Multiple Mask of a Thousand Faces

This came up in the final of our recent tournament, and although it didn't have any influence on the result [1], the two of us acting as judges for the final a) got the ruling wrong and, after checking the correct ruling, b) found ourselves unable to explain the correct ruling to the players. So, the following is illegal ( confirmed here , amngst other places) > sequence wrote: > Minion A acts > Minion C attempts to block > Minion B plays superior Cloak the Gathering > Minion C generates +1 intercept > Minion B attempts to play Mask of a Thousand Faces > This is failry easy to explain, as superior Cloak fails the "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." requirement. The following is what was attempted in the final, and is currently allowed (Mentioned here for example) > sequence wrote: > Minion A acts > Minion C attempts to block > Minion B plays superior M10K > Minion C generates +1 intercept > Minion A plays superior M10K > Why does this not fall foul of the same restriction? How is B's mask an action modifier that could have been used when A takes over the action again? Revelent card texts: > Non-existant user wrote: > +1 stealth. > Only usable by a ready vampire other than the acting minion you control. The action gets +1 stealth. > > Mask wrote: > 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. > As above, with +1 stealth. > [1] It was a late game incident where the incorrect ruling effectively delayed an oust by a single action, but it could easily have had a significant impact if we'd made the error earlier. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > > > sequence wrote: > > Minion A acts > > Minion C attempts to block > > Minion B plays superior M10K > > Minion C generates +1 intercept > > Minion A plays superior M10K > > > Why does this not fall foul of the same restriction? How is B's mask an action modifier that could have been used when A takes over the action again? > Playing no more than one copy of the same action modifier is "per minion" (eg. Vamp X and Y with superior obfuscate can both play Cloak the Gathering sup. when vampire Z is acting, and vampire Z can play it at inferior). This information is not carried by the mask to the masker, just as the same as costs are not carried, "by design" (at least, it's what the rulings enforce). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Playing no more than one copy of the same action modifier is "per minion" (eg. Vamp X and Y with superior obfuscate can both play Cloak the Gathering sup. when vampire Z is acting, and vampire Z can play it at inferior). > This information is not carried by the mask to the masker, just as the same as costs are not carried, "by design" (at least, it's what the rulings enforce). > Multiple copies of the same action modifier is not the issue here. In the first sequence, superior Cloak taints the action with an action modifier that could not have been played if B was the acting minion, which makes it illegal for B to later mask the action. What we're not clear on is why Mask doesn't taint the action in the same way. In sequence 2, when A plays the second Mask, how is it possible for the first to be an effect that could have been used if A was the acting minion previously? -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > > > sequence wrote: > > Minion A acts > > Minion C attempts to block > > Minion B plays superior M10K > > Minion C generates +1 intercept > > Minion A plays superior M10K > > > Why does this not fall foul of the same restriction? How is B's mask an action modifier that could have been used when A takes over the action again? > If A were the acting minion, could B have played Mask of a Thousand Faces? Yes. So A's second copy of Mask is playable. A very similar situation was ruled on very quickly after the first incarnation of this rule was added in RTR 1998-JUL-23. [LSJ 19980831] > > LSJ 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 > > 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. > Note if reading the whole thread that this was initially ruled wrongly, based on: a) an apparent mis-reading of the ruling, such that the Masking minion would have to be able to play all the modifiers himself b) an apparent belief that Ebanezer Roush doesn't have superior Obfuscate (making it hard for him to Mask an action where an action modifier had been played using superior Obfuscate, if a) is true), though he actually does. This is unlike the Cloak situation, where B has played an effect that says "You must not be the acting minion". Then the Mask check comes in and looks "Could all of these previous effects been used if B was the acting minion? Oh no, B played a Cloak which would be illegal if he were the acting minion."

