file Multiple Mask of a Thousand Faces

06 Feb 2014 14:06 #59035 by drnlmza
I'm clearly not managing to express my concern adequately here.

I'm specifically concerned with the case where minion A plays mask in a situation where A has previously been the acting minion and thus was unable to play Mask for a portion of the action (because of the "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion" clause). I personally do not see how the card text supports ignoring that portion of the action when determining which actions modifiers and effects could have been used when A attempts to mask back in.

--
National Coordinator
South Africa

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

More
06 Feb 2014 14:50 - 06 Feb 2014 15:00 #59036 by jamesatzephyr

I'm clearly not managing to express my concern adequately here.


I'm not sure you're reading what's been said, either. :-(

I'm specifically concerned with the case where minion A plays mask in a situation where A has previously been the acting minion


You mean like the exact same situation as LSJ is addressing the 1998 ruling I've posted already, where a minion masks the action back to himself, having started the action?

and thus was unable to play Mask for a portion of the action (because of the "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion" clause).


The ruling doesn't divide the action into portions. It just checks - right now - whether the modifiers could have been played, if new vamp was the acting minion - either by that vamp, or by the appropriate other vamps (for cards/effects that the acting minion doesn't use himself).

Further, the check clearly can't apply to the Mask itself. Vampire A, Vampire B. A starts an action. B plays Mask. But if B is acting, B can't play Mask, so Mask can never be played.

But no:

A starts an action. No effects are applied to the action at all. B plays Mask (Mask1). Nothing has been done to the action that would prevent B Masking it. Now A masks back (Mask2). Mask2 looks at all the effects that have been played on the action. Could Mask1 have been played by B if A was the acting minion? Yes. So Mask2 is playable.

I personally do not see how the card text supports ignoring that portion of the action when determining which actions modifiers and effects could have been used when A attempts to mask back in.


There are no portions. There's just a check when you play the card of whether existing effects could have been played if A were the acting minion.
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.

The Mask1-by-B effect could have been played if A were the acting minion. Indeed, that's exactly how it was played. And that's what Mask2-by-A sees when it looks at all the pre-existing effects. It can't look at itself, otherwise it would always disallow itself - if you're acting, you can't play Mask!



Further, consider the situation where some other Vamp (X) is temporarily stolen during the action, such as activating Temptation. If Vamp X (now under your control) has Obfuscate, you could potentially Mask the action to Vamp X, even though during some portion of the action you didn't control him. And you could Mask it from X to another vampire that was already yours too, irrespective of portions.
Last edit: 06 Feb 2014 15:00 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
06 Feb 2014 15:53 - 06 Feb 2014 15:54 #59038 by hodgestar

Further, the check clearly can't apply to the Mask itself. Vampire A, Vampire B. A starts an action. B plays Mask. But if B is acting, B can't play Mask, so Mask can never be played.


It's clear that each Mask doesn't apply the check to itself. It seems equally clear that there is no reason why a Mask would not apply the check to any other Masks played earlier in the action.

A starts an action. No effects are applied to the action at all. B plays Mask (Mask1). Nothing has been done to the action that would prevent B Masking it. Now A masks back (Mask2). Mask2 looks at all the effects that have been played on the action. Could Mask1 have been played by B if A was the acting minion? Yes. So Mask2 is playable.


I think you're making the check incorrectly. The check is whether the minion playing Mask2 (i.e. A) could have played Mask1, i.e. could Mask1 have been played by A on A? The answer to that would be no.
Last edit: 06 Feb 2014 15:54 by hodgestar.

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

More
06 Feb 2014 16:16 - 06 Feb 2014 16:18 #59039 by jamesatzephyr

Further, the check clearly can't apply to the Mask itself. Vampire A, Vampire B. A starts an action. B plays Mask. But if B is acting, B can't play Mask, so Mask can never be played.


It's clear that each Mask doesn't apply the check to itself. It seems equally clear that there is no reason why a Mask would not apply the check to any other Masks played earlier in the action.


Because the ruling emphatically isn't "take every effect that's been applied to this action and check if the new vamp could have played it".

