+bleed and Mask 1k Faces

A vampire with presence and inherent +1 bleed takes an Enchant Kindred action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to take over the action? Sorrow

[ quoted text not captured ] well, according to the announcing your actions discussion, the action your first vampire takes is 'bleed for 3', so I don't think the second one can play M1kF. I even believe that another vamp with +1 bleed can't take over the action because that's not the same +1 bleed. (Like beast's rush action isn't the same action as Theo Bell's rush action) Or is this different because +1 bleed isn't an action? I might be completely wrong, though.

On 3 sep, 12:14, "Sorrow" <jcbo...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already played. (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon Investigation)

>> A vampire with presence and inherent +1 bleed takes an Enchant Kindred >> action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and >> obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to >> take >> over the action? > B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it > is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant > Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already > played. > (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon > Investigation) Well, I know that this is generally true. But the recent conversation about Aranthebes and the misplayed/declared action gives me pause. At what point does the +bleed matter? I used to think only during resolution but now I'm not so sure. Specifically, when you declare the action, are you declaring the Enchant Kindred bleed action? Or are you declaring a bleed action of +1, +1? The distinction is a subtle but important one. If it was just a matter of declaring the Enchant Kindred bleed action then sure, vamp B could Mask. But if it was a matter of declaring the Enchant Kindred total +2 bleed action, the vamp B could not Mask unless it, too, had a +1 bleed (from some source, inherant or otherwise). Sorrow

[ quoted text not captured ] I am fairly sure that Jeroen is correct, and floppyzedolphin incorrect. If minion A with inherent +1 bleed and Presence declares a bleed with EK, minion B with Presence but without inherent +1 bleed may not play Mask, because minion A's action was to bleed for 3 but minion B's action would be to bleed for 2. If you want to search for the relevant ruling I bet it's easy to find and easy to understand.

[ quoted text not captured ] You would be mistaken Malone. inherent +bleed is irrelevent for the purposes of determining whether or not you can play Mo1Kf. It only is concerned about effects that have been used, and since +bleed isn't used until the resolution of the bleed action then it is never a factor in whether or not that you can play Mask 1K faces. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Sorrow wrote: >>> A vampire with presence and inherent +1 bleed takes an Enchant Kindred >>> action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and >>> obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to >>> take >>> over the action? >> B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it >> is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant >> Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already >> played. >> (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon >> Investigation) > > Well, I know that this is generally true. But the recent conversation about > Aranthebes and the misplayed/declared action gives me pause. At what point > does the +bleed matter? I used to think only during resolution but now I'm > not so sure. You were correct. Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in to the Mask equation.

[ quoted text not captured ] They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was different now. Can you elaborate, plz? If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3 with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for 2 action?

[ quoted text not captured ] I always thought that you declared a "Bleed with Enchant Kindred (at inferior Presence)." The "for 3" is really just a reminder to your prey of the bleed amount. Technically you wouldn't even have to do that, but it does save some time instead of going back and forth with "How much?" "Any Modifiers?" etc. Jeff

>> If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3 >> with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for >> 2 action? > I always thought that you declared a "Bleed with Enchant Kindred (at > inferior Presence)." The "for 3" is really just a reminder to your > prey of the bleed amount. Technically you wouldn't even have to do > that, but it does save some time instead of going back and forth with > "How much?" "Any Modifiers?" etc. So that whole Aranthebes issue, if the person had just declared "Bleed" and not "Bleed for X" then the action wouldn't have been misplayed/declared and would not have had to have been rolled back? Sorrow