After B masks the action, the action continues with B as the acting minion, and a sequence in which the acting minon changed from A to B. I fail to see how the card text supports A being able to mask in again, without violating the "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." clause, since I read that as requiring that A must have been eligible to play the first mask. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > After B masks the action, the action continues with B as the acting minion, and a sequence in which the acting minon changed from A to B. I fail to see how the card text supports A being able to mask in again, without violating the "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." clause, since I read that as requiring that A must have been eligible to play the first mask. > No, the ruling doesn't say that. And that's the error that LSJ makes, then corrects himself when Chris Berger points it out - in the ruling I posted. Roughly speaking, it appears that this breaks down into two mostly discrete parts: 1) For any effects that are used by or on the acting minion, whoever that was at the time, to be able to mask the action, the new acting minion must also have been able to use them (if used by the acting minion himself) or receive them (if granted by some other effect/card/minion). For example: having the right discipline, being an appropriate age (for cards that say younger/older), being of the right clan (for tapping a clan stealth location, say) etc. (Except not blood cost.) And some of this can be meddled with by an opponent - for example, if a reacting vampire of your opponent plays a card or effect that lets them screw with a "younger" vampire, you can no longer mask to a vampire who isn't younger than them. (That's covered in the 2003 RTR, I think.) 2) For any effects used by a non-acting minion, said effect still needs to be usable if new-vampire is the acting minion, and if it granted a benefit to the old-vampire, the new-vampire still needs to be a legal target. If you say that all effects (excluding reactions, I guess) must have been playable by the acting vampire, you potentially end up preventing this unobjectionable scenario: Three vampires, A, B and C. B has OBF and C has obf. A declares a default bleed. In response to a block attempt, B plays Cloak the Gathering. C now plays Mask inferior. That's legal, as it stands.

I'm clearly not managing to express my concern adequately here. I'm specifically concerned with the case where minion A plays mask in a situation where A has previously been the acting minion and thus was unable to play Mask for a portion of the action (because of the "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion" clause). I personally do not see how the card text supports ignoring that portion of the action when determining which actions modifiers and effects could have been used when A attempts to mask back in. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > I'm clearly not managing to express my concern adequately here. > I'm not sure you're reading what's been said, either. > drnlmza wrote: > I'm specifically concerned with the case where minion A plays mask in a situation where A has previously been the acting minion > You mean like the exact same situation as LSJ is addressing the 1998 ruling I've posted already, where a minion masks the action back to himself, having started the action? > drnlmza wrote: > and thus was unable to play Mask for a portion of the action (because of the "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion" clause). > The ruling doesn't divide the action into portions. It just checks - right now - whether the modifiers could have been played, if new vamp was the acting minion - either by that vamp, or by the appropriate other vamps (for cards/effects that the acting minion doesn't use himself). Further, the check clearly can't apply to the Mask itself. Vampire A, Vampire B. A starts an action. B plays Mask. But if B is acting, B can't play Mask, so Mask can never be played. But no: A starts an action. No effects are applied to the action at all. B plays Mask (Mask1). Nothing has been done to the action that would prevent B Masking it. Now A masks back (Mask2). Mask2 looks at all the effects that have been played on the action. Could Mask1 have been played by B if A was the acting minion? Yes. So Mask2 is playable. > drnlmza wrote: > I personally do not see how the card text supports ignoring that portion of the action when determining which actions modifiers and effects could have been used when A attempts to mask back in. > There are no portions. There's just a check when you play the card of whether existing effects could have been played if A were the acting minion. 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. The Mask1-by-B effect could have been played if A were the acting minion. Indeed, that's exactly how it was played. And that's what Mask2-by-A sees when it looks at all the pre-existing effects. It can't look at itself, otherwise it would always disallow itself - if you're acting, you can't play Mask! Further, consider the situation where some other Vamp (X) is temporarily stolen during the action, such as activating Temptation. If Vamp X (now under your control) has Obfuscate, you could potentially Mask the action to Vamp X, even though during some portion of the action you didn't control him. And you could Mask it from X to another vampire that was already yours too, irrespective of portions.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Further, the check clearly can't apply to the Mask itself. Vampire A, Vampire B. A starts an action. B plays Mask. But if B is acting, B can't play Mask, so Mask can never be played. > It's clear that each Mask doesn't apply the check to itself. It seems equally clear that there is no reason why a Mask would not apply the check to any other Masks played earlier in the action. > A starts an action. No effects are applied to the action at all. B plays Mask (Mask1). Nothing has been done to the action that would prevent B Masking it. Now A masks back (Mask2). Mask2 looks at all the effects that have been played on the action. Could Mask1 have been played by B if A was the acting minion? Yes. So Mask2 is playable. > I think you're making the check incorrectly. The check is whether the minion playing Mask2 (i.e. A) could have played Mask1, i.e. could Mask1 have been played by A on A? The answer to that would be no.

