+bleed and Mask 1k Faces
Sorrow
action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and
obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to take
over the action?
Sorrow
Jeroen
well, according to the announcing your actions discussion, the action
your first vampire takes is 'bleed for 3', so I don't think the second
one can play M1kF.
I even believe that another vamp with +1 bleed can't take over the
action because that's not the same +1 bleed. (Like beast's rush action
isn't the same action as Theo Bell's rush action) Or is this different
because +1 bleed isn't an action?
I might be completely wrong, though.
floppyzedolfin
B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it
is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant
Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already
played.
(But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon
Investigation)
Sorrow
>> action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and
>> obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to
>> take
>> over the action?
> is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant
> Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already
> played.
> (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon
> Investigation)
Well, I know that this is generally true. But the recent conversation about
Aranthebes and the misplayed/declared action gives me pause. At what point
does the +bleed matter? I used to think only during resolution but now I'm
not so sure. Specifically, when you declare the action, are you declaring
the Enchant Kindred bleed action? Or are you declaring a bleed action of +1,
+1? The distinction is a subtle but important one. If it was just a matter
of declaring the Enchant Kindred bleed action then sure, vamp B could Mask.
But if it was a matter of declaring the Enchant Kindred total +2 bleed
action, the vamp B could not Mask unless it, too, had a +1 bleed (from some
source, inherant or otherwise).
Sorrow
Malone
I am fairly sure that Jeroen is correct, and floppyzedolphin
incorrect.
If minion A with inherent +1 bleed and Presence declares a bleed with
EK, minion B with Presence but without inherent +1 bleed may not play
Mask, because minion A's action was to bleed for 3 but minion B's
action would be to bleed for 2.
If you want to search for the relevant ruling I bet it's easy to find
and easy to understand.
XZealot
You would be mistaken Malone. inherent +bleed is irrelevent for the
purposes of determining whether or not you can play Mo1Kf. It only is
concerned about effects that have been used, and since +bleed isn't
used until the resolution of the bleed action then it is never a
factor in whether or not that you can play Mask 1K faces.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
>>> A vampire with presence and inherent +1 bleed takes an Enchant Kindred
>>> action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and
>>> obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to
>>> take
>>> over the action?
>> B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it
>> is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant
>> Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already
>> played.
>> (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon
>> Investigation)
>
> Well, I know that this is generally true. But the recent conversation about
> Aranthebes and the misplayed/declared action gives me pause. At what point
> does the +bleed matter? I used to think only during resolution but now I'm
> not so sure.
You were correct.
Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in
to the Mask equation.
Jeroen
They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But
with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was
different now. Can you elaborate, plz?
If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3
with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for
2 action?
Jeff Kuta
I always thought that you declared a "Bleed with Enchant Kindred (at
inferior Presence)." The "for 3" is really just a reminder to your
prey of the bleed amount. Technically you wouldn't even have to do
that, but it does save some time instead of going back and forth with
"How much?" "Any Modifiers?" etc.
Jeff
Sorrow
>> with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for
>> 2 action?
> I always thought that you declared a "Bleed with Enchant Kindred (at
> inferior Presence)." The "for 3" is really just a reminder to your
> prey of the bleed amount. Technically you wouldn't even have to do
> that, but it does save some time instead of going back and forth with
> "How much?" "Any Modifiers?" etc.
So that whole Aranthebes issue, if the person had just declared "Bleed" and
not "Bleed for X" then the action wouldn't have been misplayed/declared and
would not have had to have been rolled back?
Sorrow
Jeroen
That's what we all thought prior to this years EC final. There was a
thread about it not that long ago. Announcing 'bleed' with a minion
that has 0 bleed (due to Aranthebes), was judged to be misplay instead
of a mistake. LSJ said that the announcement implied a 'bleed for 1',
which the minion in question couldn't do. Hence, misplay and rewind to
the state prior to the misplay.
>Technically you wouldn't even have to do
> that,
It seems you have to. Unless everyone at the table agrees on what's
exactly meant by a declaration of 'bleed'
James Coupe
Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 4 sep, 02:48, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in
>> to the Mask equation.
>
>They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But
>with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was
>different now. Can you elaborate, plz?
Whether they prevent playing of Mask or not, you should still be
declaring them. That has nothing to do with anything. You should
simply be letting your prey (or whoever) know how much they're being
bled for and (if necessary[0]) why.