[ quoted text not captured ] That's what we all thought prior to this years EC final. There was a thread about it not that long ago. Announcing 'bleed' with a minion that has 0 bleed (due to Aranthebes), was judged to be misplay instead of a mistake. LSJ said that the announcement implied a 'bleed for 1', which the minion in question couldn't do. Hence, misplay and rewind to the state prior to the misplay. >Technically you wouldn't even have to do > that, It seems you have to. Unless everyone at the table agrees on what's exactly meant by a declaration of 'bleed' [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1188889650.3...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> writes: >On 4 sep, 02:48, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in >> to the Mask equation. > >They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But >with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was >different now. Can you elaborate, plz? Whether they prevent playing of Mask or not, you should still be declaring them. That has nothing to do with anything. You should simply be letting your prey (or whoever) know how much they're being bled for and (if necessary[0]) why. I'm not sure why you think that telling another player what your action is doing would or wouldn't affect Mask. Whether you said it aloud or not, the action would still be the same action, with all the same modifiers applied, or whatever. [0] Like, Arika bleeding for 3 is just going to be understood by the vast majority of players if you say "Arika bleeds for 3", whereas having a conditional bleed bonus against Ventrue from Constanza Vinti might be worth pointing out, certainly the first time. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <EI6dncJrYYR0h0Db...@cavtel.net>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> writes: >So that whole Aranthebes issue, if the person had just declared "Bleed" and >not "Bleed for X" then the action wouldn't have been misplayed/declared and >would not have had to have been rolled back? It depends on what the judge thought was understood by the term on the table.[0] Like, if everyone knows about the modifier and it's been well understood for ages and ages and ages, you could let it go. Or by just saying "Bleed", the judge might prompt you to say how much it was for, which would prevent the rollback by making the play correct. Judge's discretion. Declaring the action for the wrong amount, however, is clearly wrong. [0] To take an analogous example, if both players understand "Slaps?" to mean "Shall we exchange hand-strikes for 1 in combat? Oh, okay then.", I'm not going to make them rewind - the term was clearly understood by both of them (and me). No need to rewind, even if it is casually expressed. If it wasn't 100% clear that Angus had +1 strength, there might be a case for rewinding. However, if player A had been bounced to player C and player C had said "Blocking with Angus - he has a Flak Jacket and his normal +1 strength" about five seconds before, I'd not want the play rewound. And so on. Judgement. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 sep, 10:55, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1188889650.329233.145...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> writes: > >On 4 sep, 02:48, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in > >> to the Mask equation. > > >They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But > >with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was > >different now. Can you elaborate, plz? > > Whether they prevent playing of Mask or not, you should still be > declaring them. That has nothing to do with anything. You should > simply be letting your prey (or whoever) know how much they're being > bled for and (if necessary[0]) why. So the declaration is just that? In 'a bleed for 3 action' the for 3 is only redundant information, provided for information only? OK. > > I'm not sure why you think that telling another player what your action > is doing would or wouldn't affect Mask. Whether you said it aloud or > not, the action would still be the same action, with all the same > modifiers applied, or whatever. Well, semantically there's a difference. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen wrote: > On 4 sep, 02:48, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Sorrow wrote: >>>>> A vampire with presence and inherent +1 bleed takes an Enchant Kindred >>>>> action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and >>>>> obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to >>>>> take >>>>> over the action? >>>> B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it >>>> is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant >>>> Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already >>>> played. >>>> (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon >>>> Investigation) >>> Well, I know that this is generally true. But the recent conversation about >>> Aranthebes and the misplayed/declared action gives me pause. At what point >>> does the +bleed matter? I used to think only during resolution but now I'm >>> not so sure. >> You were correct. >> >> Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in >> to the Mask equation. > > They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But > with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was > different now. Can you elaborate, plz? The "fully declare" is how it's always been. That hasn't changed, and the ruling on Mask hasn't changed. You declare the bleed amount. The floating bleed bonuses (from built-in specials, Laptops, &c.) doesn't factor into the Mask equation. > If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3 > with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for > 2 action? By Masking to a vampire that doesn't have a floating +1 bleed.

