey, who can't block
him for having all of her minion with corruption counter of mine : can
another of my minion resume via mask Nakhthorheb's action at any point ?
Eg: Anneke , chosen as first toreador for TGB (thus unblockable), calling a
kine resource contested, makes elegible to play mask of 1000k by ( say )
dimple, on the action ?
the rule with aching beauty (that had been made non-elegible for masking)
is confusing me a bit on this, right now.
thanks in advance
Emiliano, NC Italy
Tetragrammaton wrote:
> if an effect such as toreador grand ball kicks in an action (thus making the
> action unblockable), can another of my minion resume the action via Mo1kF ?
Only if the effect that kicked in could have kicked in for the would-be Masker.
For Toreador Grand Ball, that means no.
> Eg: Nakhthorheb takes a D action against my prey, who can't block
> him for having all of her minion with corruption counter of mine : can
> another of my minion resume via mask Nakhthorheb's action at any point ?
No. The unblockability effect from Nakhthorheb could not have been applied if
the other minion were acting.
> Eg: Anneke , chosen as first toreador for TGB (thus unblockable), calling a
> kine resource contested, makes elegible to play mask of 1000k by ( say )
> dimple, on the action ?
No. The unblockability effect from that TGB could not have been applied if
Dimple were acting.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> For Toreador Grand Ball, that means no.
>>> Eg: Anneke , chosen as first toreador for TGB (thus unblockable),
>> calling a kine resource contested, makes elegible to play mask of
>> 1000k by ( say ) dimple, on the action ?>
> No. The unblockability effect from that TGB could not have been
> applied if Dimple were acting.
>
Ok - does that, for TGB specifically, follow the aching beauty ruling,
anyway ?
I mean, anneke (unblockable by TGB) action can't still be resumed via mask
by, say, Marcellus that is also unblockable by another TGB, right ?
thanks again
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> For Toreador Grand Ball, that means no.
>>>>> Eg: Anneke , chosen as first toreador for TGB (thus unblockable),
>>> calling a kine resource contested, makes elegible to play mask of
>>> 1000k by ( say ) dimple, on the action ?>> No. The unblockability effect from that TGB could not have been
>> applied if Dimple were acting.
>>>
> Ok - does that, for TGB specifically, follow the aching beauty ruling,
> anyway ?
They follow the same rule, yes.
> I mean, anneke (unblockable by TGB) action can't still be resumed via mask
> by, say, Marcellus that is also unblockable by another TGB, right ?
Right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Is this a reversal of the earlier ruling? Ie, TGB action announced, I
wait for everyone to decline to block (they have to) and then Mask
with another vampire (after all eligible blockers == none) have
declined to block.
I'm referring to the August 2004 ruling made by you.
Sten During
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sten During wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> Tetragrammaton wrote:>>> I mean, anneke (unblockable by TGB) action can't still be resumed via
>>> mask by, say, Marcellus that is also unblockable by another TGB, right ?>> Right.>
> Is this a reversal of the earlier ruling? Ie, TGB action announced, I
> wait for everyone to decline to block (they have to) and then Mask
> with another vampire (after all eligible blockers == none) have
> declined to block.
>
> I'm referring to the August 2004 ruling made by you.
Yes.
I'm referring to the December 2004 ruling.
The rulings page has the ruling in its general form (covering all of this):
Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
taking that action, nor if any action modifiers, reactions, or other effects
(including inherent stealth) have been played on this action that could not have
been played/used if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting
blood that has already been spent.)
On Mar 8, 4:45 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> taking that action, nor if any action modifiers, reactions, or other effects
> (including inherent stealth) have been played on this action that could not have
> been played/used if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting
> blood that has already been spent.)
That ruling says it can't be used if effects "have been played" on
this action. Nakhthorheb's effect is not "played" at any point in the
action. It's just a static effect.
Your ruling in the previous post brings up all kinds of bad effects.
