Strange Mask Question

This question relates to the 6/23 Mask ruling. - Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. - Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) - Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. - I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) - Sheldon plays 2nd Tradition for total +4 Intercept. Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point? Or is that forbidden because it has been already been modified by Mask at Superior, and Ebenezer has inferior Obfuscate? But let's pretend I don't do that. Instead... - Lucretia plays Lost in Crowds for a total stealth of +6 - Sheldon plays Enhanced Sences for total intercept of +6 The action has already been modified by Lost in Crowds, but not by Lucretia, so there is nothing to prevent her from doing it again. Q: Can the action now be Masked to a 3rd Minion, like, say Marty Lechtansi. Or is this now forbidden on the following grounds: The action has now been modified twice by the same Action Modifier card. Therefore, it is no longer an action that *any* single minion could have performed himself. Since Marty could not have done this (modified) action, he therfore cannot Mask it. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980829230014.22870A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes > >This question relates to the 6/23 Mask ruling. > >- Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. >- Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) >- Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. >- I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) >- Sheldon plays 2nd Tradition for total +4 Intercept. > >Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point? Or is that >forbidden because it has been already been modified by Mask at Superior, >and Ebenezer has inferior Obfuscate? > It should be legal. The rule is 1 named action modifier per minion per action. >But let's pretend I don't do that. Instead... > >- Lucretia plays Lost in Crowds for a total stealth of +6 >- Sheldon plays Enhanced Sences for total intercept of +6 > >The action has already been modified by Lost in Crowds, but not by >Lucretia, so there is nothing to prevent her from doing it again. > No, because 1 named action modifier per minion per action. (Because multiple cloaks from different minions are legal, for instance). >Q: Can the action now be Masked to a 3rd Minion, like, say Marty >Lechtansi. Or is this now forbidden on the following grounds: The action >has now been modified twice by the same Action Modifier card. Therefore, >it is no longer an action that *any* single minion could have performed >himself. Since Marty could not have done this (modified) action, he >therfore cannot Mask it. I think he should still be able to mask the action. The rule about not being able to do actions is, I believe, whether I could have STARTED the action. Can I mask Rutor's Hand - well, do I have the tha or THA for it? Can I mask Wynn's rush? No, because if I'm not Wynn, I couldn't have started up that action. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Lupus Australis wrote: > This question relates to the 6/23 Mask ruling. > > - Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. > - Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) > - Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. > - I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) Stealth is now +3, is it? You played LiC für +1, and Mask of 1k Faces gives +0 stealth in the inferior and +1 stealth in the superior version. Or have I missed something really important? Michael Beer

Michael Beer wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Lucretia has innate +1 stealth. LitC +2 M1K (sup) +1 Lucretia +1 Total 4 Karl

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, James Coupe wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980829230014.22870A-100000@amanda>, Lupus > Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes > > > >This question relates to the 6/23 Mask ruling. > > > >- Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. > >- Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) > >- Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. > >- I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) > >- Sheldon plays 2nd Tradition for total +4 Intercept. > > > >Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point? Or is that > >forbidden because it has been already been modified by Mask at Superior, > >and Ebenezer has inferior Obfuscate? > > > It should be legal. The rule is 1 named action modifier per minion per > action. You miss the point. The new rule not only forbids your masking an action you could not have taken, but also forbids your masking an action you could not have modified. Ebenezer, not having Superior Obfuscate, could not have played Mask at superior. Therefore, according to a certain logic, he might be forbidden to Mask the action. A similar issue would be whether he could Mask the action after it has been modified by Faceless Night at superior. One might say that the ruling does not apply to Mask, because it is an action modifier that is played by other than the acting minion. For instance, if an action was modified by another minion with Superior Cloak the Gathering, then I assume it could still be masked by Ebenezer even if one does not have superior obfuscate. The original acting minion did not need superior Obfuscate, so Ebenezer should not need it either. > >But let's pretend I don't do that. Instead... > > > >- Lucretia plays Lost in Crowds for a total stealth of +6 > >- Sheldon plays Enhanced Sences for total intercept of +6 > > > >The action has already been modified by Lost in Crowds, but not by > >Lucretia, so there is nothing to prevent her from doing it again. > > > No, because 1 named action modifier per minion per action. (Because > multiple cloaks from different minions are legal, for instance). Right. > >Q: Can the action now be Masked to a 3rd Minion, like, say Marty > >Lechtansi. Or is this now forbidden on the following grounds: The action > >has now been modified twice by the same Action Modifier card. Therefore, > >it is no longer an action that *any* single minion could have performed > >himself. Since Marty could not have done this (modified) action, he > >therfore cannot Mask it. > > I think he should still be able to mask the action. The rule about not > being able to do actions is, I believe, whether I could have STARTED the > action. Can I mask Rutor's Hand - well, do I have the tha or THA for > it? Can I mask Wynn's rush? No, because if I'm not Wynn, I couldn't > have started up that action. You really should read the text of the new ruling. It is a little more complex than that, and does refer to action modifiers. Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been spent.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980829230014.22870A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > This question relates to the 6/23 Mask ruling. > > - Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. > - Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) > - Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. > - I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) > - Sheldon plays 2nd Tradition for total +4 Intercept. > > Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point? Or is that > forbidden because it has been already been modified by Mask at Superior, > and Ebenezer has inferior Obfuscate? No, since (as you say) Ebenezer doesn't have superior Obfuscate. Therefore he couldn't have been the one who played that card, so he cannot Mask the action now. > But let's pretend I don't do that. Instead... > > - Lucretia plays Lost in Crowds for a total stealth of +6 > - Sheldon plays Enhanced Sences for total intercept of +6 > > The action has already been modified by Lost in Crowds, but not by > Lucretia, so there is nothing to prevent her from doing it again. > > Q: Can the action now be Masked to a 3rd Minion, like, say Marty > Lechtansi. Or is this now forbidden on the following grounds: The action > has now been modified twice by the same Action Modifier card. Therefore, > it is no longer an action that *any* single minion could have performed > himself. Since Marty could not have done this (modified) action, he > therfore cannot Mask it. Well, that might be a sensible restriction (as would not allowing Lucretia to play the second Night Moves in the first place), but that's not how the restriction currently operates. Since there have been no action modifiers played that Marty couldn't have played himself (he has superior Obf), he is free to Mask the action. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

> > > > This question relates to the 6/23 Mask ruling. > > > > - Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. > > - Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) > > - Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. > > - I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) > > - Sheldon plays 2nd Tradition for total +4 Intercept. > > > > Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point? Or is that > > forbidden because it has been already been modified by Mask at Superior, > > and Ebenezer has inferior Obfuscate? > > No, since (as you say) Ebenezer doesn't have superior Obfuscate. Therefore > he couldn't have been the one who played that card, so he cannot Mask > the action now. > I'm going to argue again (what a surprise, eh?). This is the text that Lupus posted: Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been spent.) If this is correct, then Ebenezer could indeed Mask back, because the superior Mask *could* be played if Ebenezer were the acting minion (and in fact it was). The rule doesn't say anything about the Masking vampire needing to be able to play the action modifier, only if it could be played while he were acting. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980830182158.1982A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >You miss the point. The new rule not only forbids your masking an action >you could not have taken, but also forbids your masking an action you >could not have modified. My apologies. I missed the action modifier implications of the ruling when I read it the first time and didn't check it specifically this time. [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > [LSJ wrote:] > > [Lupus wrote:] > > > - Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. > > > - Sheldon tries to block with his two Raven Spies (+2 intercept) > > > - Ebenezer adds Lost in Crowds at inferior for total stealth of +2. > > > - I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior (Stealth is now +4) > > > - Sheldon plays 2nd Tradition for total +4 Intercept. > > > > > > Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point? Or is that > > > forbidden because it has been already been modified by Mask at Superior, > > > and Ebenezer has inferior Obfuscate? > > > > No, since (as you say) Ebenezer doesn't have superior Obfuscate. Therefore > > he couldn't have been the one who played that card, so he cannot Mask > > the action now. > > > I'm going to argue again (what a surprise, eh?). This is the text that Lupus > posted: > > Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is > not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers > have been played on this action that could not have been played if > the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood > that has already been spent.) > > If this is correct, then Ebenezer could indeed Mask back, because the > superior Mask *could* be played if Ebenezer were the acting minion (and in > fact it was). The rule doesn't say anything about the Masking vampire needing > to be able to play the action modifier, only if it could be played while he > were acting. Oops. Good point. Yes, indeed, Ebenezer could Mask back, since nothing in the 6/23 (or any other) rulings prohbits that, as you say. Sorry for the previous (incorrect) answer. Nice catch. Thanks. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]