I think you're making the check incorrectly.


Again, this is the error that LSJ makes then corrects himself about, in the cited ruling.

The check is whether the minion playing Mask2 (i.e. A) could have played Mask1, i.e. could Mask1 have been played by A on A? The answer to that would be no.


Except, per the cited ruling, Chris Berger explains (and LSJ confirms):
> The rule doesn't say anything about the Masking vampire needing
> to be able to play the action modifier, only if it could be played while he
> were acting.

Which LSJ notes is a good catch, and corrects himself to allow the Mask chaining.

A acts. B Masks. A now wants to Mask again.

The check, per the text above, is not could A have played all the action modifiers, but could they have been played if he were acting. Which they could.

Look at the text of the actual ruling:
...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.

This does not say "nor if any action modifiers or other effects (including inherent stealth) have been played on this action that the Masking vampire could not have played if he were the acting minion". If A were the acting minion, B could have played Mask. The ruling does not require A to be capable of playing the Mask.

This is exactly what the cited ruling about Ebanezer addresses and allows: A -> B -> A. Exactly the same situation. Please read the ruling.

>>>>Imagine Ebenezer Roush plays Shepherd's innocence at Superior.
...
>>>>I now mask the action to Lucretia at superior
...
>>>>Q: Could the action be Masked back to Ebenezer at this point?

Yes, indeed, Ebenezer could Mask back, since nothing in
the 6/23 (or any other) rulings prohbits that, as you say. Sorry for the
previous (incorrect) answer.



Are you also asserting that in the situation where A starts an action, B Cloaks the action (superior), then C cannot Mask the action because he could not have played B's Cloak if he were acting? If you allow this situation, why does A have to be capable of playing B's Mask but C does not have to be capable of playing B's Cloak?
Last edit: 06 Feb 2014 16:18 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
06 Feb 2014 16:19 #59040 by AaronC

I'm clearly not managing to express my concern adequately here.

I'm specifically concerned with the case where minion A plays mask in a situation where A has previously been the acting minion and thus was unable to play Mask for a portion of the action (because of the "Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion" clause). I personally do not see how the card text supports ignoring that portion of the action when determining which actions modifiers and effects could have been used when A attempts to mask back in.


OK, I finally got where you were coming from.

You're right - as M10KF is written, A should not be able to use superior M10KF on an action that A started because A could not have used superior M10KF when he was the original acting minion.

Since it is not allowable by card text, the only explanation for your people is that the rules team (Pascal) made a perhaps arbitrary ruling that essentially altered the card text. Sometimes that is the explanation...

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

More
06 Feb 2014 16:40 - 06 Feb 2014 16:41 #59041 by jamesatzephyr

OK, I finally got where you were coming from.

You're right


Incorrect.

- as M10KF is written, A should not be able to use superior M10KF on an action that A started because A could not have used superior M10KF when he was the original acting minion.


Card text:
Not usable if any action modifiers or other effects have been used that could not have been used if this vampire were the acting vampire.

This does not say, repeat does not say, that the Masking vampire has to be capable of playing all of said effects, just that they must have been playable if he was the acting minion.

Since a non-acting minion (B) could have played Mask if A were the acting minion, this card text allows it to be played. As do the Rules Teams Rulings on the subject. As does the Ebanezer Roush ruling cited.



There is a significant difference between "X must be able to play Y" and "Y must have been playable if X was acting." The latter does not specify who must have been able to play it, just that it must have been playable.

And note that since this applies to (for example) restrictive reactions, the Masking vampire cannot possibly play those effects at all ever. But RTR 2003-MAY-19 makes it clear that that's not the check for reaction effects either. ("If Redirection is used at inferior by a 7 capacity vampire, then vampires with capacity of 7 or more cannot mask the action (since they are not younger than the reacting vampire). And so on.") And the same check is used for all effects - are they playable? And the reaction played by K is playable, just as the non-acting action modifier played by L was playable.



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.
Last edit: 06 Feb 2014 16:41 by jamesatzephyr.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.110 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum