[LSJ] Form of Mist + Mask of a Thousand?
crispy
anything on point: Mask of a Thousand Faces requires that the masking
minion be able to play the action card and any action modifiers that
the acting minion played. But there's no restriction on combat cards
played?
Scenario:
Soldat bleeds, is blocked, gets into combat, tears a post, grapples,
hits for buckets. Presses to continue, second round, Form of Mist and
continues his action. Guido Lucciano Masks (Soldat untaps) plays
conditioning.
No problem?
LSJ
Card text (with errata):
"action modifiers {or other effects}"
So it includes combat cards.
Guido cannot mask (unless he has acquired superior Protean).
--
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/
Colin McGuigan
No. Superior Form of Mist is counted as an action modifier; since Guido
couldn't play it, he can't Mask.
"The superior counts as an action modifier when played by an acting
vampire, so cannot be played more than once per action at superior. [RTR
19980623]"
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
That errata was made obsolete by the most recent printing.
Form of Mist is just a combat card.
The current rulings/errata on Mask still prevent a vampire from Masking
after a superior Form of Mist if that vampire couldn't have played
superior Form of Mist.
crispy
> > Soldat bleeds, is blocked, gets into combat, tears a post, grapples,
> > hits for buckets. Presses to continue, second round, Form of Mist and
> > continues his action. Guido Lucciano Masks (Soldat untaps) plays
> > conditioning.
>
> Card text (with errata):
> "action modifiers {or other effects}"
>
> So it includes combat cards.
>
> Guido cannot mask (unless he has acquired superior Protean).
Makes sense. I missed "combat cards" being "other effects". I
must've been looking at dated errata. So I know special abilities of
vampires also qualify as other effects, so what is the result where:
Scenario A:
Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for
3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Soldat wants to
Mask to continue.
Result A:
He can't, since Lazverinus used his "+2 strength" special ability,
which he must use if making a hand strike.
Scenario B:
Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for
3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Mateusz
Gryzbowsky (w/ 2 Protean masters) wants to Mask to continue.
Result B:
He can, since he has +2 strength, so it's the "same" ability (he can
strike with +2 strength in the same way he can play PRO cards at
superior)
The one that I can't grok from these principles is:
Scenario C:
Oliver Thrace (w/ 2 PRO masters) bleeds, blocked, strikes form of mist
to continue. Opponent maybe can, or maybe can't, strike Majesty to
untap. Soldat masks to continue.
Result C:
Don't know how it can be shown an ability which prohibits an action
was used, short of the opponent showing the card and saying "well I
_would_have_ played this." Or is it just impossible to mask an action
where the acting vampire has an ability which prohibits something from
happening, when it may have happened (can't Mask Aisling if a younger
Tremere could have chosen to block)?
I know it's ridiculous. I just want to know.
UniqueMaster
[snip]
> That errata was made obsolete by the most recent printing.
> Form of Mist is just a combat card.
>
> The current rulings/errata on Mask still prevent a vampire from Masking
> after a superior Form of Mist if that vampire couldn't have played
> superior Form of Mist.
So could the masking vampire also play superior Form of Mist if blocked and
combat ensues?
Relevant card text:
Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting, he or she may burn 1 blood
to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still
be blocked). A vampire may play only 1 Form of Mist at superior each action.
--
Mike Ooi
"You have left the world. Click to continue."
LSJ
> Makes sense. I missed "combat cards" being "other effects". I
> must've been looking at dated errata. So I know special abilities of
> vampires also qualify as other effects, so what is the result where:
>
> Scenario A:
> Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for
> 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Soldat wants to
> Mask to continue.
>
> Result A:
> He can't, since Lazverinus used his "+2 strength" special ability,
> which he must use if making a hand strike.
Correct.
> Scenario B:
> Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for
> 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Mateusz
> Gryzbowsky (w/ 2 Protean masters) wants to Mask to continue.
>
> Result B:
> He can, since he has +2 strength, so it's the "same" ability (he can
> strike with +2 strength in the same way he can play PRO cards at
> superior)
Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after
all.
> The one that I can't grok from these principles is:
>
> Scenario C:
> Oliver Thrace (w/ 2 PRO masters) bleeds, blocked, strikes form of mist
> to continue. Opponent maybe can, or maybe can't, strike Majesty to
> untap. Soldat masks to continue.
>
> Result C:
> Don't know how it can be shown an ability which prohibits an action
> was used, short of the opponent showing the card and saying "well I
> _would_have_ played this." Or is it just impossible to mask an action
> where the acting vampire has an ability which prohibits something from
> happening, when it may have happened (can't Mask Aisling if a younger
> Tremere could have chosen to block)?
>
> I know it's ridiculous. I just want to know.
Soldat can. Same as Aisling bleeding and having some younger Tremere
want to block but being forced to decline. Anyone else can Mask
after the "I don't block" declaration, since the ability wasn't
technically used (it's merely a prohibition).
LSJ
> So could the masking vampire also play superior Form of Mist if blocked and
> combat ensues?
>
> Relevant card text:
>
> Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting, he or she may burn 1 blood
> to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still
> be blocked). A vampire may play only 1 Form of Mist at superior each action.
Yes.
The Masking vampire could also play a Lost In Crowds even if the
original vampire had played Lost In Crowds, for instance.
Charles Lechasseur
>> Scenario A:
>> Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for
>> 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Soldat wants to
>> Mask to continue.
>>
>> Result A:
>> He can't, since Lazverinus used his "+2 strength" special ability,
>> which he must use if making a hand strike.
