Mask of a Thousand Faces & bleed

edminister wrote:

I am disappointed by this as a ruling. The card text of mask reveals that the acting minion was never the one originally chosen but in fact was the masked one.

I am exteremly puzzled by this response. How is the post Pascal flagged as correct in conflict with the spirit of the card?

drnlmza wrote:

edminister wrote:

I am disappointed by this as a ruling. The card text of mask reveals that the acting minion was never the one originally chosen but in fact was the masked one.

I am exteremly puzzled by this response. How is the post Pascal flagged as correct in conflict with the spirit of the card?

It isn't, edminister probably just didn't read or think through the response enough.

@edminister:
It follows the "spirit of the card" perfectly, as A is revealed to never have actually have bled (it was B all along!) and hence A is free to bleed "again". Think it through again, and I'm sure it will make sense

Oh, I misread the ruling. Fantastic, it works as I had thought it did.

Reread the ruling.
A can declare a bleed attempt after B plays Mask of a Thousand Faces on A's bleed action.

A could even play Mask of a Thousand Faces after B plays Mask of a Thousand Faces on A's bleed.

If A declares a bleed attempt, and B plays Mask of a thousand faces, when NRA kicks in - that is, at resolution time - A is not acting, and does not get tainted - that means A can declare a(nother) bleed action that turn.

edminister wrote:

I am not debating the ruling, it makes sense but it is just disappointing in that the implication of the card title is lost in the mechanic. Vampire A is guilty of bleeding (unsuccessfully) despite the revelation that he or she never took the action. Yes, he tapped at some point and the action was announced so it implies that no repeat action comes into effect but when Mask hits the table it becomes immediately obvious that vampire A actually had nothing to do with the result of the action but he is still considered guilty even though everyone at the table knows the culprit was vampire B all along. You might as well have just used change of target instead and packed some more versatile method of generating stealth for vampire B.

You probably want to re-read the thread again.
Minion A (who started the action in the first place) may do the same action (because A didn't resolve the action, B did instead).

In short: A is not considered "guilty".