Mask of 1k faces question (easy one, this).
BeAst
Mask of a Thousand Faces
Action Modifier
obf:
Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion
who is capable of performing the action. 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. Untap the acting minion
and tap this vampire instead. The action continues with this vampire
as the acting minion.
OBF:
As above, with +1 stealth.
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. (Not counting blood that has already been
spent.) [RTR 19980623] [RTR 20030519] [RTR 20041202]
Blind Spot
Master.
Choose a vampire you control and an ally or younger vampire controlled
by your prey. While the first chosen vampire is acting this turn, the
other chosen minion cannot block or play reaction cards.
---------------------------------
Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
predator, also with 1 vamp.
In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...
*interrupt*
I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
could have declared a block attempt against.
BeAst
If the order of acting had been changed (so A's non- Blind Spotted
vamp started the undirected action) and B's vamp had declared a block
attempt, if A's Blind Spotted vamp then played Mask of 1k faces to
take over the action, would B's block attempt simply fizzle?
floppyzedolfin
> Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
> predator, also with 1 vamp.
>
> In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
> of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
> block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
> undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
> vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...
>
> *interrupt*
>
> I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
> B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
> B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
> could have declared a block attempt against.
So A plays Blind Spot, and chooses B's vampire and, say, vampire A1
she controls.
A1 declares an action. Since B can't block, she declines any block
attempt. C can now attempt to block, which she does - there's no
restriction to block for C's minions.
A2 can play Mask - if all the requirements of Mask are met. The fact
that B declined the block doesn't matter - unless something the Mask
coulnd't carry was used to have B cancel a block attempt.
See also Mask of a Thousand Faces + Toreador Grand Ball.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bf113e534bce5b84
floppyzedolfin
I suppose it'd fail immediately (not sure block attempts can "fizzle").
LSJ
No. In this case, an effect has been applied ("B's vamp attempts to
block") that could not have been applied had A's Blind-Spotted vampire
been acting, so A's Blind-Spotted vampire cannot play Mask.