> hodgestar wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Further, the check clearly can't apply to the Mask itself. Vampire A, Vampire B. A starts an action. B plays Mask. But if B is acting, B can't play Mask, so Mask can never be played. > > > It's clear that each Mask doesn't apply the check to itself. It seems equally clear that there is no reason why a Mask would not apply the check to any other Masks played earlier in the action. > Because the ruling emphatically isn't "take every effect that's been applied to this action and check if the new vamp could have played it". > hodgestar wrote: > I think you're making the check incorrectly. > Again, this is the error that LSJ makes then corrects himself about, in the cited ruling. > hodgestar wrote: > The check is whether the minion playing Mask2 (i.e. A) could have played Mask1, i.e. could Mask1 have been played by A on A? The answer to that would be no. > Except, per the cited ruling, Chris Berger explains (and LSJ confirms): > 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. Which LSJ notes is a good catch, and corrects himself to allow the Mask chaining. A acts. B Masks. A now wants to Mask again. The check, per the text above, is not could A have played all the action modifiers, but could they have been played if he were acting. Which they could. Look at the text of the actual ruling: ...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. This does not say "nor if any action modifiers or other effects (including inherent stealth) have been played on this action that the Masking vampire could not have played if he were the acting minion". If A were the acting minion, B could have played Mask. The ruling does not require A to be capable of playing the Mask. This is exactly what the cited ruling about Ebanezer addresses and allows: A -> B -> A. Exactly the same situation. Please read the ruling. > LSJ wrote: > >>>>Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior. > ... > >>>>I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior > ... > >>>>Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this 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. > Are you also asserting that in the situation where A starts an action, B Cloaks the action (superior), then C cannot Mask the action because he could not have played B's Cloak if he were acting? If you allow this situation, why does A have to be capable of playing B's Mask but C does not have to be capable of playing B's Cloak?

> drnlmza wrote: > I'm clearly not managing to express my concern adequately here. > > I'm specifically concerned with the case where minion A plays mask in a situation where A has previously been the acting minion and thus was unable to play Mask for a portion of the action (because of the "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion" clause). I personally do not see how the card text supports ignoring that portion of the action when determining which actions modifiers and effects could have been used when A attempts to mask back in. > OK, I finally got where you were coming from. You're right - as M10KF is written, A should not be able to use superior M10KF on an action that A started because A could not have used superior M10KF when he was the original acting minion. Since it is not allowable by card text, the only explanation for your people is that the rules team (Pascal) made a perhaps arbitrary ruling that essentially altered the card text. Sometimes that is the explanation...

> AaronC wrote: > OK, I finally got where you were coming from. > > You're right > Incorrect. > AaronC wrote: > - as M10KF is written, A should not be able to use superior M10KF on an action that A started because A could not have used superior M10KF when he was the original acting minion. > Card text: 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. This does not say, repeat does not say, that the Masking vampire has to be capable of playing all of said effects, just that they must have been playable if he was the acting minion. Since a non-acting minion (B) could have played Mask if A were the acting minion, this card text allows it to be played. As do the Rules Teams Rulings on the subject. As does the Ebanezer Roush ruling cited. There is a significant difference between "X must be able to play Y" and "Y must have been playable if X was acting." The latter does not specify who must have been able to play it, just that it must have been playable. And note that since this applies to (for example) restrictive reactions, the Masking vampire cannot possibly play those effects at all ever. But RTR 2003-MAY-19 makes it clear that that's not the check for reaction effects either. ("If Redirection is used at inferior by a 7 capacity vampire, then vampires with capacity of 7 or more cannot mask the action (since they are not younger than the reacting vampire). And so on.") And the same check is used for all effects - are they playable? And the reaction played by K is playable, just as the non-acting action modifier played by L was playable. Mask does not check if the Masking vampire is capable of playing every effect, just that it's possible they could have been played if he were the acting vampire. And on A->B->A, B's Mask could have been played if A were acting. On A+B-Cloak+ Mask->C, the fact that C couldn't have played B's superior Cloak if C were acting does not prevent C masking the action.

Visually to make it clearer, stack all of the action modifiers played by A in a pile. If ALL of those effects MIGHT have been played by B, then B can play MoaTF (include in that quasi action-modifiers like vampire specials). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Mask does not check if the Masking vampire is capable of playing every effect, just that it's possible they could have been played if he were the acting vampire. And on A->B->A, B's Mask could have been played if A were acting. On A+B-Cloak+ Mask->C, the fact that C couldn't have played B's superior Cloak if C were acting does not prevent C masking the action. > Would you consider the following sequence legal? > sequence wrote: > Minion A with obf bleeds > block attempt > Minion B with OBF masks at superior for +1 stealth > decline to block > Minion A masks at inferior > I'd argue "gaining sealth from M10K" is an effect that was used during the action, and it is not legal, since B is unable to do that, but if the consideration is only that M10K could have legally played with A acting, then this is fine. If this is illegal, why isn't "was capable of playing M10K at some point in the sequence" an effect covered by M10K's text? -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > Would you consider the following sequence legal? > Yes. This is exactly the scenario that the Ebanezer Roush ruling addresses. Exactly so. Ebanezer starts the action. Lucretia masks it at superior. There is an incorrect statement that Ebanezer only has inferior Obfuscate, and the ruling is first made that Ebanezer can't Mask it back because he couldn't have played the first Mask (at superior). Chris Berger points out that the ruling does not, at any point, say that Ebanezer must himself have been able to play all the action modifiers - just that they must have been playable if he was the acting minion. LSJ says this is a good catch, and reverses his ruling, allowing precisely the situation you describe. It essentially breaks down like this: - for normal action modifiers that are playable only by the acting minion, the new acting minion must have been capable of playing them, because that's the only way they could have been played if he was the acting minion. So if you've played Bonding, the new minion needs Dominate (at whatever level). - for effects such as tapping the Backways (which aren't played by any minion), the Masking minion must be a legal target for such an effect - so a Setite can't get stealth from Opium Den, then have the action masked by Lucretia (a Nosferatu) - for effects played by a non-acting minion (reactions, and 'special' action modifiers), they must have been playable if the new Masking minion was the acting minion. But since their card text doesn't require them to be played by the acting minion (either the explicit card text of Mask etc., or the fact that they're a reaction), if the new Masking minion were the acting minion, there's nothing that would force him to play them (unlike the normal action modifier sitaution). If the new Masking minion is not younger than the guy who played the Redirection (for example), you can't Mask to that new guy. Fun scenario: if you start an action with Midget (infernal !Malk) and I tap my The Horde to give you +1 bleed (granted to another Infernal minion, but can be anyone's minion!), you can't Mask the action to your copy of Yorik (non-infernal), because I couldn't have tapped The Horde if Yorik were acting. ("The Horde may tap to give another infernal minion +1 bleed for the current action.") Do you believe the following is illegal? A: starts the action. B: plays Cloak the Gathering. C: Masks the action. If C was acting, he can't have played B's Cloak. But B's Cloak was playable (by B) if C was the acting minion. So it's allowed. Similarly, do you believe that the following is illegal? A: starts the action. B: plays Mask. C: plays Mask. If C was the acting minion, he couldn't played B's Mask. But chaining Masks is allowed. > drnlmza wrote: > I'd argue "gaining sealth from M10K" is an effect that was used during the action, > The card text asks if the action modifier (or effect) could have been used if the Masking minion was the acting minion. It does not require the Masking minion to have been capable of playing it himself - except that, in the case of 'normal' action modifiers, the only person who could have used it is the acting minion, so when you're checking Bonding, you check if the Masking minion has Dominate. When you're checking Mask played by a non-acting minion, you check that that would have been playable if the Masking minion were acting. A->B->a. So if A was acting, could B have played Mask? Yes. How do we know? Well, that's what happened in the first place! So clearly, the earlier Mask could have been played if A were acting - it was played when A was acting. > drnlmza wrote: > since B is unable to do that, > B clearly was able to play the Mask when A was acting. And the check on Mask is would the effect have been usable if A was acting. > drnlmza wrote: > If this is illegal, why isn't "was capable of playing M10K at some point in the sequence" an effect covered by M10K's text? > It's not illegal. It was ruled to be legal 2 months after the first incarnation of the ruling was made in the 6/23 rulings. Please read the ruling.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Please read the ruling. > a) Please do me the courtesy of assuming I have actually read the rulings and discussions about M10K before asking my question. I may not have grasped all the implications, but I have read them. b) Please keep in mind that the ruling you quote is from 1998, well before the current text of "effects" was added to the mix (which, as you point out elsewhere, was in 2003). We clearly disagree on what consitutes an effect for the current card text. Consider the following sequence > sequence wrote: > A, 10 cap with obf acts > C, 9 cap with AUS blocks > A plays inferior Into Thin Air (+1 stealth) > C plays Enhanced Senses at superior for +2 intercept > B, 10 cap with OBF, plays Mask at superior (+1 stealth) > B burns a blood to give C -1 intercept (Into Thin Air effect carries over) > blocks are declined > A plays M10K at inferior > Given the discussion, this sequence is legal. If A is an 8 cap, however, this sequence is illegal. Thus "is able to gain +1 stealth from superior Mask" is not an effect to be considered when A plays the second mask, while "is of sufficient capacity to burn 1 blood for Into Thin Air" is. I maintain that this is hardly obvious. Likewise, it's not obvious to me why "was able to play M10K earlier in the action" is not an effect that needs to be considered. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > a) Please do me the courtesy of assuming I have actually read the rulings and discussions about M10K before asking my question. I may not have grasped all the implications, but I have read them. > If you had read the ruling and wanted to ask if it was overturned by the 2003 ruling, it would be helpful to ask that question, rather than just repeating a question that had already been answered. If you just ask a question that has already been answered, people will assume that you haven't read it. > drnlmza wrote: > b) Please keep in mind that the ruling you quote is from 1998, well before the current text of "effects" was added to the mix (which, as you point out elsewhere, was in 2003). We clearly disagree on what consitutes an effect for the current card text. > The 'effects' ruling has no impact on this. If you read the 2003 RTR, it does nothing to overturn the previously existing ruling - it simply extends it to all other effects, not just action modifiers. So: - playing Bonding, the masking minion must have Dominate (required under 6/23) - playing Gang Tactics, the masking minion must be a !Nos (required under 6/23) - playing Approximation of Loyalty, the masking minion must be capacity 7 or more (required under 6/23) 6/23 did not extend this other effects applied to the acting minion, such as: - tapping The Backways, to provide stealth to a Gangrel Indeed, there was a period of several years when there was a division between "effects that modified the action" and "effects that modified the acting vampire" (or some similar wording). The former carried over, the latter didn't. The 2003 RTR means that effects applied to the acting minion (such as tapping The Backwards, but also the restrictive effect of a Redirection) carry over, irrespective of whether they modified the acting minion or the action. > drnlmza wrote: > > > sequence wrote: > > A, 10 cap with obf acts > > C, 9 cap with AUS blocks > > A plays inferior Into Thin Air (+1 stealth) > > C plays Enhanced Senses at superior for +2 intercept > > B, 10 cap with OBF, plays Mask at superior (+1 stealth) > > B burns a blood to give C -1 intercept (Into Thin Air effect carries over) > > blocks are declined > > A plays M10K at inferior > > > Given the discussion, this sequence is legal. If A is an 8 cap, however, this sequence is illegal. > (Just to confirm: the optional-but-unused effect of Into Thin Air carries over to the Masking minion, who may opt to use it later. [LSJ 20090319] ) Because an older/younger restriction has been applied to the action, just the same as a reacting vampire playing Redirection at inferior. Mask hasn't applied such a restriction. > drnlmza wrote: > Thus "is able to gain +1 stealth from superior Mask" is not an effect to be considered when A plays the second mask, > The ruling (and text) asks whether the effect could be used. Apply that test. You keep making up your own text, about portions of actions and such, rather than applying the ruling and card text. If A was acting, could A have applied a "younger vampire" effect to a vampire who is older? No. Therefore, A cannot Mask. If A was acting, could B have played Mask? Yes. Therefore, A can Mask. X bleeds, Y plays Redirection (inferior - affecting a younger vampire). Z wants to Mask the action from X. Is Z younger than Y? If yes, Z can Mask. If no, Z can't Mask.