>
>Correct.
related question: If a vampire with an inherent "+1 bleed" bleeds, can a
vampire without this ability play a Mask? or is the "+1 bleed" ability
only "used" when the bleed is successful?
another question: Lazverius (with a Protean master) bleeds, is blocked,
plays Form of Mist at superior. can Soldat now Mask, since Lazverinus
didn't "use" his "+2 strength" ability?
>> Scenario B:
>> Lazverinus (w/ protean master) bleeds, is blocked, strikes hands (for
>> 3, per card text), presses, form of mist to continue. Mateusz
>> Gryzbowsky (w/ 2 Protean masters) wants to Mask to continue.
>>
>> Result B:
>> He can, since he has +2 strength, so it's the "same" ability (he can
>> strike with +2 strength in the same way he can play PRO cards at
>> superior)
>
>Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after
>all.
this seems inconsistent with the ruling that says that if a Toreador with
an Aching Beauty acts and is blocked (the blocker's controller then burns
1 pool), another Toreador who also has an Aching Beauty cannot Mask. since
the second Toreador has an Aching Beauty, he could've made the blocker's
controller lose a pool so it could've been him/her after all... no?
>> The one that I can't grok from these principles is:
>>
>> Scenario C:
>> Oliver Thrace (w/ 2 PRO masters) bleeds, blocked, strikes form of mist
>> to continue. Opponent maybe can, or maybe can't, strike Majesty to
>> untap. Soldat masks to continue.
>>
>> Result C:
>> Don't know how it can be shown an ability which prohibits an action
>> was used, short of the opponent showing the card and saying "well I
>> _would_have_ played this." Or is it just impossible to mask an action
>> where the acting vampire has an ability which prohibits something from
>> happening, when it may have happened (can't Mask Aisling if a younger
>> Tremere could have chosen to block)?
>>
>> I know it's ridiculous. I just want to know.
>
>Soldat can. Same as Aisling bleeding and having some younger Tremere
>want to block but being forced to decline. Anyone else can Mask
>after the "I don't block" declaration, since the ability wasn't
>technically used (it's merely a prohibition).
related question: Soldat bleeds. he is blocked by Masika St. John. Soldat
plays Form of Mist at superior. can Aisling Sturbridge (with 2 Protean
masters and at least one Obfuscate master) now Mask? if Aisling was the
acting minion, she couldn't have been blocked by Masika...
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
LSJ
> related question: If a vampire with an inherent "+1 bleed" bleeds, can a
> vampire without this ability play a Mask? or is the "+1 bleed" ability
> only "used" when the bleed is successful?
Yes to both.
> another question: Lazverius (with a Protean master) bleeds, is blocked,
> plays Form of Mist at superior. can Soldat now Mask, since Lazverinus
> didn't "use" his "+2 strength" ability?
Yes.
>>Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after
>>all.
> this seems inconsistent with the ruling that says that if a Toreador with
> an Aching Beauty acts and is blocked (the blocker's controller then burns
> 1 pool), another Toreador who also has an Aching Beauty cannot Mask. since
> the second Toreador has an Aching Beauty, he could've made the blocker's
> controller lose a pool so it could've been him/her after all... no?
No. The explanation followed the "correct" was intended to help illustrate
this. Its a hand strike for 3.
> related question: Soldat bleeds. he is blocked by Masika St. John. Soldat
> plays Form of Mist at superior. can Aisling Sturbridge (with 2 Protean
> masters and at least one Obfuscate master) now Mask? if Aisling was the
> acting minion, she couldn't have been blocked by Masika...
No.
Daneel
> UniqueMaster wrote:
> > So could the masking vampire also play superior Form of Mist if blocked and
> > combat ensues?
> >
> > Relevant card text:
> >
> > Strike: combat ends. If this vampire is acting, he or she may burn 1 blood
> > to continue the action at +1 stealth as if unblocked (this action can still
> > be blocked). A vampire may play only 1 Form of Mist at superior each action.
>
> Yes.
> The Masking vampire could also play a Lost In Crowds even if the
> original vampire had played Lost In Crowds, for instance.
[common sense]
1. Striking for 3 hand damage prohibits anyone without a base strength
of exactly 3 to mask the action. Explanation: the masking vampire
could have been acting all along, if he has the requirements after
all.
2. The acting vampire can play another Lost in Crowds even if the
minion whose action was masked played it already. Following the same
logic, the masking vampire could not have been the minion who started
the action, because the same minion cannot play the same action
modifier for the same action.
From the common sense POV #1 and #2 contradict.
[/common sense]
Other question (nitpicky, but valid):
Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike.
Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal
Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2
strength now mask his action?
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike.
> Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal
> Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2
> strength now mask his action?
No.
Reyda
> Daneel wrote:
> > Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike.
> > Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal
> > Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2
> > strength now mask his action?
>
> No.
Hey everyone : just play a sudden reversal on all those protean skils to
avoid confusion !
or even better, play assamites + weakness, Kyasid + Steal the mind =D
Charles Lechasseur
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>Correct. He could've struck hands for 3, so it could've been him after
>>>all.
>> this seems inconsistent with the ruling that says that if a Toreador with
>> an Aching Beauty acts and is blocked (the blocker's controller then burns
>> 1 pool), another Toreador who also has an Aching Beauty cannot Mask. since
>> the second Toreador has an Aching Beauty, he could've made the blocker's
>> controller lose a pool so it could've been him/her after all... no?
>
>No. The explanation followed the "correct" was intended to help illustrate
>this. Its a hand strike for 3.
it's a hand strike for 3 that was made using a "+2 strength" ability. what
is the difference between this and a 1 pool loss coming from an "Aching
Beauty" ability?
Charles Lechasseur
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Daneel wrote:
>> Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike.
>> Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal
>> Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2
>> strength now mask his action?
