If a vampire is unblockable due to a Toreador Grand Ball in play, may a different vampire play Mask of 1000 Faces to take over the action once everyone has declared no blocks?
I think the answer is no, but I'm checking here to see what the current ruling is - searching showed me multiple, conflicting rulings, and the links on the Card Rulings page for Mask lead to a generic Google Groups page, not actual newsgroup posts.
> Kushiel wrote:
> If a vampire is unblockable due to a Toreador Grand Ball in play, may a different vampire play Mask of 1000 Faces to take over the action once everyone has declared no blocks?
>
Yes.
There is no difference between:
- target Methuselah declines to block because the action is unblockable
- target Methuselah declines to block because he doesn't want to block
Then you can play Mo1KF after blocks have been declined.
groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr#!msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/wltIoG3qv_I/hFvOS1M-Eb8J
> Kushiel wrote:
> I'm checking here to see what the current ruling is - searching showed me multiple, conflicting rulings, and the links on the Card Rulings page for Mask lead to a generic Google Groups page, not actual newsgroup posts.
>
Could you list the conflicting rulings so that they can be corrected (if needed)? I'm not aware of them.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Could you list the conflicting rulings so that they can be corrected (if needed)? I'm not aware of them.
>
Isn't the Grand Ball covered by the "or other effects" part of this ruling:
"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.)"
Nakhthorheb's special also comes to mind as something I thought wasn't legal. ie. Masking after minions with corruption counters have declined to block with a minion other than Nakhthorheb.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
Hmpf.
There's been a few reversals after that so I'm not sure my first answer is still right.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
You can mask an action that was taken by someone with a TGB - and you can do this before or after blocks were announced/declided, as you want.
The cause, as Vincent said, is that there is no "Since I cannot declare block attempts" effect in V:tES.
Similary, you can Mask Nakhthorheb after blocks were declined.
The rest of the rulings over Mask are extremely tricky (and the superior text made me realise I might have to reverse a totally unrelated ruling).
> Pascal wrote:
> You can mask an action that was taken by someone with a TGB - and you can do this before or after blocks were announced/declided, as you want.
> The cause, as Vincent said, is that there is no "Since I cannot declare block attempts" effect in V:tES.
>
> Similary, you can Mask Nakhthorheb after blocks were declined.
>
> The rest of the rulings over Mask are extremely tricky (and the superior text made me realise I might have to reverse a totally unrelated ruling).
>
I'm sure there are sound reasons for ruling TGB and Mask this way, but, as has been pointed out, TGB is a "other effect" that the first vampire used that "could not have been used" by the second vampire. This ruling is problematic because it contradicts the card text.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> I'm sure there are sound reasons for ruling TGB and Mask this way, but, as has been pointed out, TGB is a "other effect" that the first vampire used that "could not have been used" by the second vampire. This ruling is problematic because it contradicts the card text.
>
One example given in the immediate wake of the 2003 RTR was Aisling Sturbridge:
[LSJ 20030520]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Toreador A dancing with a toreador grand ball (unblockable non-bleeding
> > actions)
> > Toreador B with obf
> >
> > A takes an action. Asks prey and predator if they block, boviously, as they
> > can't they decline blocking
> > Can B now play MO1000F to carry on the action? (obviously, B fullfits all
> > requirements of the Action)
>
> Yes.
>
> Similarly, if Aisling bled a Methuselah whose only ready minion was Blythe,
> Nik could mask the action after Blythe's controller declines to block.
>
And a similar one with Blackmail and Incriminating video tape.
[LSJ 20030521]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > How about if Zebulon has a Blood Bond on one of my prey's
> > vampires, a superior Blackmail on another, and an
> > Incriminating Videotape on the third. He attempts to bleed,
> > and when my prey declines to block, Ozmo wants to Mask in.
> > Is this legal too?
>
> Yes. See previous examples with Toreador Grand Ball and with
> Aisling.
>
And in response to a request for a more expansive explanation: [LSJ 20030520]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Any chance a more detailed explanation of the ruling could be
> > given? I honestly don't think I can give rulings in tournaments
> > with any confidence based on the new Mask ruling (for any
> > situation I haven't specifically asked about already).
