file Multiple Mask of a Thousand Faces

06 Feb 2014 09:56 #59029 by drnlmza
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)

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)

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:

:obf: +1 stealth.
:OBF: Only usable by a ready vampire other than the acting minion you control. The action gets +1 stealth.

: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 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.
:OBF: 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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Feb 2014 11:28 #59030 by Ankha

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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Feb 2014 11:49 #59031 by drnlmza

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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Feb 2014 12:20 #59032 by jamesatzephyr

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]

> 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."

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Feb 2014 12:53 #59033 by drnlmza
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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Feb 2014 13:26 - 06 Feb 2014 13:27 #59034 by jamesatzephyr

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.
Last edit: 06 Feb 2014 13:27 by jamesatzephyr.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.084 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum