Toreador Grand Ball/Mask of 1000 Faces

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! ?

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?