Toreador Grand Ball/Mask of 1000 Faces

Pascal wrote:

Ooh Lordy.. Scott, why! ?

My guess is that it's to make Mask more consistent by treating non-played effects the same way it treats played effects.

But doing so opens one of those cans that are filled with wurms capable of engulfing us all.

Seriously, I only see in the card text one thing that can allow this:

If the action "being unblockable" is part of its starting properties, like cost, disciplines, etc..
Then and only then this would break the clauses in Mask.
Otherwise, this ruling makes no sense.

Floppy?

Trying to find other rulings right now.

groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/vtes-rules/conversations/messages/364 is quite consistent with the 2008 reversal.

Easier to just remove Mark from the game.
But it's pretty obvious Scott changed his mind at some stage

The Blind Spot ruling isn't consistent with the 2008 reversal at all actually as he's saying the Meth B trying to block then begin denied [by masking into a Blind Spot] counts as the "Use" by being able to initially declare a block.
The two rulings are dealing with opposite ends of the problem and don't have to interact

Brum wrote:

But doing so opens one of those cans that are filled with wurms capable of engulfing us all.

Seriously, I only see in the card text one thing that can allow this:

If the action "being unblockable" is part of its starting properties, like cost, disciplines, etc..
Then and only then this would break the clauses in Mask.
Otherwise, this ruling makes no sense.

Floppy?

It still doesn't make sense because the minion is "using" TGB per how "use" is defined in the dictionary. The problem is previous rules teams distinguished "used effects" as effects that the player or a minion has to activate and not as effects that are always on. There needs to be a distinction made in the rulebook for effects that are activated (applied effects?) and effects that are always on (inherent effects?). Then the wording on Mask could change to "not usable if any effects have been applied that this minion could not apply." And Seeds of Corruption could change to "The vampire with this card cannot apply his or her special abilities."

This distiction is alluded to in the Imbued appendix. It should be more clearly defined in the main rulebook.

it'd be better to have no distinction, use "play" for play and use for use. if we're going to insist [Dragon Breath Rounds- why say use not play! !]

Seeds should also just go, adds no value to the game

Since the rulings appear to be all over the place, why not take this opportunity to clear it up once and for all? — perhaps simply impose the condition according to action modifiers:

[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 have been played that this vampire could not have played (excluding any costs). Untap the acting minion and tap this vampire instead. The action continues with this vampire as the acting minion.

I think that's basically the camarilla edition text?

I understand why it hasn't been banned — it's an interest effect / concept.

I don't mind the interesting concept - i do mind with players not getting it

Your version is much easier to interrupt, though "capable of performing the action" still can be used for fun things/headaches

Squidalot wrote:

Easier to just remove Mark from the game.

Removing a card from Tournament play doesn't mean it can't be clarified.

I'll come up with an answer before Tuesday.

you've seen the clarification on return to innocence right?