A Q LSJ

What happens with the rule about not being able to play the same action modifier on an action, if that action is taken over by another vampire? Scenario A: Mariel, lady thunder bleeds with govern, a block is attempted, she plays cloak the gathering, then Gilbert duane plays mask of a thousand faces to continue the action, the blocker plays enhanced senses. Can A: Gilbert play cloak the gathering? B: Mariel play cloak the gathering? C: Neither play cloak the gathering? They both have the disciplines to play cloak at superior. Scenario B: Mariel bleeds with govern, and adds command of the beast, a block is attempted, gilbert takes over the action with stealth. Can A: Gilbert increase the bleed with another command of the beast? or B: He can't, because it was played on that action already, although not by him. Mikael H *trying to getting things straight about mask of 1k faces* __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- Posted from web2902.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.45] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

thermon...@rocketmail.com (Mikael Hallin) wrote: > What happens with the rule about not being able to > play the same action modifier on an action, if that > action is taken over by another vampire? The rule specifies "per minion". [1.6.3] The new acting vampire is not the same minion, so is not restricted by the action modfiers played by the former acting minion. > Scenario A: > Mariel, lady thunder bleeds with govern, a block is > attempted, she plays cloak the gathering, then Gilbert > duane plays mask of a thousand faces to continue the > action, the blocker plays enhanced senses. > Can A: > Gilbert play cloak the gathering? Yes. > B: > Mariel play cloak the gathering? No. She's already played one this action. > They both have the disciplines to play cloak at > superior. > > Scenario B: > Mariel bleeds with govern, and adds command of the > beast, a block is attempted, gilbert takes over the > action with stealth. > Can A: > Gilbert increase the bleed with another command of the > beast? Yes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

>> What happens with the rule about not being able to >> play the same action modifier on an action, if that >> action is taken over by another vampire? > >The rule specifies "per minion". [1.6.3] >The new acting vampire is not the same minion, so is >not restricted by the action modfiers played by the >former acting minion. Wait a second. I'm confused now. I thought that with Mask of a Thousand Faces, all the action modifiers played by the original minion are now considered to be played by the Masked minion. That's why a while back we were talking about how Minion B cannot Mask if Minion A used a modifier the Minion B can't use. ?? Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > Wait a second. I'm confused now. I thought that with Mask of a > Thousand Faces, all the action modifiers played by the original minion > are now considered to be played by the Masked minion. Nope. The costs (if any) remain paid by the original minion and nothing indicates that the new minion is considered to have played them. > That's why a while back we were talking about how > Minion B cannot Mask if Minion A used a modifier the Minion B can't > use. ?? That restriction is part of the errata for Mask, yes. It doesn't alter which minion played which cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Wait a second. I'm confused now. I thought that with Mask of a >> Thousand Faces, all the action modifiers played by the original minion >> are now considered to be played by the Masked minion. > >Nope. The costs (if any) remain paid by the original minion and >nothing indicates that the new minion is considered to have >played them. Just to make sure, this means that the new minion doesn't benefit from them then, right? So if Minion A bleeds and plays some action modifiers so get up to +5 stealth and then Minion B plays Mask (at superior), the action is only at +1 stealth now? Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > [Uncited quote from LSJ - please cite the text you quote] > >Nope. The costs (if any) remain paid by the original minion and > >nothing indicates that the new minion is considered to have > >played them. > > Just to make sure, this means that the new minion doesn't benefit from > them then, right? Incorrect. Modifiers are applied to the action, not to the minion, by default. > > So if Minion A bleeds and plays some action modifiers so get up to +5 > stealth and then Minion B plays Mask (at superior), the action is only > at +1 stealth now? No, it's at +6 stealth (if the additional +1 was needed, otherwise the Mask could only be played at inferior and the action would remain at +5 stealth). [ quoted text not captured ]

>No, it's at +6 stealth (if the additional +1 was needed, otherwise >the Mask could only be played at inferior and the action would remain >at +5 stealth). So...if you have a hand of full of Lost in Crowds and Mask of a Thousand Faces and all of your vampires have superior Obfuscate you could: Minion A bleeds and plays Lost in Crowds. Minion B plays Mask (now at +3 stealth) and, as was the point of the original question, can still play Lost in Crowds (bleed at +5 stealth). Minion C plays Mask (+6) and can play Lost (so +8 stealth). Minion D through Z can do the same. Right? (Just hope you don't see a Veiled Sight there!). Thanks! Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] So long as the opposing blockers keep up with your stealth, yes, as stated in the previous messages of this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > So long as the opposing blockers keep up with your stealth, yes, > as stated in the previous messages of this thread. How does that interact with: "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.) [RTR 19980623] " Two copies of Lost in Crowds could not have been played if the "Masking vampire were the acting minion." I'm sure this has been addressed before, but Deja being a pain and all..... -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D Standard disclaimers apply to this post. Full written details available upon request. Your statutory rights are not affected.

James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > > > So long as the opposing blockers keep up with your stealth, yes, > > as stated in the previous messages of this thread. > > How does that interact with: > > "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.) [RTR 19980623] " > > Two copies of Lost in Crowds could not have been played if the > "Masking vampire were the acting minion." No, but each one could, since the Masking minion has played neither of them. So, neither of the Lost In Crowds represents a card that the Masking minion could not have played if he were the acting minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <966kr7$b3o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > > > > > So long as the opposing blockers keep up with your stealth, yes, > > > as stated in the previous messages of this thread. > > > > How does that interact with: > > > > "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.) [RTR 19980623] " > > > > Two copies of Lost in Crowds could not have been played if the > > "Masking vampire were the acting minion." > > No, but each one could, since the Masking minion has played neither > of them. > > So, neither of the Lost In Crowds represents a card that the > Masking minion could not have played if he were the acting minion. Am I right in thinking that the intent of this ruling is to prevent this sort of play: Bob the Methuselah has Minion A (say, a Toreador with superior Presence) attempt to bleed with legal manipulations, modified with an Aire of Elation (+5 bleed). Dave the Methuselah, his Prey, attempts to block. Bob has Minion B (a Nosferatu with Superior Obfuscate but no Presence) play Mask of a Thousand Faces, and hurls a stack of obfuscate cards on to the action to stealth the huge bleed by. Under the original card text this would be legal, but under the revised ruling illegal (since the Nosferatu could not play the Presence action or action modifiers played by the Toreador) ? - Rafe [ quoted text not captured ]