>
> If it is played during the action, it is used.
>
And the card text on Mask is:
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.
So if you've made a conscious choice to play a card or to activate something (e.g. tapping a stealth location), it's been used. If it's something inherent - such as being provided by a minion's card text or a piece of equipment that's always on - you can Mask away from it.
The one exception to this (listed on the card rulings page, coming from the later 2004 ruling) is inherent stealth, because that's been explicitly changed.
> So if you've made a conscious choice to play a card or to activate something (e.g. tapping a stealth location), it's been used. If it's something inherent - such as being provided by a minion's card text or a piece of equipment that's always on - you can Mask away from it.
>
> The one exception to this (listed on the card rulings page, coming from the later 2004 ruling) is inherent stealth, because that's been explicitly changed.
>
Thanks for posting those rulings. Defining "used" this way was a terrible decision.
> Ankha wrote:
> Could you list the conflicting rulings so that they can be corrected (if needed)? I'm not aware of them.
>
The conflicting rulings I referred to are old LSJ rulings from the newsgroup - no way to change them.
But here's the one that I found, from 2008, in which LSJ explicitly says that you can't Mask a the action of a vampire who's acting unblockably under a TGB. Interestingly, given Floppy citing Nakhthorheb, LSJ also explicitly says that you can't mask Nakhthorheb if he's using his ability to be unblockable.
groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/vtes-rules/conversations/messages/283
> Pascal wrote:
> Ooh Lordy.. Scott, why! ?
>
My guess is that it's to make Mask more consistent by treating non-played effects the same way it treats played effects.
But doing so opens one of those cans that are filled with wurms capable of engulfing us all.
Seriously, I only see in the card text one thing that can allow this:
If the action "being unblockable" is part of its starting properties, like cost, disciplines, etc..
Then and only then this would break the clauses in Mask.
Otherwise, this ruling makes no sense.
Floppy?
Easier to just remove Mark from the game.
But it's pretty obvious Scott changed his mind at some stage
The Blind Spot ruling isn't consistent with the 2008 reversal at all actually as he's saying the Meth B trying to block then begin denied [by masking into a Blind Spot] counts as the "Use" by being able to initially declare a block.
The two rulings are dealing with opposite ends of the problem and don't have to interact
> Brum wrote:
> But doing so opens one of those cans that are filled with wurms capable of engulfing us all.
>
> Seriously, I only see in the card text one thing that can allow this:
>
> If the action "being unblockable" is part of its starting properties, like cost, disciplines, etc..
> Then and only then this would break the clauses in Mask.
> Otherwise, this ruling makes no sense.
>
> Floppy?
>
It still doesn't make sense because the minion is "using" TGB per how "use" is defined in the dictionary. The problem is previous rules teams distinguished "used effects" as effects that the player or a minion has to activate and not as effects that are always on. There needs to be a distinction made in the rulebook for effects that are activated (applied effects?) and effects that are always on (inherent effects?). Then the wording on Mask could change to "not usable if any effects have been applied that this minion could not apply." And Seeds of Corruption could change to "The vampire with this card cannot apply his or her special abilities."
This distiction is alluded to in the Imbued appendix. It should be more clearly defined in the main rulebook.
it'd be better to have no distinction, use "play" for play and use for use. if we're going to insist [Dragon Breath Rounds- why say use not play! !]
Seeds should also just go, adds no value to the game
Since the rulings appear to be all over the place, why not take this opportunity to clear it up once and for all? — perhaps simply impose the condition according to action modifiers:
[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 have been played that this vampire could not have played (excluding any costs). Untap the acting minion and tap this vampire instead. The action continues with this vampire as the acting minion.
I think that's basically the camarilla edition text?
I understand why it hasn't been banned — it's an interest effect / concept.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
I don't mind the interesting concept - i do mind with players not getting it
Your version is much easier to interrupt, though "capable of performing the action" still can be used for fun things/headaches
> Squidalot wrote:
> Easier to just remove Mark from the game.
>
Removing a card from Tournament play doesn't mean it can't be clarified.
I'll come up with an answer before Tuesday.
While it might not be easy/possible to clarify the card for it ruleswise, I think that the 2nd minion should be able to use all effect (such as TGB) the 1st minion did.
Would be way clearer to play the card as you'd only need to remember to check if the 2nd minion was able to play everything the 1st one did. Not "needs to be able to play disciplines and then the 2nd one can weasel its way around the ability to play A and B, but not C or D..."
Finnish Politics!
You might be able to find some kind of reasonable way to write the card if "effects" that come were associated were assigned action modifier or reactions designations.
For example:
Pentex(TM) Loves You! card text
>
> : You may tap this card and choose a Sabbat vampire. Once during the current action, the chosen vampire may burn 1 blood to get +1 bleed.
>
or Greta Kirchner card text:
>
> : Once each action, if Greta is ready and you are being bled by an ally or a younger vampire, Greta may burn a blood to reduce the bleed amount by one.
>
Instead of fumbling around and talking about effects, an undefined term, every effect would have a designation belonging to a card-type. You could just talk about action modifiers and reactions in the text of Mo1KF, and it would include "effects" from cards in play, like those I mentioned above.
My suggestion for a re-write:
>
> Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion. Untap the acting minion and tap this vampire instead. This vampire is now the acting minion. Any action modifiers played by the previous acting minion or minions during this action are applied to this vampire instead. Any reactions or effects that have targeted the previous acting minion or minions during this action are applied to this vampire instead. Not playable by a vampire who does not meet the requirements of the action and any previously played action modifiers.
> As above, with +1 stealth.
>
This rewrite is saying that the vampire has to meet the requirements for the action chosen and the action modifiers played. "Meeting a requirement" is defined in the rulebook. It's also saying that any reactions or "effects" stay in place, regardless of whether the new vampire would have been a legal target (such as the Sabbat requirement for Pentex Loves You or the age requirement for Greta Kirchner). This might elicit some abuses, but it simplifies matters since you can objectively check for a requirement, but there is no game definition for "could have been used".
From a source perspective this makes sense: the previous acting minion was the new vampire acting under a disguise. The vampire couldn't use abilities it didn't have, but outside forces "saw" the vampire as the illusion and thus targeted it accordingly with regards to reactions or in-game card effects.
My wording specifically addresses a problem the original card text has: the original text tacitly attributes action modifiers and effects (apparently including reactions) to the action, not the vampire. But actions don't have stealth or bleed - minions do. "+1 stealth action" is a shorthand.
The card is probably not going to get rewritten, but I suggest that "capable of performing the action" mean "meets the requirements of the action" and that the action not have come from the inherent text of a minion or card on a minion. I suggest that "any action modifiers or other effects have been used that could not have been used if this vampire were the acting vampire" mean "meets the requirement" of any played action modifiers and the previous acting minion not have used any of the cards on him or her, like equipment.
> Kushiel wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Could you list the conflicting rulings so that they can be corrected (if needed)? I'm not aware of them.
> >
> The conflicting rulings I referred to are old LSJ rulings from the newsgroup - no way to change them.
>
> But here's the one that I found, from 2008, in which LSJ explicitly says that you can't Mask a the action of a vampire who's acting unblockably under a TGB. Interestingly, given Floppy citing Nakhthorheb, LSJ also explicitly says that you can't mask Nakhthorheb if he's using his ability to be unblockable.
>
> groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/vtes-rules/conversations/messages/283
>
REVERSAL : I am reversing the ruling you mention here.
If a vampire chosen to be unblockable during non-bleed actions declares an action, another vampire controlled by the same Methuselah can play Mask of a Thousand Faces (after the "As announced" step, and before the resolution of the action).
As long as we can't produce new cards, the VEKN has decided not to update cardtexts (unless extreme necessity is noticed).
Thanks, Pascal. Sorry this turned out to be such a headache - certainly not what I was expecting when I first asked the question.
Presumably this also applies to Nakhthorheb and Mask? I ask because your reversal specifies "non-bleed actions," but Nakh's text does not.
