Mask Question
David Wilson
the Path of Corruption is out.
Can Vamp B mask over the action now? They have serpentis as basic as was
venenation was played at previously.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Yes, even if they were not a Setite, though they cannot play Mask at
Superior since the action is considered blocked and it is too late to add
Stealth.
You can even mask/venenate with all of your minions, putting lots of
corruption counters on the blocker.
David Wilson
> Yes, even if they were not a Setite, though they cannot play Mask at
> Superior since the action is considered blocked and it is too late to add
> Stealth.
blood then the other minion, who would not benefit from the Path of
Setiteness.
Since the new minion must have been able to do everything the previous
minion did, I wanted to know if use of the path counted against this
restriction.
David
LSJ
Mask doesn't pay any attention to card costs, so it's a valid question.
I'd say it's unmaskable (by non-Setites), since the effect of the Path of
Typhon was used.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
David Wilson
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:j4crc.9793$fF3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> David Wilson wrote:
> > The relevant detail about being a setite was that the first minion
paid less
> > blood then the other minion, who would not benefit from the Path of
> > Setiteness.
> >
> > Since the new minion must have been able to do everything the
previous
> > minion did, I wanted to know if use of the path counted against this
> > restriction.
>
> Mask doesn't pay any attention to card costs, so it's a valid
question.
> I'd say it's unmaskable (by non-Setites), since the effect of the Path
of
> Typhon was used.
I concur. :-)
Interestingly, if a Setite declares a Temptation action with Path of
Typhon in play, I would say that that *can* be Masked by a non-Setite,
since the cost isn't paid (and so the cost reduction effect isn't used)
until the action resolves.
Josh
three hundred milligrams of caffeine, stat!
Izaak
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> schreef in bericht
news:2h79aeF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:j4crc.9793$fF3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > David Wilson wrote:
>
> > > The relevant detail about being a setite was that the first minion
> paid less
> > > blood then the other minion, who would not benefit from the Path
of
> > > Setiteness.
> > >
> > > Since the new minion must have been able to do everything the
> previous
> > > minion did, I wanted to know if use of the path counted against
this
> > > restriction.
> >
> > Mask doesn't pay any attention to card costs, so it's a valid
> question.
> > I'd say it's unmaskable (by non-Setites), since the effect of the
Path
> of
> > Typhon was used.
While I see a reason for this, this would complicate Mask of 1K faces
even more.
Aisling Sturbridge with Ankara Citadel governs at inferior; she would do
so for free.
She gets blocked; Etrius want to mask it. With this ruling, he can't,
since Aisling would have payed less for it. Otoh, like Josh said, since
the action hasn't even resolved at that point, blood payments haven't
even been made yet. So, Etrius *should* be able to mask it.
This is similar to the situation above with the Path in play. And while
I can see the free/vs not free with action modifiers at work here, I
don't think it's a good idea to make different rulings for different
card types.
Also, look at, for example, a Seeds-of-Corrupted minion. He wants to act
and attempting so, requires him to burn 2 blood, so he does. He gets
blocked and someone without a Seeds wants to mask. Not possible either?
In a previous ruling you mentioned something along the lines of "it
could have been <insert minion> performing the action after all". In all
above examples, the masking vampire *could have been* the acting vampire
as far as the opposing vampire is concerned, which is the whole purpose
of the card fluff-wise. The amount of blood paid for that is not really
something the blocker has insight in from a thematical PoV.
It would also give the same problem to minions that inherently pay less
for cards (say, Gabrin does something, gets blocked, plays Fata Morgana
at inferior for free for stealth and gets masked by some obf/chi guy;
not possible?)
Some consistency would be really appreciated; Mask of 1K is complicated
enough as it is.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> even more.
>
> Aisling Sturbridge with Ankara Citadel governs at inferior; she would do
> so for free.
> She gets blocked; Etrius want to mask it. With this ruling, he can't,
> since Aisling would have payed less for it. Otoh, like Josh said, since
> the action hasn't even resolved at that point, blood payments haven't
> even been made yet. So, Etrius *should* be able to mask it.
>
*would have*. Just like Sheila Mezarin *would have* bled for +1. That's
what you need to compare it with, not the cost of action modifiers THAT
HAVE BEEN PLAYED.
