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.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

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.

One example given in the immediate wake of the 2003 RTR was Aisling Sturbridge:

[LSJ 20030520]

LSJ wrote:

> Toreador A dancing with a toreador grand ball (unblockable non-bleeding
> actions)
> Toreador B with obf
>
> A takes an action. Asks prey and predator if they block, boviously, as they
> can't they decline blocking
> Can B now play MO1000F to carry on the action? (obviously, B fullfits all
> requirements of the Action)

Yes.

Similarly, if Aisling bled a Methuselah whose only ready minion was Blythe,
Nik could mask the action after Blythe's controller declines to block.

And a similar one with Blackmail and Incriminating video tape.

[LSJ 20030521]

LSJ wrote:

> How about if Zebulon has a Blood Bond on one of my prey's
> vampires, a superior Blackmail on another, and an
> Incriminating Videotape on the third. He attempts to bleed,
> and when my prey declines to block, Ozmo wants to Mask in.
> Is this legal too?

Yes. See previous examples with Toreador Grand Ball and with
Aisling.

And in response to a request for a more expansive explanation: [LSJ 20030520]

LSJ wrote:

> Any chance a more detailed explanation of the ruling could be
> given? I honestly don't think I can give rulings in tournaments
> with any confidence based on the new Mask ruling (for any
> situation I haven't specifically asked about already).

If it is played during the action, it is used.

And the card text on Mask is:
So if you've made a conscious choice to play a card or to activate something (e.g. tapping a stealth location), it's been used. If it's something inherent - such as being provided by a minion's card text or a piece of equipment that's always on - you can Mask away from it.

The one exception to this (listed on the card rulings page, coming from the later 2004 ruling) is inherent stealth, because that's been explicitly changed.

So if you've made a conscious choice to play a card or to activate something (e.g. tapping a stealth location), it's been used. If it's something inherent - such as being provided by a minion's card text or a piece of equipment that's always on - you can Mask away from it.

The one exception to this (listed on the card rulings page, coming from the later 2004 ruling) is inherent stealth, because that's been explicitly changed.

Thanks for posting those rulings. Defining "used" this way was a terrible decision.

Ankha wrote:

Could you list the conflicting rulings so that they can be corrected (if needed)? I'm not aware of them.

The conflicting rulings I referred to are old LSJ rulings from the newsgroup - no way to change them.

But here's the one that I found, from 2008, in which LSJ explicitly says that you can't Mask a the action of a vampire who's acting unblockably under a TGB. Interestingly, given Floppy citing Nakhthorheb, LSJ also explicitly says that you can't mask Nakhthorheb if he's using his ability to be unblockable.

groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/vtes-rules/conversations/messages/283

Ooh Lordy.. Scott, why! ?