> Brum wrote:
> And does the second vampire's action is unblockable?
>
Technically, no. But that doesn't matter - the whole point of doing this is to ask all other players to decline blocks while the TGB'd vampire is acting, and then play Mask. The decision not to block is binding (unless bounce is played), and that still applies after you play Mask.
> Brum wrote:
> And does the second vampire's action is unblockable?
>
No. But if you're smart enough, you play the Mask after the other players declined declaring block attempts.
> Kushiel wrote:
> Presumably this also applies to Nakhthorheb and Mask?
>
Correct. And to Aisling.
The more I think about it, the more I think that action modifiers should not carry on to the Masked vampire. That would eliminate the need for the current two-dozen-or-so current rulings.
The text of Mo1KF assumes that action modifiers modify an action, when in fact most modify the acting vampire during the action. The term "action modifier" is imprecise: stealth and bleed are characteristics of a vampire, not an action. Lost in Crowds gives the acting vampire +1/+2 stealth; it doesn't give Govern the Unaligned +1/+2 stealth. Felicia Mostrom doesn't block Govern the Unaligned; she blocks Gilbert Duane (hopefully )
Based on this logic, there is no reason for action modifiers or effects to "carry over" from one minion to the next except a misinterpretation of the term "action modifier". Reactions aren't considered to modify the action, so I don't see why action modifiers would, either, other than the name. Action modifiers are simply cards playable by an acting vampire during an action, just as reaction cards are card playable by a reacting vampire during an action.
By removing this sentence: "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.", and understanding that action modifiers stay with the minion who played them, Mo1KF becomes much, much easier to manage.
The phrase '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' implies that you would need to test whether the 2 vampires could have been exchanged in the action without consequence.
If an effect (such as inherent stealth or TGB) causes a difference in options for the blocker, then Masking can not be played.
I believe that this is in accordance with the intended mechanics of the card.
> Borrelstein wrote:
> The phrase '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' implies that you would need to test whether the 2 vampires could have been exchanged in the action without consequence.
> If an effect (such as inherent stealth or TGB) causes a difference in options for the blocker, then Masking can not be played.
> I believe that this is in accordance with the intended mechanics of the card.
>
I understand what the card says and what it means. Part of this old discussion had to do with whether Mo1KF should be changed or banned. The sentence in question has required a lot of rulings, so much so that many players have suggested that it should be banned. I was throwing out an idea to make it very easy to play.
The card has two aspects to consider:
1. The way in which an action modifier and "effects" played by or on one vampire could be applied to a new vampire.
This idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how action modifiers actually work or should work. Even though the rules team has said that generally action modifiers modify the action and not the minion, that is extremely problematic thinking for a variety of fairly self-evident reasons. I say that action modifiers are cards played by an acting player's minions during an action. Action modifier cards that say +stealth increase the stealth characteristic of the vampire who played them until the end of the action, just as intercept cards increase the intercept characteristic of a vampire until the end of the action. That is the best and cleanest way to treat them.
If Gilbert Duane has increased his stealth by playing Lost in Crowds, that stealth should not transfer to Zebulon who has played Mo1KF because there is no obvious mechanic by which that can (or should) happen through the rules or card text, except by a jumbled set of rulings. Although we say actions have stealth, that is a shorthand - minions have stealth, not actions.
By setting aside this idea of "inheriting" action modifiers and other effects (and consider that "effect" is not a defined term in the game), Mo1KF becomes much, much easier to resolve.
It would require a change in the current rulings, and an important shift in how action modifiers are considered to function.
2. The other aspect is the intention behind the card. The intention is to mimic the RPG Obfuscate power of Mask of 1000 Faces, which allows a vampire to look like someone else, even impersonating a specific person. The idea is that the first vampire was actually the Masking vampire in disguise.
Following this thinking, the first vampire couldn't have demonstrated abilities that the Masking vampire didn't have, because it was actually the Masking vampire all along. I get this concept, but there is no unified game mechanic for identifying "effects that are used on a vampire during an action". It is a fiddly masterwork of messed up since each unique case has to be adjudicated individually.
Rather than trying to slavishly simulate the effect of the RPG power, I propose it would be fine to simplify it for the purposes of the card game. Say the Masking vampire has to meet the requirements of the action, because that has a standard meaning within the game. A vampire can either play Govern the Unaligned at basic or not. Who cares if the other powers don't match up between the vampires, if the card is easy to play?
My basic point of view is that I wouldn't create Mask as it is now if I had a magic wand. (But I don't.) That said...
> AaronC wrote:
> If Gilbert Duane has increased his stealth by playing Lost in Crowds, that stealth should not transfer to Zebulon who has played Mo1KF because there is no obvious mechanic by which that can (or should) happen through the rules or card text, except by a jumbled set of rulings. Although we say actions have stealth, that is a shorthand - minions have stealth, not actions.
>
> By setting aside this idea of "inheriting" action modifiers and other effects (and consider that "effect" is not a defined term in the game), Mo1KF becomes much, much easier to resolve.
>
> It would require a change in the current rulings, and an important shift in how action modifiers are considered to function.
>
There's a history here that tried to exclude effects that modify the minion. DS: Summary of Official Errata, Clarifications, Rulings, and Statements e.g.
Clan Loyalty - Action Modifier (1):
Modifies only the acting minion, not the action, and would not carry over
through a Mask of a Thousand Faces modifier. [TOM 951214]
Distinguishing between things that modified the action vs modified the minion was unpleasant, hence the moves towards the functionality we have now.
Thing is, some action modifiers (and effects from cards in play) do modify the action, or have been ruled to do so. Example:
[LSJ 20020106]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> Note: Confusion modifies the bleed, not the minion. The +bleed would carry
> over through a Mask, for example.
>
This isn't short-hand or sloppiness - the action has been modified, not just the minion - and this part has been pretty consistent all along, anything that modified the action could carry over. It is possible to change it, but we shouldn't change things by imagining that short-hand has got us into a wrong position.
There's also the issue of what it means to set aside "inheriting" action modifiers. If your vampire doesn't inherit action modifiers, can I re-block after you've used a block fails and cannot reblock effect like Elder Impersonation? If I play Circumspect Revelation - "The block attempt fails, and that Sabbat vampire cannot attempt to block this action again." - then does that persist, and if not why should I inherit that but not stealth? If I reduce a bleed with Folderol (reducing it from the base 1 to 0, on an action with no other modifiers), does playing Mask to a second vampire bump the bleed back up to 1, if we decide that that affected the minion? Who burns a blood (if anyone) if I play superior Ecstasy and you then play Mask, and the bleed resolves for zero - is that inherited?
Aside: "Effect" is just a generic term for a thing that you want to do (and announce) - whether it's a card you're playing, or tapping the Barrens, or activiting a vampire's optional special ability. Hence tapping the Barrens follows the same rules on sequencing as playing Earth Control etc. If you know how to sequence who gets to declare tapping a master location vs activating a vampire's special reaction-like ability, you know what an effect is.
> AaronC wrote:
> IFollowing this thinking, the first vampire couldn't have demonstrated abilities that the Masking vampire didn't have, because it was actually the Masking vampire all along.
>
If you're going on a lore point of view, there are a variety of things a vampire could have done while pretending to be another vampire that would benefit from the other vampire's identity - obviously, not disciplines, but things based on their identity. People might follow my orders, let me in to places etc. If Rom Gypsy think I'm a Ravnos and give me some access into a situation, that I later turn out to actually have been a Mask-ing Nosferatu doesn't have to undo that, and similarly with a bunch of clan-stealth masters, and similar cards. These are currently disallowed, when slavish adherence to the RPG would potentially allow them.
> AaronC wrote:
> Rather than trying to slavishly simulate the effect of the RPG power, I propose it would be fine to simplify it for the purposes of the card game. Say the Masking vampire has to meet the requirements of the action, because that has a standard meaning within the game. A vampire can either play Govern the Unaligned at basic or not. Who cares if the other powers don't match up between the vampires, if the card is easy to play?
>
It might make the card simpler, but would it see much play afterwards? It's not clear that it would be particularly useful.