> This is similar to the situation above with the Path in play. And while
> I can see the free/vs not free with action modifiers at work here, I
> don't think it's a good idea to make different rulings for different
> card types.
>
This ruling has nothing to do with card types, only with the timing of
card costs.
> Also, look at, for example, a Seeds-of-Corrupted minion. He wants to act
> and attempting so, requires him to burn 2 blood, so he does. He gets
> blocked and someone without a Seeds wants to mask. Not possible either?
>
Nope.
> It would also give the same problem to minions that inherently pay less
> for cards (say, Gabrin does something, gets blocked, plays Fata Morgana
> at inferior for free for stealth and gets masked by some obf/chi guy;
> not possible?)
>
Uh-uh.
Izaak
While I, apparently, understand the rules, I was merely pointing out
that it is extremely confusing and inconsistent.
The clarifications state that the masking minion could have been the
acting minion considering cards played. Nowhere does it say something
about a cost and neither does Mask mention it.
Now, all of a sudden the cost (or the actual amount of blood burned) for
a mask is added to this as well.
How about yet another exception:
My second acting minion wants to be masked by that new Ravnos that can't
act unless he's the first. Logically, the acting minion could never have
been him, so can he mask? (Assuming he has leanred Obf).
Rulewise, he can, since his disadvantage doesn't mention action modifers
(which Mask of 1K still is). Logic dictates that he could never have
been the acting minion in the first place, so he can't mask. Which one
is it?
I was merely pointing out to Scott that the rules surrounding Mask of 1K
faces are an inconsistent mess and adding more inconsistency to that
would be a bad idea, IMO. There's simply too many exceptions to the
current ruling, which is why it comes up here all the time in the first
place.
Taking away the ability to mask if some action modifier the masking
minion could have played at a different cost makes this more confusing
to players who are not so into usenet.
How about we reverse it? Now Salbatore acts, plays fata morgana at
inferior for +1 stealth and burns a blood to do so. Gabrin, who has no
need to pay for Fata Morgana, wants to mask. Possible? Probably not, but
it absolutely makes no sense.
LSJ
> Aisling Sturbridge with Ankara Citadel governs at inferior; she would do
> so for free.
> She gets blocked; Etrius want to mask it. With this ruling, he can't,
> since Aisling would have payed less for it. Otoh, like Josh said, since
> the action hasn't even resolved at that point, blood payments haven't
> even been made yet. So, Etrius *should* be able to mask it.
And Josh is correct - under this ruling, Etrius can Mask it. Even though
it would've cost Aisling something other than it would have cost Etrius
and even though the bleed amount will be different for Etrius that it
would have been for Aisling. "Would have been" doesn't factor into the
ruling.
> This is similar to the situation above with the Path in play. And while
> I can see the free/vs not free with action modifiers at work here, I
> don't think it's a good idea to make different rulings for different
> card types.
Only inasfar as the different card types are handled differently by
definition. All cards' costs are paid when played. Except actions.
> Also, look at, for example, a Seeds-of-Corrupted minion. He wants to act
> and attempting so, requires him to burn 2 blood, so he does. He gets
> blocked and someone without a Seeds wants to mask. Not possible either?
Not possible, since the blood has been paid to an effect that wouldn't
have been "usable" if the would-be masker were acting.
> It would also give the same problem to minions that inherently pay less
> for cards (say, Gabrin does something, gets blocked, plays Fata Morgana
> at inferior for free for stealth and gets masked by some obf/chi guy;
> not possible?)
Not possible, by the ruling regarding costs already made.
> Some consistency would be really appreciated;
That's the idea, yes.
LSJ
> <snip>
>
> While I, apparently, understand the rules, I was merely pointing out
> that it is extremely confusing and inconsistent.
The handling of costs for actions is inconsistent with the handling of
costs for all other cards (independent of any Mask text/ruling/errata),
yes. This is a known and acknowledged state of affairs.
> The clarifications state that the masking minion could have been the
> acting minion considering cards played.
Not sure of the relevance, but I don't see that verbiage in the rulings.
