file Multiple Mask of a Thousand Faces

06 Feb 2014 20:16 #59045 by Juggernaut1981
Visually to make it clearer, stack all of the action modifiers played by A in a pile. If ALL of those effects MIGHT have been played by B, then B can play MoaTF (include in that quasi action-modifiers like vampire specials).

:bruj::CEL::POT::PRE::tha: Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
www.halflingcaravangames.com.au/

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

More
07 Feb 2014 09:15 #59048 by drnlmza

Mask does not check if the Masking vampire is capable of playing every effect, just that it's possible they could have been played if he were the acting vampire. And on A->B->A, B's Mask could have been played if A were acting. On A+B-Cloak+ Mask->C, the fact that C couldn't have played B's superior Cloak if C were acting does not prevent C masking the action.


Would you consider the following sequence legal?

Minion A with obf bleeds
block attempt
Minion B with OBF masks at superior for +1 stealth
decline to block
Minion A masks at inferior


I'd argue "gaining sealth from M10K" is an effect that was used during the action, and it is not legal, since B is unable to do that, but if the consideration is only that M10K could have legally played with A acting, then this is fine.

If this is illegal, why isn't "was capable of playing M10K at some point in the sequence" an effect covered by M10K's text?

--
National Coordinator
South Africa

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

More
07 Feb 2014 09:54 - 07 Feb 2014 10:17 #59049 by jamesatzephyr

Would you consider the following sequence legal?


Yes.

This is exactly the scenario that the Ebanezer Roush ruling addresses. Exactly so.

Ebanezer starts the action. Lucretia masks it at superior. There is an incorrect statement that Ebanezer only has inferior Obfuscate, and the ruling is first made that Ebanezer can't Mask it back because he couldn't have played the first Mask (at superior).

Chris Berger points out that the ruling does not, at any point, say that Ebanezer must himself have been able to play all the action modifiers - just that they must have been playable if he was the acting minion.

LSJ says this is a good catch, and reverses his ruling, allowing precisely the situation you describe.


It essentially breaks down like this:

- for normal action modifiers that are playable only by the acting minion, the new acting minion must have been capable of playing them, because that's the only way they could have been played if he was the acting minion. So if you've played Bonding, the new minion needs Dominate (at whatever level).

- for effects such as tapping the Backways (which aren't played by any minion), the Masking minion must be a legal target for such an effect - so a Setite can't get stealth from Opium Den, then have the action masked by Lucretia (a Nosferatu)

- for effects played by a non-acting minion (reactions, and 'special' action modifiers), they must have been playable if the new Masking minion was the acting minion. But since their card text doesn't require them to be played by the acting minion (either the explicit card text of Mask etc., or the fact that they're a reaction), if the new Masking minion were the acting minion, there's nothing that would force him to play them (unlike the normal action modifier sitaution). If the new Masking minion is not younger than the guy who played the Redirection (for example), you can't Mask to that new guy.

Fun scenario: if you start an action with Midget (infernal !Malk) and I tap my The Horde to give you +1 bleed (granted to another Infernal minion, but can be anyone's minion!), you can't Mask the action to your copy of Yorik (non-infernal), because I couldn't have tapped The Horde if Yorik were acting. ("The Horde may tap to give another infernal minion +1 bleed for the current action.")



Do you believe the following is illegal?

A: starts the action.
B: plays Cloak the Gathering.
C: Masks the action.

If C was acting, he can't have played B's Cloak. But B's Cloak was playable (by B) if C was the acting minion. So it's allowed.


Similarly, do you believe that the following is illegal?

A: starts the action.
B: plays Mask.
C: plays Mask.

If C was the acting minion, he couldn't played B's Mask. But chaining Masks is allowed.


I'd argue "gaining sealth from M10K" is an effect that was used during the action,


The card text asks if the action modifier (or effect) could have been used if the Masking minion was the acting minion. It does not require the Masking minion to have been capable of playing it himself - except that, in the case of 'normal' action modifiers, the only person who could have used it is the acting minion, so when you're checking Bonding, you check if the Masking minion has Dominate. When you're checking Mask played by a non-acting minion, you check that that would have been playable if the Masking minion were acting.

A->B->a. So if A was acting, could B have played Mask? Yes. How do we know? Well, that's what happened in the first place! So clearly, the earlier Mask could have been played if A were acting - it was played when A was acting.

since B is unable to do that,


B clearly was able to play the Mask when A was acting. And the check on Mask is would the effect have been usable if A was acting.


If this is illegal, why isn't "was capable of playing M10K at some point in the sequence" an effect covered by M10K's text?


It's not illegal. It was ruled to be legal 2 months after the first incarnation of the ruling was made in the 6/23 rulings.

Please read the ruling.
Last edit: 07 Feb 2014 10:17 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
07 Feb 2014 12:49 #59052 by drnlmza

Please read the ruling.


a) Please do me the courtesy of assuming I have actually read the rulings and discussions about M10K before asking my question. I may not have grasped all the implications, but I have read them.

b) Please keep in mind that the ruling you quote is from 1998, well before the current text of "effects" was added to the mix (which, as you point out elsewhere, was in 2003). We clearly disagree on what consitutes an effect for the current card text.

Consider the following sequence

A, 10 cap with obf acts
C, 9 cap with AUS blocks
A plays inferior Into Thin Air (+1 stealth)
C plays Enhanced Senses at superior for +2 intercept
B, 10 cap with OBF, plays Mask at superior (+1 stealth)
B burns a blood to give C -1 intercept (Into Thin Air effect carries over)
blocks are declined
A plays M10K at inferior


Given the discussion, this sequence is legal. If A is an 8 cap, however, this sequence is illegal. Thus "is able to gain +1 stealth from superior Mask" is not an effect to be considered when A plays the second mask, while "is of sufficient capacity to burn 1 blood for Into Thin Air" is. I maintain that this is hardly obvious. Likewise, it's not obvious to me why "was able to play M10K earlier in the action" is not an effect that needs to be considered.

--
National Coordinator
South Africa

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

More
07 Feb 2014 13:13 - 07 Feb 2014 13:18 #59053 by jamesatzephyr

a) Please do me the courtesy of assuming I have actually read the rulings and discussions about M10K before asking my question. I may not have grasped all the implications, but I have read them.


If you had read the ruling and wanted to ask if it was overturned by the 2003 ruling, it would be helpful to ask that question, rather than just repeating a question that had already been answered.

If you just ask a question that has already been answered, people will assume that you haven't read it.

b) Please keep in mind that the ruling you quote is from 1998, well before the current text of "effects" was added to the mix (which, as you point out elsewhere, was in 2003). We clearly disagree on what consitutes an effect for the current card text.


The 'effects' ruling has no impact on this. If you read the 2003 RTR, it does nothing to overturn the previously existing ruling - it simply extends it to all other effects, not just action modifiers.

So:

- playing Bonding, the masking minion must have Dominate (required under 6/23)
- playing Gang Tactics, the masking minion must be a !Nos (required under 6/23)
- playing Approximation of Loyalty, the masking minion must be capacity 7 or more (required under 6/23)

6/23 did not extend this other effects applied to the acting minion, such as:
- tapping The Backways, to provide stealth to a Gangrel

Indeed, there was a period of several years when there was a division between "effects that modified the action" and "effects that modified the acting vampire" (or some similar wording). The former carried over, the latter didn't.

The 2003 RTR means that effects applied to the acting minion (such as tapping The Backwards, but also the restrictive effect of a Redirection) carry over, irrespective of whether they modified the acting minion or the action.

A, 10 cap with obf acts
C, 9 cap with AUS blocks
A plays inferior Into Thin Air (+1 stealth)
C plays Enhanced Senses at superior for +2 intercept
B, 10 cap with OBF, plays Mask at superior (+1 stealth)
B burns a blood to give C -1 intercept (Into Thin Air effect carries over)
blocks are declined
A plays M10K at inferior


Given the discussion, this sequence is legal. If A is an 8 cap, however, this sequence is illegal.


(Just to confirm: the optional-but-unused effect of Into Thin Air carries over to the Masking minion, who may opt to use it later. [LSJ 20090319] )

Because an older/younger restriction has been applied to the action, just the same as a reacting vampire playing Redirection at inferior.

Mask hasn't applied such a restriction.

Thus "is able to gain +1 stealth from superior Mask" is not an effect to be considered when A plays the second mask,


The ruling (and text) asks whether the effect could be used. Apply that test. You keep making up your own text, about portions of actions and such, rather than applying the ruling and card text.

If A was acting, could A have applied a "younger vampire" effect to a vampire who is older? No. Therefore, A cannot Mask.

If A was acting, could B have played Mask? Yes. Therefore, A can Mask.

X bleeds, Y plays Redirection (inferior - affecting a younger vampire). Z wants to Mask the action from X. Is Z younger than Y? If yes, Z can Mask. If no, Z can't Mask.
Last edit: 07 Feb 2014 13:18 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.088 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum