Mask of a Thousand Faces

Mael wrote:

henrik wrote:

Archon Investigation is played during the resolution though, just like Spying Mission and Strix (might be more as well).

It's not though. The wording on it is "Only usable when a minion is attempting to bleed you ....". So you can play it before declaring blockers if the conditions are met and should it get canceled you can still block as normal (unlike deflection etc).

Shard wrote:

Was there a ruling on A.I. that confirms that it is played during resolution?

My mistake. AI is played before resolution (but after declining to block).
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61545d458e93561c

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

@Henrik:
Yes, but think of an action such as... Bum's Rush. It is entirely irrelevant that a minion has +1 bleed when taking the action Bum's Rush. But +1 stealth is not.

So it has been ruled that:

+stealth (which is gained AND HAS EFFECT immediately) does prevent the use of MoaTF

+bleed (which can be gained BUT NOT ALWAYS have immediate effect) does not prevent the use of MoaTF

Discussing bleed modifiers (non-)effects on a non-bleed action is, indeed, entirely irrelevant.

You're still just repeating. I know it has been ruled that way, I'm just asking what the inherent difference is between stealth and bleed modifiers. And seeing as I asked for a rulebook reference or ruling about bleeds being applied during action resolution and not when they're played/announced I'm not sure what you wish to accomplish here.

I understand how the card works. I understand that +1 stealth is considered an effect that can't be masked, I understand that +1 bleed isn't considered an effect that can't be masked. I do not see the logic in there though, and arguments that aren't based on logic and/or rules doesn't help me understanding the difference.


a) Stealth and bleed are applied during different timing windows of the action. Stealth is applied when announced/played, bleed is applied during the resolution of the action.
b) Stealth and bleed are applied when announced/played.

You and Ankha advocates option a. It might very well be true, but I can't find anything in the rules to support it. If option A is true, I think it should be written in to the rulebook, complete rules reference or at least be recognized in a ruling.
Option A also seems to bring with it that Archon Investigation can't be played (at least not on vampires with +3 bleed card text who doesn't get +bleed from actions/modifier cards).
I'm also curious to whether all bleed modifications are kept on hold until resolution, or if this is unique for vampire card texts.
If Keith Moody bleeds with Govern the Unaligned, what's the bleed amount when announcing the action?
If Arika bleeds with cardless action, what's the bleed amount when announcing the action?
If Cybele bleeds with her card text action, what's the bleed amount when announcing the action?

I advocate option b. I find this to be the most intuitive way to handle modifiers, since that's the way cards/effects are generally handled in VtES. You play a card (or use card text from cards in play) and resolve it's effect, as per step II.C.3 of the complete rules reference .

Adding additional bleed does not change the 'current' situation.

Vamp A (owned by Meth 1) has +1 bleed is bleeding. Vamp Z (owned by Meth 2) is blocking.
Vamp B (owned by Meth 1) plays MoaTF (no +bleed). Vamp Z is still blocking.

The change in bleed amount does not affect the current, immediate situation. Result: MoaTF is legal to play.

Vamp A (owned by Meth 1) is bleeding. Vamp Z (owned by Meth 2) is blocking.
Vamp B (owned by Meth 1) has built-in +1 stealth and attempts to play MoaTF.

This would immediately change the ability of Vamp Z to block (and not because of the MoaTF). So therefore Vamp B is gaining an effect not availble to Vamp A. Therefore, Vamp B cannot play MoaTF.

henrik wrote:

I understand how the card works. I understand that +1 stealth is considered an effect that can't be masked, I understand that +1 bleed isn't considered an effect that can't be masked. I do not see the logic in there though, and arguments that aren't based on logic and/or rules doesn't help me understanding the difference.

The value of the bleed is nothing but a number until the action is resolved.

That is the statement that is under review. If a card should read "John Doe has +1 intercept when attempting block vampires bleeding you for 3 or more", then I'll change it. But since such texts don't exist, I'm keeping it as it is.

Pascal wrote:

The value of the bleed is nothing but a number until the action is resolved.

That is the statement that is under review. If a card should read "John Doe has +1 intercept when attempting block vampires bleeding you for 3 or more", then I'll change it. But since such texts don't exist, I'm keeping it as it is.

The same could be said for stealth until a block attempt is being made. It's nothing but a number until then.
My point is that the +1 bleed is still "used" in some way when announcing the action. If it's not used/applied/in effect than why is it announced? What does it mean to announce a bleed for 2? (Questions more for the rules team review than one needing an answer right away.)

Vampire X (+1 bleed) is bleeding.
Vampire Y (no +bleed) plays Mask of a Thousand Faces.
The original bleed here is a bleed for 2 (1 base and the +1 from card text). The +1 bleed is (in my opinion) an effect that "could not have been played/used if the Masking vampire were the acting minion".
Going even further, one could even argue that the card text on Mask of a Thousand Faces should deny vampire Y to continue the action.

Mask wrote:

Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion who is capable of performing the action.

Is vampire Y capable of performing a bleed for 2 (without the use of any cards or other effects)?


I do agree that as long as your "John Doe" or any other similar card doesn't exist there's no game breaking consequences of keeping the current ruling.
Something to consider though:
Without the existence of The Slow Withering (and any cards messing with superior vs inferior disciplines, can't remember any others), would a vampire with inferior presence be allowed to use Mask of a Thousand Faces to take over an Intimidation played on superior and thus change the announced action (the only change would be that the bleed amount was reduced by 1)? Of course, making up weird cards that contradicts rules and rulings could probably be done for a lot of cases and it's not really useful to try to have rules that cover every imaginable card that could possibly be created. Rules and rulings should (in my opinion) be made as generic, consistent and universally appliable as possible. I don't think the current ones for Mask of a Thousand Faces is.
I think that Mask of a Thousand Faces would become even less playable if the rulings got changed. Not sure if that would be bad though, the card is weird and usually brings more confusion than usefulness to a table. Either way, I'll await the rules team before crashing this thread again. Just thought I'd give some arguments for changing the current ruling.
Thanks <3

Shard wrote:

Was there a ruling on A.I. that confirms that it is played during resolution?

My mistake. AI is played before resolution (but after declining to block).
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/61545d458e93561c




Thanks, for the link Henrik.