Scenario: Minion A is bleeding and plays Daring the Dawn at basic. Minion B (who is a vampire possessing both Fortitude and Obfuscate) then plays Mask of a Thousand Faces, taking over the bleed action, which resolves successfully.
Question: Who takes the 2 aggravated damage, A or B?
Thanks much!
-Bill Troxel / Killiam
Name: Daring the Dawn
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Fortitude
[for] Vampires cannot block this action. This vampire takes 2 unpreventable environmental aggravated damage after action resolution.
[FOR] As above, but this vampire takes 1 unpreventable environmental aggravated damage.
Name: Mask of a Thousand Faces
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Discipline: Obfuscate
[obf] Only usable by a ready, unlocked 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. Unlock the acting minion and lock this vampire instead. The action continues with this vampire as the acting minion.
[OBF] As above, with +1 stealth.
-Killiam
(Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from
Look at the woman I've become
And the strangest things seem
Suddenly routine"
-Hedwig Robinson
I would have said B:
>
> The action remains the same. All action modifiers remain in effect, but inherent modifiers (a minion's inherent +1 bleed for example) do not. Other effects applied to the action also carry over to the new masking vampire. [RTR 19951110] [LSJ 19971201] [RTR 20030519] [LSJ 20030521]
>
the 2 agg damage are not effects applied to the action but to the vampire.
For example IMO a conditioning add +3 bleed to the action and not to the vampire.
But this card being a judge nightmare, I could certainly be wrong...
> lip wrote:
> I would have said B:
> >
> > The action remains the same. All action modifiers remain in effect, but inherent modifiers (a minion's inherent +1 bleed for example) do not. Other effects applied to the action also carry over to the new masking vampire. [RTR 19951110] [LSJ 19971201] [RTR 20030519] [LSJ 20030521]
> >
Correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Ankha would be great if you could add some more reasoning behind why....the quoted ruling doesn't really make it clear...one could argue that the damaging effect would trigger as the card is played queuing up damage to be applied after action resolution to the vampire that played it and thereby be treated like card cost that one pays as the card is played and that is per ruling not passed to the masking minion. The effect "This action cannot be blocked by vampires" would be a lingering effect that is affecting the action as a whole that the masked minion is taking over and therefore benefits from that effect.
> inm8 wrote:
> Ankha would be great if you could add some more reasoning behind why....the quoted ruling doesn't really make it clear...one could argue that the damaging effect would trigger as the card is played queuing up damage to be applied after action resolution to the vampire that played it and thereby be treated like card cost that one pays as the card is played and that is per ruling not passed to the masking minion. The effect "This action cannot be blocked by vampires" would be a lingering effect that is affecting the action as a whole that the masked minion is taking over and therefore benefits from that effect.
>
The effect of Daring the Dawn carries over the new acting minion. This means that the new acting minion cannot be blocked by vampires, and will take the aggravated damage after the resolution of the action.
The former acting minion is not involved anymore, as if it never had been the acting minion (despite any blood spend before playing the Mask).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Thanks for your explanation. If i understand your reasoning correctly of why the masking minion (B) also takes over the damaging effect is because it is to be considered as if it was the masking minion (B) all along and the masked minion (A) was never involved which thematically and intent wise can make sense. But i don´t understand how you come to the conclusion based on these card´s text I still don´t find this ruling and previous LSJ one (below) to be very intuitive and seems to be a ruling to align more with the idea/intent of the card then the explicit implementation/card text.
.
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> All effects that had been applied to the action or the acting minion carry over as if they had been applied with the Masker as the acting minion.
>
If Daring the Dawn would be written as below it would make more sense for it to also be carried over to the masking minion:
[for] Vampires cannot block this action. This The acting vampire takes 2 unpreventable environmental aggravated damage after action resolution.
Mask of a Thousand Faces text "The action continues with this vampire as the acting minion." changes who is the acting minion for the action not the targets of previously played cards/effects.
One could also argue that if Daring of the Dawn has been played the action can´t be masked anymore for the same reason as Aching Beauty... (similar text wise using "this") per ruling if Aching Beauty effect has been activated on minion (A) the action can´t be masked even if the masking minion (B) also has an Aching Beauty.
.
>
> Name: Aching Beauty
> [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U, KoT:U, FB:PTo3]
> Cardtype: Master
> Clan: Toreador
> Cost: 2 pool
> Put this card on any Toreador. If this Toreador is blocked, the blocking minion's controller burns 1 pool before block resolution.
> Artist: Dave Roach & Pete Burges; Chris Stevens; Dave Roach & Pete Burges
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> Any minion can mask before the Aching Beauty on the first Toreador
> is activated (i.e., before the pool is burned).
>
> After it is activated, only a minion with *that* Aching Beauty can
> mask, which means that no minion can mask, since the only minion
> with that Aching Beauty is the acting minion.
>