Jeroen wrote: > On 4 sep, 10:25, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I always thought that you declared a "Bleed with Enchant Kindred (at >> inferior Presence)." The "for 3" is really just a reminder to your >> prey of the bleed amount. > > That's what we all thought prior to this years EC final. There was a > thread about it not that long ago. Announcing 'bleed' with a minion > that has 0 bleed (due to Aranthebes), was judged to be misplay instead > of a mistake. misplay = mistake. > LSJ said that the announcement implied a 'bleed for 1', ... in most groups, and the actual message conveyed by "bleed" when not fully announced is to be determined by the judge. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 4, 12:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The "fully declare" is how it's always been. That hasn't changed, and the ruling > on Mask hasn't changed. > > You declare the bleed amount. > The floating bleed bonuses (from built-in specials, Laptops, &c.) doesn't factor > into the Mask equation. > > > If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3 > > with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for > > 2 action? > > By Masking to a vampire that doesn't have a floating +1 bleed. Okay, maybe just me, but this is confusing. If Vamp A has +1 bleed, and Vamp B does not. I declare a bleed with Vamp A as follows "Vamp A will be bleeding you at o stealth for 2" Prey attempts to block, and I ask to vamp B. This is now a bleed for 1, but as the action was announced as a bleed for 2, it is according to complete announcement of action a misplay. Um, wtf? PS I'm most likely just highly confused apu... (As Per Usual)

On 4 sep, 12:52, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 4, 12:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > The "fully declare" is how it's always been. That hasn't changed, and the ruling > > on Mask hasn't changed. > > > You declare the bleed amount. > > The floating bleed bonuses (from built-in specials, Laptops, &c.) doesn't factor > > into the Mask equation. > > > > If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3 > > > with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for > > > 2 action? > > > By Masking to a vampire that doesn't have a floating +1 bleed. > > Okay, maybe just me, but this is confusing. If Vamp A has +1 bleed, > and Vamp B does not. > > I declare a bleed with Vamp A as follows "Vamp A will be bleeding you > at o stealth for 2" Prey attempts to block, and I mask to vamp B. This > is now a bleed for 1, but as the action was announced as a bleed for > 2, it is according to complete announcement of action a misplay. Um, > wtf? > > PS I'm most likely just highly confused apu... (As Per Usual) You are incorrect. Consider the following scenario: I declare a bleed with Vamp A as follows: "Vampire A will be bleeding you at 0 stealth for 1" Prey declines to block, and I play a conditioning. This is now a bleed for four, but as the action was announced as a bleed for one, it is according to complete announcement of the action *not* a misplay, since an action modifier has been played changing the parameters of the announced action. Same as masking a bleed. More clear? Cheers, Bram

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks Bram, makes sense now. Basically it is because once M1k'ed, it is no longer the action as announced, but the action as modified, correct?

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup. Apperently nothing changed. Which, in this case, is GOOD (tm) :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed. Mask changes the parameters of the action. After playing mask, you have to declare the exact parameters of said action again. (indicate which vampire is now bleeding, and if neccessary any other changes worth noting) If you unintentionally misdeclare those, it might be a misplay, subject to judgement, etc. blahblah. ;) Cheers, Bram

[ quoted text not captured ] Mask changes the action, yes. It was announced as Vamp A doing the action, for example. The key is that, as far as Mask is concerned, the floating +bleed is not applied until action resolution (unlike, say, +stealth).

LSJ wrote: > The key is that, as far as Mask is concerned, the floating +bleed is not > applied until action resolution (unlike, say, +stealth). but the floating +bleed is applied before then if, say, someone wants to Archon Investigation you? or do we not count inherent +bleed when adding up for AI now? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On 4 sep, 15:37, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > The key is that, as far as Mask is concerned, the floating +bleed is not > > applied until action resolution (unlike, say, +stealth). > > but the floating +bleed is applied before then if, say, someone wants to > Archon Investigation you? > > or do we not count inherent +bleed when adding up for AI now? *bump* no answer?

[ quoted text not captured ] IANLSJNDIPTBH but I think that the bleed amount is only checked when resolved or when an effect specifically checks it. So until the bleed resolves, or an effect checks the bleed amount, it can be modified up or down, and still be Mask-able. Maybe the following question will make it simpler: Meth A's Lydia van Cuelen bleeds with Legal Manipulations (bleed for 4). Meth B declines to block and then plays Archon Investigation. Meth C plays Sudden Reversal. Can now Meth A's Hadrian Garrick Mask the action? I assume not. Lydia plays inferior Aire of Elation (bleed for 5). Can now Meth A's Hadrian Garrick Mask the action? I assume yes. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Inquisitive minds want to know. LSJ? :) Cheers, Bram

[ quoted text not captured ] Inquisitive minds can use Google, and might note that LSJ used "as far as Mask is concerned" above.