I'm not sure why you think that telling another player what your action
is doing would or wouldn't affect Mask. Whether you said it aloud or
not, the action would still be the same action, with all the same
modifiers applied, or whatever.
[0] Like, Arika bleeding for 3 is just going to be understood by the
vast majority of players if you say "Arika bleeds for 3", whereas having
a conditional bleed bonus against Ventrue from Constanza Vinti might be
worth pointing out, certainly the first time.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
<jcb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>So that whole Aranthebes issue, if the person had just declared "Bleed" and
>not "Bleed for X" then the action wouldn't have been misplayed/declared and
>would not have had to have been rolled back?
It depends on what the judge thought was understood by the term on the
table.[0] Like, if everyone knows about the modifier and it's been well
understood for ages and ages and ages, you could let it go. Or by just
saying "Bleed", the judge might prompt you to say how much it was for,
which would prevent the rollback by making the play correct. Judge's
discretion.
Declaring the action for the wrong amount, however, is clearly wrong.
[0] To take an analogous example, if both players understand "Slaps?" to
mean "Shall we exchange hand-strikes for 1 in combat? Oh, okay then.",
I'm not going to make them rewind - the term was clearly understood by
both of them (and me). No need to rewind, even if it is casually
expressed. If it wasn't 100% clear that Angus had +1 strength, there
might be a case for rewinding. However, if player A had been bounced to
player C and player C had said "Blocking with Angus - he has a Flak
Jacket and his normal +1 strength" about five seconds before, I'd not
want the play rewound. And so on. Judgement.
Jeroen
> In message <1188889650.329233.145...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >On 4 sep, 02:48, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in
> >> to the Mask equation.
>
> >They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But
> >with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was
> >different now. Can you elaborate, plz?
>
> Whether they prevent playing of Mask or not, you should still be
> declaring them. That has nothing to do with anything. You should
> simply be letting your prey (or whoever) know how much they're being
> bled for and (if necessary[0]) why.
So the declaration is just that? In 'a bleed for 3 action' the for 3
is only redundant information, provided for information only? OK.
>
> I'm not sure why you think that telling another player what your action
> is doing would or wouldn't affect Mask. Whether you said it aloud or
> not, the action would still be the same action, with all the same
> modifiers applied, or whatever.
Well, semantically there's a difference.
LSJ
> On 4 sep, 02:48, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Sorrow wrote:
>>>>> A vampire with presence and inherent +1 bleed takes an Enchant Kindred
>>>>> action to bleed. Can a second untapped minion with both presence and
>>>>> obfuscate (but without an inherant +1 bleed) play Mask of 1000 Faces to
>>>>> take
>>>>> over the action?
>>>> B can mask the action, until it reaches resolution (at which moment it
>>>> is too late to mask it) : B could've taken the action (Enchant
>>>> Kindred) and could've played the [none] action modifiers A has already
>>>> played.
>>>> (But, as usual, B cannot mask the action "as a reaction" to an Archon
>>>> Investigation)
>>> Well, I know that this is generally true. But the recent conversation about
>>> Aranthebes and the misplayed/declared action gives me pause. At what point
>>> does the +bleed matter? I used to think only during resolution but now I'm
>>> not so sure.
>> You were correct.
>>
>> Bleed bonuses, from the minion or from equipment or whatever, do not factor in
>> to the Mask equation.
>
> They didn't used to (I played enough decks that used that fact.) But
> with the 'fully declare action' discussion, I thought that was
> different now. Can you elaborate, plz?
The "fully declare" is how it's always been. That hasn't changed, and the ruling
on Mask hasn't changed.
You declare the bleed amount.
The floating bleed bonuses (from built-in specials, Laptops, &c.) doesn't factor
into the Mask equation.
> If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3
> with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for
> 2 action?
By Masking to a vampire that doesn't have a floating +1 bleed.
LSJ
> On 4 sep, 10:25, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I always thought that you declared a "Bleed with Enchant Kindred (at
>> inferior Presence)." The "for 3" is really just a reminder to your
>> prey of the bleed amount.
>
> That's what we all thought prior to this years EC final. There was a
> thread about it not that long ago. Announcing 'bleed' with a minion
> that has 0 bleed (due to Aranthebes), was judged to be misplay instead
> of a mistake.
misplay = mistake.
> LSJ said that the announcement implied a 'bleed for 1',
... in most groups, and the actual message conveyed by "bleed" when not fully
announced is to be determined by the judge.
Blooded Sand
> The "fully declare" is how it's always been. That hasn't changed, and the ruling
> on Mask hasn't changed.
>
> You declare the bleed amount.
> The floating bleed bonuses (from built-in specials, Laptops, &c.) doesn't factor
> into the Mask equation.
>
> > If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3
> > with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for
> > 2 action?
>
> By Masking to a vampire that doesn't have a floating +1 bleed.
Okay, maybe just me, but this is confusing. If Vamp A has +1 bleed,
and Vamp B does not.
I declare a bleed with Vamp A as follows "Vamp A will be bleeding you
at o stealth for 2" Prey attempts to block, and I ask to vamp B. This
is now a bleed for 1, but as the action was announced as a bleed for
2, it is according to complete announcement of action a misplay. Um,
wtf?
PS I'm most likely just highly confused apu... (As Per Usual)
Bram Vink
> On Sep 4, 12:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > The "fully declare" is how it's always been. That hasn't changed, and the ruling
> > on Mask hasn't changed.
>
> > You declare the bleed amount.
> > The floating bleed bonuses (from built-in specials, Laptops, &c.) doesn't factor
> > into the Mask equation.
>
> > > If you have to declare (in the above example) 'Vamp x bleeds for 3
> > > with an enchant kindred' how can that be masked to become a bleed for
> > > 2 action?
>
> > By Masking to a vampire that doesn't have a floating +1 bleed.
>
> Okay, maybe just me, but this is confusing. If Vamp A has +1 bleed,
> and Vamp B does not.
>
> I declare a bleed with Vamp A as follows "Vamp A will be bleeding you
> is now a bleed for 1, but as the action was announced as a bleed for
> 2, it is according to complete announcement of action a misplay. Um,
> wtf?
>
> PS I'm most likely just highly confused apu... (As Per Usual)
You are incorrect. Consider the following scenario:
I declare a bleed with Vamp A as follows: "Vampire A will be bleeding
you at 0 stealth for 1"
Prey declines to block, and I play a conditioning. This is now a bleed
for four, but as the action was announced as a bleed for one, it is
according to complete announcement of the action *not* a misplay,
since an action modifier has been played changing the parameters of
the announced action. Same as masking a bleed.
More clear?
Cheers,
Bram
Blooded Sand
Thanks Bram, makes sense now. Basically it is because once M1k'ed, it
is no longer the action as announced, but the action as modified,
correct?
Jeroen
Yup.
Apperently nothing changed. Which, in this case, is GOOD (tm) :-)
Bram Vink
Indeed. Mask changes the parameters of the action.
After playing mask, you have to declare the exact parameters of said
action again. (indicate which vampire is now bleeding, and if
neccessary any other changes worth noting)
If you unintentionally misdeclare those, it might be a misplay,
subject to judgement, etc. blahblah. ;)
Cheers,
Bram
LSJ
Mask changes the action, yes.
It was announced as Vamp A doing the action, for example.
The key is that, as far as Mask is concerned, the floating +bleed is not applied
until action resolution (unlike, say, +stealth).
Salem
> The key is that, as far as Mask is concerned, the floating +bleed is not
> applied until action resolution (unlike, say, +stealth).
but the floating +bleed is applied before then if, say, someone wants to
Archon Investigation you?
or do we not count inherent +bleed when adding up for AI now?
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Jeroen
> LSJ wrote:
> > The key is that, as far as Mask is concerned, the floating +bleed is not
> > applied until action resolution (unlike, say, +stealth).
>
> but the floating +bleed is applied before then if, say, someone wants to
> Archon Investigation you?
>
> or do we not count inherent +bleed when adding up for AI now?
*bump*
no answer?
Daneel
IANLSJNDIPTBH but I think that the bleed amount is only checked when
resolved or when an effect specifically checks it. So until the bleed
resolves, or an effect checks the bleed amount, it can be modified up
or down, and still be Mask-able.
Maybe the following question will make it simpler:
Meth A's Lydia van Cuelen bleeds with Legal Manipulations (bleed for 4).
Meth B declines to block and then plays Archon Investigation.
Meth C plays Sudden Reversal.
Can now Meth A's Hadrian Garrick Mask the action? I assume not.
Lydia plays inferior Aire of Elation (bleed for 5).
Can now Meth A's Hadrian Garrick Mask the action? I assume yes.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Bram Vink
Inquisitive minds want to know. LSJ? :)
Cheers,
Bram
LSJ
Inquisitive minds can use Google, and might note that LSJ used "as far as Mask
is concerned" above.