If a vampire has +1 inherent bleed, then that is an effect that can't
be used by the masking vampire, but that doesn't stop Mask from being
played. Heck, if a vampire has superior potence and thus you don't
want to block him because he'll tool you, then that, by extension,
could even be considered an effect that couldn't be used by a Masking
vampire (if that vamp doesn't have potence). The ruling you quote
specifically states effects "that have been played". Can't we
interpret it as it reads?
Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Your ruling in the previous post brings up all kinds of bad effects.
> If a vampire has +1 inherent bleed, then that is an effect that can't
> be used by the masking vampire, but that doesn't stop Mask from being
> played.
The +1 bleed does not get "used" until the action resolves.
So it's irrelevant to the Mask.
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:51:30 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Eg: Nakhthorheb takes a D action against my prey, who can't block
>> him for having all of her minion with corruption counter of mine : can
>> another of my minion resume via mask Nakhthorheb's action at any point
>> ?>
> No. The unblockability effect from Nakhthorheb could not have been
> applied if the other minion were acting.
So does this in effect mean that if there is at least one of my Corruption
counters on at least one ready minion on the table, Nakhtorheb's actions
cannot be Masked at all?
--
Regards,
Daneel
[ quoted text not captured ]
How you can apply an effect without the condition (no corruption counters
on would be declaring blockers) to apply it ?
Seems pretty counter-intuitive
best
Emiliano
[ quoted text not captured ]
There is no condition. The effect is: "Minions with your corruption counters
cannot block him."
Similarly, a Bima with a Fortitude Discipline card can play Daring the Dawn even
if there are no vampires in play. In that case, the effect would be applied, and
vampires would be prohibited from blocking the action.
just to be sure: Porphyrion cannot be masked because of his inherent
+1 stealth, except by other vampires with inherent +1 stealth (Harold
Zettler for example)?
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. He cannot be Masked because the effect (Porphyrion's +1 stealth) could not
have been applied by anyone else, even Harold Zettler).
On Mar 9, 5:59 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Daneel wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
This is getting crazier and crazier. So, a short list of vampires who
can never, ever be Masked would also include: Aisling Sturbridge,
Antoinette Dubois, Makarios the Seducer, Ellison Humboldt, Sha-Ennu,
Stanislava, Leon, Lucita (base), and Miranda Sanova, even if there are
no minions in play that fit their "cannot be blocked by" or "X gets -1
intercept against them" conditions. Plus, all vampires with +1
stealth, +1 bleed, or just about any other text on them? Despite the
fact that none of these effects are "played" at any point in the
action, per the ruling you quote? (+1 stealth is actually referenced
by the ruling, though it's parenthetical, as if that inherent stealth
actually were "played" when attempting the action.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right, mask test is:
[obf] 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.<
Untap the acting minion and tap this vampire instead. The action
continues with this vampire as the acting minion.
[OBF] As above, with +1 stealth.
No other minion can use X vampires special text, it is unique to that
particular minion. If the text was optional it would work, but it's
not, so it doesn't.
Sutekh_23
[ quoted text not captured ]
When a new vampire takes over the action, the effects of the other
vampire's special text go away. That's *why* +1 bleed is (or at least
used to be) allowed. The vampire currently bleeding has +1 bleed (it
isn't "used", it's just there, on that vamp), but when a new vampire
Masks, the +1 bleed goes away. If Nakhthorheb bleeds, and a new
vampire Masks, the action is no longer unblockable by minions with
your corruption counters. Of course, blocks may have already been
declined...
Saying that you can't use another vampire's special text is the same
as saying you can't use another vampire's disciplines. Your prey may
have to make different blocking decisions based on what minion is
bleeding them, whether that minion can't be blocked by certain
minions, or whether the vampire maybe has Protean and will tool them.
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to Mask from a vampire
with different disciplines!