Here's the Mask entry from the rulings page:
# Mask of a Thousand Faces: The action remains the same (same level,
superior or inferior, same parameters, etc.). All action modifiers remain
in effect, but inherent modifiers (a minion's inherent +1 bleed or +1
stealth, or +1 bleed from a Laptop, e.g.) do not. Other effects applied to
the action (e.g., Backways, Deflection) also carry over to the new
(masking) vampire. [RTR 19951110] [LSJ 19971201] [RTR 20030519] [LSJ
20030520] [LSJ 20030521]
# 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 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]
# Mask of a Thousand Faces cannot be used to take over a Force of Will
action, since the former requires an untapped vampire and the latter
requires a tapped one. [RTR 20020927]
# Mask cannot be played during the resolution of an action (like during the
referendum of a political action or during combat). [LSJ 19980825]
# A minion attempting to block before the Mask was played is still
attempting to block after the Mask is played. If the Masking vampire is an
Aching Beauty, the controller of the minion attempting to block would have
to pay a pool for the block, if it is successful, for example. [LSJ 19990106]
> Nowhere does it say something
> about a cost and neither does Mask mention it.
Except by way of mentioning effects, of which paying costs is an example.
> Now, all of a sudden the cost (or the actual amount of blood burned) for
> a mask is added to this as well.
Not all of a sudden, no.
> How about yet another exception:
>
> My second acting minion wants to be masked by that new Ravnos that can't
> act unless he's the first. Logically, the acting minion could never have
> been him, so can he mask? (Assuming he has leanred Obf).
No. See bullet number 2 above.
> Rulewise, he can, since his disadvantage doesn't mention action modifers
> (which Mask of 1K still is). Logic dictates that he could never have
> been the acting minion in the first place, so he can't mask. Which one
> is it?
The one indicated by consistent application of the rulings.
> Taking away the ability to mask if some action modifier the masking
> minion could have played at a different cost makes this more confusing
> to players who are not so into usenet.
The "ability to mask" is "taken away" if an effect is applied (like,
for example, an effect to reduce a cost) that could not have been
applied if the would-be masker were acting.
> How about we reverse it? Now Salbatore acts, plays fata morgana at
> inferior for +1 stealth and burns a blood to do so. Gabrin, who has no
> need to pay for Fata Morgana, wants to mask. Possible? Probably not, but
> it absolutely makes no sense.
Except for the "no sense" part, correct.
Izaak
>> How about we reverse it? Now Salbatore acts, plays fata morgana at
> > inferior for +1 stealth and burns a blood to do so. Gabrin, who has
no
> > need to pay for Fata Morgana, wants to mask. Possible? Probably not,
but
> > it absolutely makes no sense.
>
> Except for the "no sense" part, correct.
Look, I understand who can and cannot mask in certain situations. It's
just that it seems very inconsistent.
This part, however is confusing to me let alone to people who do not ask
these questions here.
> # 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 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]
It specifically says "Not counting blood that already has been spent". I
assume this is to catch a minion with one blood masking an action that
has costed 2 blood so far, but it kinda implies blood that spent is not
a factor when masking an action.
With the increasing amount of special abilities on vampires, the number
of possible actions that can be masked gets lower and lower. Giotto, for
example, cannot be masked, because of his inbuilt blood burn effect.
Neither can Muaziz, because of her inherent stealth. Neither can Jost.
And the list goes on. A vampire with no +bleed can mask a vampire that
has +1 bleed? I assume so, since the bleed isn't succesfull at this
point. Doesn't this look like a mess to you? It surely does to me and so
it does to the people I try to explain to why they can or cannot mask
certain actions.
All I'm asking for is a clear rule about what you can mask; card text +
5 bullets of errata doesn't seem very clear to me.
LSJ
> Look, I understand who can and cannot mask in certain situations. It's
> just that it seems very inconsistent.
Which is where the responses explaining the consistency come in, see?
> This part, however is confusing to me let alone to people who do not ask
> these questions here.
Hense the responses to your queries.
>># 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 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]
>
> It specifically says "Not counting blood that already has been spent". I
> assume this is to catch a minion with one blood masking an action that
> has costed 2 blood so far, but it kinda implies blood that spent is not
> a factor when masking an action.
Right. But other effects, such as a Path, Backways, etc. are counted.
> With the increasing amount of special abilities on vampires, the number
> of possible actions that can be masked gets lower and lower. Giotto, for
> example, cannot be masked, because of his inbuilt blood burn effect.
Only if the effect has been used.
Giotto can mask. Others can mask from Giotto assuming no one has activated
his ability by attempting to block.
> Neither can Muaziz, because of her inherent stealth. Neither can Jost.
That's on the RT list (see response to Josh earlier in the topic).
Right now, they can be.
> And the list goes on. A vampire with no +bleed can mask a vampire that
> has +1 bleed? I assume so, since the bleed isn't succesfull at this
No, they can. As described earlier in this thread, the +bleed isn't
effectively applied until resolution.
> point. Doesn't this look like a mess to you? It surely does to me and so
The card is complicated, if that's what you mean.
There isn't a simple way to handle it properly, however.
> it does to the people I try to explain to why they can or cannot mask
> certain actions.
>
> All I'm asking for is a clear rule about what you can mask; card text +
> 5 bullets of errata doesn't seem very clear to me.
A minion can mask so long as they are capable of performing the action
and no effects have been used (or applied) to the action that could not
have been used (or applied) if the minion had been the acting minion
(not counting ability to pay costs paid).
Colin McGuigan
sure I have it right?
A +1 bleed (or laptop, etc) vampire's bleed can be masked by a
non-+1-bleeder, yes?
A +1 stealth vampire's action can be masked by a non-+1-stealther, but
this is being reviewed by the RT and may not be true in the future?
Vamp A (PRO, with 2 blood) bleeds, a block is attempted, and plays Beast
Meld in response. Vamp A pays the cost (2 blood). Vamp B (PRO/obf, 1
blood) is then allowed to mask the action, despite not being able to
have paid for the Beast Meld, yes?
Same situation, but there's a Path of the Feral Heart in play. Vamp A
is a !Gangrel, Vamp B is not. Vamp B cannot mask the action, since the
Path was used to reduce the cost of the Beast Meld?
Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
!Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A paid
too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have used?
Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, then
Primal Instincts and Form of Mists instead. A 1 strength minion can
mask, since the hands strike never resolved, yes?
Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, strikes
resolve, presses, Form of Mists in the 2nd round. A 1 strength minion
_cannot_ mask, since the hand strike did resolve, yes?
Finally, just to double check, Vamp A with Aching Beauty's action cannot
be masked by Vamp B with Aching Beauty, since they're still considered
to be seperate effects?
--Colin McGuigan
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> non-+1-bleeder, yes?
>
Yes, because that is an effect that has not yet been used.
> A +1 stealth vampire's action can be masked by a non-+1-stealther, but
> this is being reviewed by the RT and may not be true in the future?
>
Correct.
> Vamp A (PRO, with 2 blood) bleeds, a block is attempted, and plays Beast
> Meld in response. Vamp A pays the cost (2 blood). Vamp B (PRO/obf, 1
> blood) is then allowed to mask the action, despite not being able to
> have paid for the Beast Meld, yes?
>
Correct. [Assuming they both had the apropriate levels of Animalism.]
> Same situation, but there's a Path of the Feral Heart in play. Vamp A
> is a !Gangrel, Vamp B is not. Vamp B cannot mask the action, since the
> Path was used to reduce the cost of the Beast Meld?
>
Correct. Vampire A used an effect that Vampire B could not.
> Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
> !Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A paid
> too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have used?
>
Incorrect. Vamp B cannot choose to not use the path, therefore he could
not have paid 2 for the Beast Meld. Vampire A did not use an effect that
Vampire B must use.
> Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, then
> Primal Instincts and Form of Mists instead. A 1 strength minion can
> mask, since the hands strike never resolved, yes?
>
I think so.
> Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, strikes
> resolve, presses, Form of Mists in the 2nd round. A 1 strength minion
> _cannot_ mask, since the hand strike did resolve, yes?
>
Correct.
> Finally, just to double check, Vamp A with Aching Beauty's action cannot
> be masked by Vamp B with Aching Beauty, since they're still considered
> to be seperate effects?
>
I've heard that, but don't understand that one.
Izaak
> A +1 bleed (or laptop, etc) vampire's bleed can be masked by a
> non-+1-bleeder, yes?
Apparently.
> A +1 stealth vampire's action can be masked by a non-+1-stealther, but
> this is being reviewed by the RT and may not be true in the future?
According to Scott, yes.
> Vamp A (PRO, with 2 blood) bleeds, a block is attempted, and plays
Beast
> Meld in response. Vamp A pays the cost (2 blood). Vamp B (PRO/obf, 1
> blood) is then allowed to mask the action, despite not being able to
> have paid for the Beast Meld, yes?
That's what's the bullet I quoted is supposed to catch, so yes.
> Same situation, but there's a Path of the Feral Heart in play. Vamp A
> is a !Gangrel, Vamp B is not. Vamp B cannot mask the action, since
the
> Path was used to reduce the cost of the Beast Meld?
Correct.
> Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
> !Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A
paid
> too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have used?
No. See also my Salbatore vs Gabrin example a few posts back.
> Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, then
> Primal Instincts and Form of Mists instead. A 1 strength minion can
> mask, since the hands strike never resolved, yes?
Assuming the masking minion has AUS, yes. I think...
> Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3,
strikes
> resolve, presses, Form of Mists in the 2nd round. A 1 strength minion
> _cannot_ mask, since the hand strike did resolve, yes?
Yes.
> Finally, just to double check, Vamp A with Aching Beauty's action
cannot
> be masked by Vamp B with Aching Beauty, since they're still considered
> to be seperate effects?
If the effect of Aching Beauty kicked in, yes.
LSJ
>>A +1 bleed (or laptop, etc) vampire's bleed can be masked by a
>>non-+1-bleeder, yes?
>
> Yes, because that is an effect that has not yet been used.
Correct.
>>A +1 stealth vampire's action can be masked by a non-+1-stealther, but
>>this is being reviewed by the RT and may not be true in the future?
>
> Correct.
Correct.
>>Vamp A (PRO, with 2 blood) bleeds, a block is attempted, and plays Beast
>>Meld in response. Vamp A pays the cost (2 blood). Vamp B (PRO/obf, 1
>>blood) is then allowed to mask the action, despite not being able to
>>have paid for the Beast Meld, yes?
>
> Correct. [Assuming they both had the apropriate levels of Animalism.]
Correct.
>>Same situation, but there's a Path of the Feral Heart in play. Vamp A
>>is a !Gangrel, Vamp B is not. Vamp B cannot mask the action, since the
>>Path was used to reduce the cost of the Beast Meld?
>
> Correct. Vampire A used an effect that Vampire B could not.
Correct.
>>Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
>>!Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A paid
>>too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have used?
>
> Incorrect. Vamp B cannot choose to not use the path, therefore he could
> not have paid 2 for the Beast Meld. Vampire A did not use an effect that
> Vampire B must use.
No, this is correct. Not using an effect is not an effect, so not
using the path doesn't count. (Rescanning thread shows that I read
a smilar question incorrectly as a negative, so this amounts to a
reversal of that response - sorry for that.)
>>Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, then
>>Primal Instincts and Form of Mists instead. A 1 strength minion can
>>mask, since the hands strike never resolved, yes?
>
> I think so.
Correct.
>>Lazverinus (with PRO) bleeds, is blocked, declares hands for 3, strikes
>>resolve, presses, Form of Mists in the 2nd round. A 1 strength minion
>>_cannot_ mask, since the hand strike did resolve, yes?
>
> Correct.
Correct.
>>Finally, just to double check, Vamp A with Aching Beauty's action cannot
>>be masked by Vamp B with Aching Beauty, since they're still considered
>>to be seperate effects?
>
> I've heard that, but don't understand that one.
Correct.
Izaak
> >>Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
> >>!Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A
paid
> >>too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have used?
> >
> > Incorrect. Vamp B cannot choose to not use the path, therefore he
could
> > not have paid 2 for the Beast Meld. Vampire A did not use an effect
that
> > Vampire B must use.
>
> No, this is correct. Not using an effect is not an effect, so not
> using the path doesn't count. (Rescanning thread shows that I read
> a smilar question incorrectly as a negative, so this amounts to a
> reversal of that response - sorry for that.)
Hold on. So burning too much blood is *not* considered an effect? And
burning too few is???
The path of <something> card texts do NOT say "..... may /choose/ to
burn one blood less". They clearly say "..... burns one less blood". Not
much of a choice.
