Toreador Grand Ball/Mask of 1000 Faces

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.

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.

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.