If there were a vampire printed with the text "Moo-fasa cannot block
vampires with Fortitude." Does that mean you can't mask from a
vampire with fortitude to one without it while that vampire is in
play? What if he's not in play.. having fortitude, just like being
unblockable by Toreador, is now a condition that *could* cause
different blocking decisions based on what other vampires are in
play. If you can't mask (ever) from a vampire who is "unblockable by
Toreador", does that mean you can't ever mask from a vampire with
Fortitude because having Fortitude essentially means "this vampire
cannot be blocked by Moo-fasa", even if Moo-fasa isn't in play?
Not only that, but you can't Mask even if the *blocking* methuselah
has used effects that couldn't have been used if another vampire had
been acting. Not only can Nakhthorheb *be* Masked, but he can't even
use Mask if a minion with a corruption counter is attempting to
block. Even if the block isn't successful yet, and Masking to Nakh
would cause the action to fail (much like playing Scorpion Sting after
someone has already committed to a Dodge), LSJ has ruled you still
can't do it, even though Nakh doesn't specifically restrict minions
from "attempting" to block him, just from succeeding. Normally, a
vampire can't attempt something that isn't possible, but if they
attempted it when it was possible (like Dodging before a Scorpion
Sting is played), you'd think that you could still use an effect which
would cancel it.
Are all these randomly applied restrictions enough? After all, it's
still possible to play Mask once in a while, when using vampires
without any text... Maybe it shouldn't be playable by Settites at
all, or maybe never by a minion of different capacity (since some
vampires have "older" or "younger" restrictions on who they can
block), or maybe only on Tuesdays...
Which reminds me of a serious question... Can you Mask if Sajid al
Misbah is controlled by a methuselah who can block you (i.e. target of
a (D) action or predator or prey during undirected)? Say you bleed
with a 5 cap, you then "use" the ability to be older than Sajid, and
he declines to block, then you Mask to a younger vampire. Seems like
a similar situation to Nakhthorheb. Does it make a difference if the
other player "wanted" to block with Sajid and was denied, or if he was
tapped or otherwise unable to block? Or say you bleed with a 3 cap,
and Sajid blocks. From the Nakhthorheb situation above, I suppose
that means you can't Mask to an older vampire, even if you were doing
so to make the block fail. Could you stealth past Sajid and *then*
Mask, or is the action "tainted" now by the fact that Sajid tried to
block?
[ quoted text not captured ]> block?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mask of a Thousand Faces is one of those cards that is great in
concept, hell to implement into the mechanics of the game.
From my understanding, and I could well be wrong, Mask doesn't care
about other cards on the table. It is looking at the acting and
masking vampires, and the effects that are in play at the time Mask is
played.
You can't directly compare an acting minion's text with a potential
blocking minion's text in this case. When a vampire like Nakhthorheb
announces an action, it comes with the effect "Minions with your
corruption counters cannot block him." Whether there are actually any
corruption counters in play or not is irrelevent, the effect is there
when the action is announced, as it directly affects who can respond
to the action in the first place.
When a minion attempts to block, an effect is put into play. "<Minion
B> attempts to block." For the most part, that's all there is to it.
If a minion has effects that affect the block attempt, they go into
play as well. So a corrupted minion would have the effect "<Minion B
with a corruption counter> attempts to block." This is what prevents
Nakhthorheb from Masking over ... Minion B wouldn't have been able to
block him, making the attempt illegal play.
If Sajid attempts to block a younger vampire, then his effect comes
into play, and taints the entire action. If an older vampire attempts
to Mask at some point afterwards, it would make the earlier block
attempt by Sajid illegal play, and thus it's not allowable. But if
Sajid hasn't been chosen to block or has declined, there is no effect
preventing an older vampire from Masking. Just because Sajid thought
it was an older vampire bleeding his master when it turned out to be
Krid doesn't matter, the choice to not block (whether forced or not)
has been made. You don't get a new block attempt phase just because
the capacity of the acting vampire changes, much like you don't get
one if the amount of the bleed changes.
Pretty much, Mask is one of those cards that gets worse the more
effects you put into play, and even your opponent's flaws can become
assets to them.
Chris, Thrall of Arika