How is being !Gangrel vs not !Gangrel different from being Gabrin vs
being "just" Salbatore. I don't think Gabrin can choose to burn more
blood for Chimestry unless affected by a Seeds of Corruption.
And what *IF* a Path of Paradox is in play? Gabrin has no need for it,
so play Mirror Image for free. Salbatore, who thanks to the path can
also play it for free wants to mask. Can he? Or are these also different
effects.
Joshua Duffin
> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
[vamp A playing Beast Meld, vamp B Masking, Path of Feral Heart in play]
> >>Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
> >>!Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A
paid
> >>too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have used?
> >
> > Incorrect. Vamp B cannot choose to not use the path, therefore he
could
> > not have paid 2 for the Beast Meld. Vampire A did not use an effect
that
> > Vampire B must use.
>
> No, this is correct. Not using an effect is not an effect, so not
> using the path doesn't count. (Rescanning thread shows that I read
> a smilar question incorrectly as a negative, so this amounts to a
> reversal of that response - sorry for that.)
You're referring to the Gabrin/other vamp question? So if another [chi]
vamp starts an action, plays Fata Morgana paying 1 blood, Gabrin with
[obf] can still Mask, because doing the default thing (eg paying 1 blood
for a card with 1 blood cost) is not "using an effect" and therefore
does not affect Maskability, even if the Masking vampire would have done
something other than the default there?
I can kind of see both sides of this: Lazverinus can't Mask if a hand
strike for 1 has been used during the action, because Lazverinus can't
do that default thing. Likewise Gabrin can't do the default "pay 1 for
Fata Morgana" thing. But on the other hand, it's possible that the
effect isn't "pay 1 to play Fata Morgana" but simply "play Fata Morgana,
unadjusted by any unusual effects".
Josh
gehenna in the online card text file, happy happy!
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
> > Same situation, but Vamp A is the non-!Gangrel, and Vamp B is the
> > !Gangrel. Vamp B can mask the action, despite the fact that Vamp A
> > paid too much, because no card was used that Vamp B couldn't have
> > used?
> >
> > > Incorrect. Vamp B cannot choose to not use the path, therefore he
> > > could not have paid 2 for the Beast Meld. Vampire A did not use an
> > > effect that Vampire B must use.
> >
> > No, this is correct. Not using an effect is not an effect, so not
> > using the path doesn't count. (Rescanning thread shows that I read
> > a smilar question incorrectly as a negative, so this amounts to a
> > reversal of that response - sorry for that.)
>
I was actually thinking it was something like Aisling Sturbridge. If
Mustafa attempts to block an action, Aisling cannot Mask it because she
has a mandatory effect preventing him from being a blocker.
LSJ
> Hold on. So burning too much blood is *not* considered an effect? And
> burning too few is???
No. As stated in the summary I posted in response to your earlier
request, paying costs is not tracked by Mask. The difference is
that in once case an effect was used (the Path) that couldn't
have been used by the Masker. In the other, no such effect was
used.
Izaak
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:IHwsc.24672$fF3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Izaak wrote:
> > Hold on. So burning too much blood is *not* considered an effect?
And
> > burning too few is???
>
> No. As stated in the summary I posted in response to your earlier
> request, paying costs is not tracked by Mask. The difference is
> that in once case an effect was used (the Path) that couldn't
> have been used by the Masker. In the other, no such effect was
> used.
So Gabrin *can* mask an action started by Salbatore even if Salbatore
payed too much for a chimersty card? Salbatore is surely not using any
effects that Gabrine cannot use.
A few postst up you said he could not, so this is a reversal?
Also, if I read this right, if Gabrin is playing Fata Morgana for free
he's technically using a special effect not usable by Salbatore, even
though he cannot choose to *not* use it? Correct? Or is it possible to
not pay one less for chimerstry?
And what if a path of paradox *is* in play? Can Gabrin announce to use
the path's ability over his own special, so that Salbatore can mask it?
Or does his own ability always kick in first, making it unmaskable from
that point on?
And what if in the future a second Ravnos, let's say Vampire A, gets
printed with the same special ability? Gabrin uses Mirror Image, plays
it for free. Vampire A wants to mask. I'd say he cannot, since it's a
different effect (like the Aching Beauty example) even though it's the
exact same special ability.
Man, this makes me dizzy.