>
>No.
this means that a "+2 strength" ability is used when the strike is
declared. is this the same with weapon strikes? if so, wouldn't a Molotov
Cocktail be unusable (it would burn "after use", which is "after the
strike is declared")?
LSJ
No.
kushiel
1) Minion A attempts an action. Minion B attempts to block. Minion A plays
Elder Impersonation at superior. Minion C Masks. Can Minion B attempt to
block again?
2) Minion A attempts an action. Methuselah B declines to block. Minion B
Masks. Does Methuselah B get another chance to declare block attempts? (A
friend of mine says they do, but I couldn't find any ruling supporting
this.)
3) Minion A attempts to call a political action. Minion B attempts to block.
Khay'tall Masks the action at superior. Does the action now have an
additional +2 stealth (one from Khay'tall's special, another from superior
Mask)?
Thanks.
John Eno
Prince of Pittsburgh
Charles Lechasseur
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> this means that a "+2 strength" ability is used when the strike is
>> declared. is this the same with weapon strikes? if so, wouldn't a Molotov
>> Cocktail be unusable (it would burn "after use", which is "after the
>> strike is declared")?
>
>No.
i assume that the "No" refers to both questions? :)
i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon
abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the
strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the
way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i
don't see why it should.
Colin McGuigan
> i assume that the "No" refers to both questions? :)
>
> i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon
> abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the
> strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the
> way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i
> don't see why it should.
IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is
declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike.
IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for
1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2
strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask
the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used.
--Colin McGuigan
Colin McGuigan
> While we're on the subject of Masking...
>
> 1) Minion A attempts an action. Minion B attempts to block. Minion A plays
> Elder Impersonation at superior. Minion C Masks. Can Minion B attempt to
> block again?
No.
> 2) Minion A attempts an action. Methuselah B declines to block. Minion B
> Masks. Does Methuselah B get another chance to declare block attempts? (A
> friend of mine says they do, but I couldn't find any ruling supporting
> this.)
No, this being one of the best points of Mask.
> 3) Minion A attempts to call a political action. Minion B attempts to block.
> Khay'tall Masks the action at superior. Does the action now have an
> additional +2 stealth (one from Khay'tall's special, another from superior
> Mask)?
Yes. However, if Minion C masks the action from Khay'tall, they'd lose
the extra +1 stealth Khay'tall had added (see also: Mask of 1000 Faces
and Jost Werner)
--Colin McGuigan
XZealot
> >>>Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike.
> >>>Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal
> >>>Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2
> >>>strength now mask his action?
Conversely, if a vampire, say Chandler Hungerford, was blocked and he
strikes hands for one. Chandler also has the drums so he additional strikes
FoM. Lazevernius would be prohibited from play M1kF because he cannot
strike hands for 1.
Is this correct?
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Joshua Duffin
> Daneel wrote:
> > Lazverinus [w/ Protean Discipline card] announces a hand strike.
> > Opponent announces a dodge. Lazverinus announces a superior Primal
> > Instincts and plays superior Form of Mist. Can a minion without +2
> > strength now mask his action?
>
> No.
This doesn't seem right. The strike isn't for 3 until it lands, I
think.
Consider the case of Lazverinus with a superior Disarm on him (for -2
strength). If Laz burns the Disarm before strike resolution, he should
inflict 3 damage with the strike. It seems clear by analogy to Wolf
Claws that the amount of damage from a hand strike is not irrevocably
determined at strike declaration, but can be modified until strike
resolution is reached.
Given that, it seems like declaring a strike that would land for 3
damage shouldn't "taint" Lazverinus if the strike is cancelled (or if
Laz is somehow reduced to 1 strength) before it lands.
Josh
oy, effects again?!
Joshua Duffin
> Charles Lechasseur wrote:
> > related question: Soldat bleeds. he is blocked by Masika St. John.
Soldat
> > plays Form of Mist at superior. can Aisling Sturbridge (with 2
Protean
> > masters and at least one Obfuscate master) now Mask? if Aisling was
the
> > acting minion, she couldn't have been blocked by Masika...
>
> No.
How has an "effect" been "used" here? Aisling Sturbridge's ability can
only be "used" while she is the acting minion. Before she becomes
acting, the only effect that has been used in this action is the Form of
Mist.
Or is the "effect" in question the block itself?
Either way, how does it make sense for it to be legal to Mask *away*
from Aisling after her ability "has an effect" on block declaration, but
not *to* Aisling when her ability *would* have had an effect (but
didn't) on block declaration?
Perhaps we need an explicit definition of "effect"?
Your prior definition of "used" abilities seemed to be that if something
was added during the action (as opposed to existing already before the
action started), that counted as an ability (or effect) being "used".
But in the Lazverinus example, he had his +2 strength before the action
started, just as Muaziz would have had her +1 stealth already. Why is
Lazverinus's use of his preexisting strength more of a Mask-prohibiting
factor than Muaziz's use of her preexisting +1 stealth?
Josh
preexisting opacity
LSJ
> Charles Lechasseur wrote:
> > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon
> > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the
> > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the
> > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i
> > don't see why it should.
>
> IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is
> declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike.
>
> IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for
> 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2
> strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask
> the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used.
Correct.
Raille
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:2g9ot5...@uni-berlin.de...
Is it possible to voluntarily reduce a minions + damage? Makes sense that
you don't always have to clobber the opponent, some times just a gentle
thrashing is sufficient.
As such, can Laz declare a hand strike and hit for 1, allowing others to
potential mask the action.
Raille
Colin McGuigan
> Is it possible to voluntarily reduce a minions + damage? Makes sense that
> you don't always have to clobber the opponent, some times just a gentle
> thrashing is sufficient.
>
> As such, can Laz declare a hand strike and hit for 1, allowing others to
> potential mask the action.
No. See also, "Is is possible to not make a strike at all?" or "Is it
possible not to use the +1 intercept from my sports bike?"
--Colin McGuigan
Raille
"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:JESdnVzRxux...@speakeasy.net...
:(
Well I knew it was No before I asked, but it just seems like you should have
the option of striking for 1,2 or 3 if you have +2 str.
Raille
since when does it make sense?
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > possible not to use the +1 intercept from my sports bike?"
>
> the option of striking for 1,2 or 3 if you have +2 str.
>
>
Actually, in a number of the RPG source books, they indicate that you
can't always control certain disciplines. Potence in particular, but also
Presence (odd that the Brujah have both of these...).
Patrick van der Reest
I don't think this can be done. After all, you are not allowed to do a
hand strike for 0 when you end up fighting with your grand-prey after
a deflection, either.
Regards,
Patrick
Columbus, OH
Charles Lechasseur
vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote:
>Colin McGuigan wrote:
>> Charles Lechasseur wrote:
>> > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from weapon
>> > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when the
>> > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly understand the
>> > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me, and i
>> > don't see why it should.
>>
>> IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike is
>> declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the strike.
>>
>> IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands for
>> 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2
>> strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not mask
>> the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used.
>
>Correct.
ok, that clears it up. it's not that the ability was "used", it's that
declaring a "hand strike for 3" is an effect in itself. sorry for the
confusion and thanks for all the answers.
Joshua Duffin
> Colin McGuigan wrote:
> > Charles Lechasseur wrote:
> > > i was just curious - why are "+strength" abilities different from
weapon
> > > abilities in this case (e.g., "+strength" abilities are used when
the
> > > strike is declared, and not weapons)? i may not perfectly
understand the
> > > way weapons are "used" in combat, but it looks different to me,
and i
> > > don't see why it should.
> >
> > IANLSJ, but...it's not that the abilities are _used_ when the strike
is
> > declared, but that you have to have the ability to even declare the
strike.
> >
> > IOW, you don't declare a strike as "hands", you declare it as "hands
for
> > 1", or in Lazverinus' case, "hands for 3". Someone without the +2
> > strength would not be able to declare "hands for 3", so could not
mask
> > the action, even though the +2 strength never, in fact, gets used.
>
> Correct.
Sorry to repeat myself, but could you explain why declaring a strike
with +2 strength counts as "using an effect" when taking an action at an
additional +1 stealth (eg Muaziz) does not count as using an effect?
Certainly the stealth is "used" on the action as much as the strength is
"used" on the strike.
Likewise, what effect has been used when a non-Aisling Sturbridge
vampire is blocked that prohibits Aisling from Masking in after the
block is attempted?
If Hector Sosa played Torn Signpost and declared a strike for 3
strength, is that just as identical to Lazverinus's strike for 3 as
Mateusz Gryzbowski's is (and therefore Laz or Mateusz could Mask in for
Hector later)? Conversely, if Lazverinus played Torn Signpost and
struck hands for 3, would Hector be allowed to Mask in because he also
could play Torn Signpost, or prohibited because he doesn't strike hands
for 3 without playing an effect?
It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask
errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other
effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}".
Josh
or, something easier to interpret but less story-consistent might also
work well...
Raille
"Patrick van der Reest" <sam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92081c66.04051...@posting.google.com...
I was just stating that is you strike you have to hit. A hit is for one.
Some vampires have the ability to hit for more. Question is why must this
ability be forced when you select a hand strike.
I can hit you, I can hit you hard, I hit you and rip your heart out, but I
still have to hit you. Jyst becuase I have the ability, does not indicate I
have the reason to hit you for X.
Raille
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
No, a hit is for strength. No one can wilfully reduce their strength, not
to 1, not below 1.
LSJ
> It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask
> errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other
> effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}".
This is the same. If it works for you, OK.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the
Mask
> > errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or
other
> > effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...]
{used}".
>
> This is the same. If it works for you, OK.
No, by "applied to the action" I intend to draw a distinction between
effects that affect the action itself and things that take place during
the action but do not affect the status of the action in any way.
Striking hands for 3, for example, does not affect the action. Adding a
stealth to the action, or continuing the action as if unblocked would
affect the action.
It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2
strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action
un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2
allowing the action to remain Maskable.
It's not logical to argue that the +1 bleed isn't "used" until
resolution, either, as the +2 strength also isn't "used" until
resolution. And Dimple isn't inherently able to declare a bleed of 2
any more than Olivia is inherently able to declare a strike for 3.
It seems to me that the rulings line on Mask is now being drawn too far
in the direction of the "there was only ever one vampire" concept. The
card is far more intuitive to play and mechanically sensible if it
restricts nothing but actions and action modifiers, and I don't see any
significant abuse possible from such a wording.
Josh
mask of a thousand headaches
Raille
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
message news:2004051116...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
I can, but I guess that makes me better than a vampire. :)
I can pimp slap ya, bitch slap ya, or fist to the nut sack.
Take yer pick
Raille
Colin McGuigan
>
> I can, but I guess that makes me better than a vampire. :)
>
> I can pimp slap ya, bitch slap ya, or fist to the nut sack.
>
> Take yer pick
Let me be the first to point out that you also don't need someone to
play a card to allow you to do any of those things.
--Colin McGuigan
Raille
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > It seems like it would be a lot more intuitive (and clear) if the Mask
> > errata was something like "Not usable if any action modifiers ={or other
> > effects}= have been {applied to the action}" instead of "[...] {used}".
>
> This is the same. If it works for you, OK.
>
To Sum up:
Any action that continues which employs any disciplines or card effects the
new masked vampire could not have played at any point in the chain of
masking vampires.
Correct?
Raille
Raille
"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
Thanks. Your reply got me a grin a mile wide. :)
Still outside of game mechanics, it makes no sense to force a player to
select a better strike that is needed. its like skipping first gear just
because you can.
Raille
ThunderFoot
It's more likely if they play a particular card though, like a fifth Ace
for example...
> --Colin McGuigan
--
Nihil mutatem, omni delendum est...
Colin McGuigan
> Still outside of game mechanics, it makes no sense to force a player to
> select a better strike that is needed. its like skipping first gear just
> because you can.
Also makes no sense that you must make a strike at all, eh?
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2
> strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action
> un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2
> allowing the action to remain Maskable.
The amount of the strike damage is set prior to strike resolution.
Prior to the continuance.
The +2 is used to set that amount.
The amount of the bleed is not set prior to the Masking. It can be
modified, for example, with Telepathic Counter.
Joshua Duffin
> "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote:
> > It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of
"+2
> > strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action
> > un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2
> > allowing the action to remain Maskable.
>
> The amount of the strike damage is set prior to strike resolution.
> Prior to the continuance.
> The +2 is used to set that amount.
Prior to strike resolution, perhaps ("immediately prior" I could see),
but it must not be set on strike declaration. See the case of Absorb
the Mind (at first strike) versus a declared hand strike by an older
vampire against Basil:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D03C0DD.4A25B03C%40white-wolf.com
The strike against Basil is declared at +1 strength but resolves at
normal strength. So it must be possible to alter the amount of damage a
strike is doing (just as it's possible to modify whether the damage is
aggravated or not) between declaration and resolution. Therefore, the
amount of the strike is not set until reaching the strike resolution
phase (or at least pretty close).
> The amount of the bleed is not set prior to the Masking. It can be
> modified, for example, with Telepathic Counter.
Sure, but no more so than the amount of a strike can be modified prior
to resolution.
It's true that the logic of my argument only goes as far as "a
particular strike shouldn't make an action un-Maskable until the strike
resolves". But I do think the larger point is also valid that having
Mask mirror the "real world" to this extent isn't worth the annoyance of
the rulings required to make that happen.
Josh
unresolved
David Wilson
> "action modifiers {or other effects}"
LSJ,
These other effects, do they have to be the exact same effect or do they
simply have to cause the smae outcome,
i.e. Donal Oconner and Ricki Van Demsi with Camarilla Exemplary, or
remover, etc...
LSJ
>>>It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2
>>>strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action
>>>un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2
>>>allowing the action to remain Maskable.
>>
>>The amount of the strike damage is set prior to strike resolution.
>>Prior to the continuance.
>>The +2 is used to set that amount.
>
> Prior to strike resolution, perhaps ("immediately prior" I could see),
No need to see the case - I chose my words properly. That my words
as written (as opposed to how you seem to have filtered them upon
reading them to morph them into something about declaration) agree
with yours and the case you've found only reinforces the point.
>>The amount of the bleed is not set prior to the Masking. It can be
>>modified, for example, with Telepathic Counter.
>
> Sure, but no more so than the amount of a strike can be modified prior
> to resolution.
See again my choice of wording over your filtered reading of them.
Namely: "prior to Masking".
Case Lazvernius:
When you go to play Mask, you've already resolved the Form of Mist,
and, therefore, reached strike resolution (so that Form of Mist, a
strike, could resolve and end the combat), so the amount of the Laz's
hand strike had been set at 3, by way of using his +2 strength. The
amount was finalized. It passed the point at which it could be changed.
It cannot be changed.
Case Ozmo:
When you go to play the Mask, you've not yet reached action resolution.
The bleed amount has not yet been set. The amount of the bleed can be
changed.
> It's true that the logic of my argument only goes as far as "a
> particular strike shouldn't make an action un-Maskable until the strike
> resolves". But I do think the larger point is also valid that having
> Mask mirror the "real world" to this extent isn't worth the annoyance of
> the rulings required to make that happen.
That larger point is your point.
That the rulings happen to agree with the backstory is simply fortuitous.
This clarification follows from the current state of rules, card text, and
errata, however. It is not additional errata enacted out of a desire to
better model the backstory - the existing errata, rules, and card text do
that sufficiently in this case by themselves.
LSJ
> Case Lazvernius:
> When you go to play Mask, you've already resolved the Form of Mist,
> and, therefore, reached strike resolution (so that Form of Mist, a
> strike, could resolve and end the combat), so the amount of the Laz's
> hand strike had been set at 3, by way of using his +2 strength. The
> amount was finalized. It passed the point at which it could be changed.
> It cannot be changed.
?
But this is moot anyway - if he strikes with Form of Mist, then he
cannot be striking with hands. How did we move out of corner cases
into the impossible?
Charles Lechasseur
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>LSJ wrote:
>> Case Lazvernius:
>> When you go to play Mask, you've already resolved the Form of Mist,
>> and, therefore, reached strike resolution (so that Form of Mist, a
>> strike, could resolve and end the combat), so the amount of the Laz's
>> hand strike had been set at 3, by way of using his +2 strength. The
>> amount was finalized. It passed the point at which it could be changed.
>> It cannot be changed.
>
>?
>But this is moot anyway - if he strikes with Form of Mist, then he
>cannot be striking with hands. How did we move out of corner cases
>into the impossible?
I believe we were talking about Lazverinus declaring a hand strike for 3,
then using Primal Instinct to change his strike to a superior Form of
Mist.
in this case, you previously answered that another vampire without +2
strength cannot Mask. however, in the message quoted above, you mention
that the amount of damage inflicted by a strike is set "prior to strike
resolution" - is this also the case for a strike that is *canceled*? is
the amount of damage it would've inflicted calculated when Primal Instinct
is played? this does seem a bit weird...
salem
toreador mask the action?
if so, does the bleed amount increase by one?
If a toreador plays Aire, can a non-toreador mask?
if so, does the bleed decrease by one?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
UniqueMaster
[snip]
> Sorry to repeat myself, but could you explain why declaring a strike
> with +2 strength counts as "using an effect" when taking an action at an
> additional +1 stealth (eg Muaziz) does not count as using an effect?
> Certainly the stealth is "used" on the action as much as the strength is
> "used" on the strike.
I would like this clarified. For instance:
Muaziz initiates an action normally at zero stealth, but modified by her
inherent +1 stealth.
A block attempt at zero intercept is declared.
The block is deemed unsuccessful.
Could the action then be masked to another minion without inherent +1
stealth?
Does the declaration of a block attempt doomed to fail make this different
from a "not blocking" declaration?
Is this different from a non-Muazizish minion taking a +1 stealth action and
masking over to a minion with a -1 stealth modifier?
--
Mike Ooi
"You have left the world. Click to continue."
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>But this is moot anyway - if he strikes with Form of Mist, then he
>>cannot be striking with hands. How did we move out of corner cases
>>into the impossible?
>
> I believe we were talking about Lazverinus declaring a hand strike for 3,
> then using Primal Instinct to change his strike to a superior Form of
> Mist.
>
> in this case, you previously answered that another vampire without +2
> strength cannot Mask. however, in the message quoted above, you mention
> that the amount of damage inflicted by a strike is set "prior to strike
> resolution" - is this also the case for a strike that is *canceled*? is
> the amount of damage it would've inflicted calculated when Primal Instinct
> is played? this does seem a bit weird...
Oh. OK. Sorry about that.
Yes, Laz's +2 strength isn't used to set his strike's damage if the strike
is canceled to select another strike with Primal Instincts.
(Ah, the old Laz, PI, FoM, Mask trick. :-)
LSJ
> Also, if a non-toreador is bleeding and plays a Aire of Elation, can a
> toreador mask the action?
Yes. The effect is "+1 bleed; +2 bleed if Toreador".
> if so, does the bleed amount increase by one?
Yes.
> If a toreador plays Aire, can a non-toreador mask?
> if so, does the bleed decrease by one?
Yes.
LSJ
> Muaziz initiates an action normally at zero stealth, but modified by her
> inherent +1 stealth.
> A block attempt at zero intercept is declared.
> The block is deemed unsuccessful.
> Could the action then be masked to another minion without inherent +1
> stealth?
> Does the declaration of a block attempt doomed to fail make this different
> from a "not blocking" declaration?
> Is this different from a non-Muazizish minion taking a +1 stealth action and
> masking over to a minion with a -1 stealth modifier?
All cases above can be Masked.
Raille
"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
True
However the strike phase indicates you must make a strike, I'm just
advocating pulling your punch to inflict a bit less than maximum damage each
time.
Raille
Joshua Duffin
Daneel brought it up. You said it couldn't be done because the strike
was set for 3 on declaration. That made no sense. That is why I was
posting.
I don't think it's good for anyone's brain to count events in combat as
"effects" for Mask purposes, but in general it doesn't affect anything,
it's true. It's just another weird complication that people have to
know to play by the official rules.
But I can't agree that the rulings agree with the backstory simply out
of coincidence: there is no visible reason for the 19-May-2003 errata
(or ruling, if you prefer) other than backstory. There were no
significant balance issues, nor am I aware of any way in which the old
rule was more complicated than the new one.
Josh
and weren't we trying to move away from altering card-function without
reprinted correct text?
Colin McGuigan
> True
> However the strike phase indicates you must make a strike, I'm just
> advocating pulling your punch to inflict a bit less than maximum damage each
> time.
Now you're really, really reaching. =P
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
>>Yes, Laz's +2 strength isn't used to set his strike's damage if the strike
>>is canceled to select another strike with Primal Instincts.
>
> was set for 3 on declaration. That made no sense. That is why I was
> posting.
Corrected above. It is set to 3 before moving to strike resolution.
> I don't think it's good for anyone's brain to count events in combat as
> "effects" for Mask purposes, but in general it doesn't affect anything,
> it's true. It's just another weird complication that people have to
> know to play by the official rules.
It hurts your brain to treat effects as effects? It seems like it would
be more complicated to attempt to distinguish which effects are effects
for Mask and which effects are not effects. "Effects are effects" is
the simple route, not the complication.
> But I can't agree that the rulings agree with the backstory simply out
> of coincidence: there is no visible reason for the 19-May-2003 errata
> (or ruling, if you prefer) other than backstory. There were no
> significant balance issues, nor am I aware of any way in which the old
> rule was more complicated than the new one.
What "errata" is that? The one overturned/corrected above?
It was not made for backstory. The clarification was an error made by
misapplying the rules and misremembering/overlooking previous rulings.
Apologies again for the error.
> and weren't we trying to move away from altering card-function without
> reprinted correct text?
Yes. As stated, this is following current card function, not altering it.
Joshua Duffin
> salem wrote:
> > Also, if a non-toreador is bleeding and plays a Aire of Elation, can
a
> > toreador mask the action?
>
> Yes. The effect is "+1 bleed; +2 bleed if Toreador".
>
> > if so, does the bleed amount increase by one?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If a toreador plays Aire, can a non-toreador mask?
> > if so, does the bleed decrease by one?
>
> Yes.
That's interesting. So Aire of Elation's effect ("+1 bleed" or "+2
bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador", etc) isn't locked in when the
card is played; rather it is an ongoing effect of "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if
the acting vampire is Toreador" that lasts until the bleed resolves?
If The Missing Voice at [mel] were played, and the action were then
taken over with Mask by an older vampire (also with [mel] of course),
would the effect "Allies and younger vampires get -1 intercept when
attempting to block this action" now affect vampires younger than the
Masking-in vampire instead of just vampires younger than the original
acting vampire?
It seems like this goes against the "if inferior Redirection is played
by a vampire of age X, vampires with age X or above cannot Mask to take
over the action" example from the original "effects (not just action
modifiers and actions) count for Maskability" ruling. That is, I would
have thought that using Aire of Elation at the "Toreador level" would
have made the action no longer Maskable by non-Toreador.
Josh
not a toreador
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>Oh. OK. Sorry about that.
> >>Yes, Laz's +2 strength isn't used to set his strike's damage if the
strike
> >>is canceled to select another strike with Primal Instincts.
> >
> > Daneel brought it up. You said it couldn't be done because the
strike
> > was set for 3 on declaration. That made no sense. That is why I
was
> > posting.
>
> Corrected above. It is set to 3 before moving to strike resolution.
Sorry to get snippy... I felt like you had been either missing or
ignoring the argument I was making.
> It hurts your brain to treat effects as effects? It seems like it
would
> be more complicated to attempt to distinguish which effects are
effects
> for Mask and which effects are not effects. "Effects are effects" is
> the simple route, not the complication.
It's not necessarily intuitive that when you declare a hand strike,
having +2 strength is an effect. And then, once you know that it is,
it's not obvious why Lazverinus's +2 strength is "the same as" Mateusz's
when Anneke's Aching Beauty is *not* the same as Anson's Aching Beauty.
Also, I don't think you've said yet whether Hector Sosa using a Torn
Signpost makes his action un-Maskable by someone else with [POT]?
Either it doesn't because Anvil also could have played that Torn
Signpost, or it does because Anvil doesn't have 3 strength naturally.
And then, does Hector Sosa using a Torn Signpost make his action
Maskable by Lazverinus, or is Torn Signpost 3-strength different from
Laz 3-strength?
> > But I can't agree that the rulings agree with the backstory simply
out
> > of coincidence: there is no visible reason for the 19-May-2003
errata
> > (or ruling, if you prefer) other than backstory. There were no
> > significant balance issues, nor am I aware of any way in which the
old
> > rule was more complicated than the new one.
>
> What "errata" is that? The one overturned/corrected above?
> It was not made for backstory. The clarification was an error made by
> misapplying the rules and misremembering/overlooking previous rulings.
> Apologies again for the error.
Sorry, I was referring to the 19-May-2003 RTR that set Mask to its
current "text".
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid%3a3EC8F35...@white-wolf.com
In the current online text of
"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."
I believe the bits in brackets are the result of that ruling. They
aren't on the most recently printed copies of the card, as far as I
know.
That alteration of card function - going beyond "capable of performing
the action" and "action modifiers" in restricting who can play Mask - is
what I'm arguing was not necessary and generally more complicated than
less. Somewhat late, admittedly, but I did also mention it at the time.
:-)
The rules team doesn't generally give detailed arguments or reasoning,
of course, but I never found any compelling argument for why that ruling
helped the game in terms of balance or intuition.
Josh
night of a million billion masks
LSJ
>
> bleed if the acting vampire is Toreador", etc) isn't locked in when the
> card is played; rather it is an ongoing effect of "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if
> the acting vampire is Toreador" that lasts until the bleed resolves?
Yes (above).
> If The Missing Voice at [mel] were played, and the action were then
> taken over with Mask by an older vampire (also with [mel] of course),
> would the effect "Allies and younger vampires get -1 intercept when
> attempting to block this action" now affect vampires younger than the
> Masking-in vampire instead of just vampires younger than the original
> acting vampire?
Yes.
> It seems like this goes against the "if inferior Redirection is played
> by a vampire of age X, vampires with age X or above cannot Mask to take
> over the action" example from the original "effects (not just action
> modifiers and actions) count for Maskability" ruling. That is, I would
> have thought that using Aire of Elation at the "Toreador level" would
> have made the action no longer Maskable by non-Toreador.
No.
For parallel, if 6-cap vamp plays Missing Voice [mel] to give 4-cap
-1 intercept, then the action cannot be Masked by a vampire of
capacity four or less, but only by a vampire of capacity 5 or above
(with mel, of course). Matching the Redirection ruling.
(Redirection offers a poor parallel, of course, since it is a
one-time effect, not an on-going one like the others you bring
up above).
There is no "Toreador" level on Aire. It has only a [pre] and a [PRE]
level. See above.
Curevei
>of course, but I never found any compelling argument for why that ruling
>helped the game in terms of balance or intuition.
I wish it would. Other games' rules sources have given detailed explanations
of rulings. Every Saturday, there's a rules Q&A for Magic off of Wizards site
where Rune Horvik details every answer even for the dumb questions. Now, they
have loads more people and money.
But. It doesn't help to understand the game to get no explanation. If there
are consistent rulings concepts in place, then having more insight into those
means having to ask fewer rules questions as one can figure out on one's own
what the right answer is. Currently, if I don't understand something, I don't
feel like I can work out the correct answer. Oh, I can come up with some
answer, but I have no confidence in whether it's right or not.
I generally learn more about the tricky aspects of the game from Josh's posts
where he asks how a ruling is consistent with previous than I do from the
rulings posts.
Also doesn't help that there isn't a comprehensive database for rulings on
cards/card combinations. I often search the rulings file on WW's site and come
up empty on cards I know have had clarifications (if not additional errata). I
know it's a pain, but it is possible to create a database where good rules
questions with answers are included under the card's entry.
Charles Lechasseur
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of "+2
>strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action
>un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2
>allowing the action to remain Maskable.
>
>It's not logical to argue that the +1 bleed isn't "used" until
>resolution, either, as the +2 strength also isn't "used" until
>resolution. And Dimple isn't inherently able to declare a bleed of 2
>any more than Olivia is inherently able to declare a strike for 3.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought LSJ "reversed" the ruling about
declaring a hand strike for 3 - it has to resolve for the action to become
unmaskable, as the strike's damage amount is set prior to strike
resolution (see the reply he made to my message mentioning the strike
declaration followed by Primal Instinct).
in this case everything is perfectly logical - if the strike resolves,
then the +2 strength has been "used". if the strike doesn't resolve, then
it hasn't been "used" and thus the action is maskable to anyone.
for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is
Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky,
but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss
effect of another Aching Beauty?
Joshua Duffin
"Charles Lechasseur" <da...@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message
news:danov-17050...@192.168.1.4...
> In article <2gerkbF...@uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin"
> <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >It is still totally illogical, as far as I can see, for the use of
"+2
> >strength" in declaring a strike of hands for 3 to make an action
> >un-Maskable, but the use of "+1 bleed" in declaring a bleed of 2
> >allowing the action to remain Maskable.
> >
> >It's not logical to argue that the +1 bleed isn't "used" until
> >resolution, either, as the +2 strength also isn't "used" until
> >resolution. And Dimple isn't inherently able to declare a bleed of 2
> >any more than Olivia is inherently able to declare a strike for 3.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought LSJ "reversed" the ruling about
> declaring a hand strike for 3 - it has to resolve for the action to
become
> unmaskable, as the strike's damage amount is set prior to strike
> resolution (see the reply he made to my message mentioning the strike
> declaration followed by Primal Instinct).
He did. The message you responded to above was from 12-May-2004; on
13-May-2004 LSJ posted a response to you agreeing that the strike damage
didn't "use" Lazverinus's +2 strength until the strike resolves.
> in this case everything is perfectly logical - if the strike resolves,
> then the +2 strength has been "used". if the strike doesn't resolve,
then
> it hasn't been "used" and thus the action is maskable to anyone.
Yes, this makes sense as far as "strength bonuses are used when the
strike using them resolves". I don't like the Mask interaction, but
that's a problem I have with Mask's current wording rather than a rules
"problem" per se. :-)
> for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is
> Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz
Gryzbowsky,
> but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss
> effect of another Aching Beauty?
Right. That's why I posted again on 13-May-2004 saying basically the
same thing. :-)
I guess the logic is supposed to be that "Aching Beauty Copy #1" has an
effect, and "Aching Beauty Copy #2" has an effect, but they are not "the
same" effect because they are from different instances of cards in play
and each has its own special card text. By contrast (well, supposedly
by contrast), "Lazverinus's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play
and "Mateusz's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play, but their
effect is to result in a "strike: hands for 3 damage", which is the same
across any vampire who can strike hands for 3 damage. (But apparently
not the same as "playing a Fists of Death to gain the ability to say
"strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2
strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from
Fists of Death's +2 strength.)
I don't find that especially intuitive or logical myself, no.
Josh
eyebrows of death!
LSJ
> for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is
> Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky,
> but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss
> effect of another Aching Beauty?
Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz
and Mat are capable of doing.
UniqueMaster
> da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote:
> > for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is
> > Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky,
> > but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss
> > effect of another Aching Beauty?
>
> Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz
> and Mat are capable of doing.
Does the mitigating effect of Mat at long range change his to "I strike:
hands strike for 2" or does the reduction occur during resolution?
Joshua Duffin
> For parallel, if 6-cap vamp plays Missing Voice [mel] to give 4-cap
> -1 intercept, then the action cannot be Masked by a vampire of
> capacity four or less, but only by a vampire of capacity 5 or above
> (with mel, of course). Matching the Redirection ruling.
> (Redirection offers a poor parallel, of course, since it is a
> one-time effect, not an on-going one like the others you bring
> up above).
Sure. The one-time/on-going difference seems not to matter too much,
though.
It sounds like you're saying, then, that the "use" of the Missing Voice
only becomes "locked in" when a younger vampire actually receives -1
intercept because of trying to block the action - it is not a one-time
effect applied to the action like "from now on, allies and vampires with
capacity 5 or below get -1 intercept trying to block this action"?
So if a 6-cap plays Missing Voice at [mel] "just to cycle" when a block
attempt has not yet been declared, it is still legal for a 4-cap to Mask
to take over the action? But if the 6-cap plays Missing Voice when a
4-cap attempts to block, and that causes the block to fail, *then* an
effect has been "used" that a 4-cap would-be Mask-playing-vampire would
not have been able to use?
> There is no "Toreador" level on Aire. It has only a [pre] and a [PRE]
> level. See above.
Sure. Consider a hypothetical action modifier: "[pre]: +1 bleed, +2
bleed if the acting vampire's capacity is above 6." If a 7-cap plays
that card, can any vampire with the right discipline Mask in, as with
Aire of Elation, and the Masking vampire simply loses the bleed bonus if
its capacity is below 7?
Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if
*this* vampire's capacity is above 6"? Would the use of "this" vampire
mean that the vampire *did* play an effect giving the action +2 bleed,
so no other vampire can Mask it unless it also could have played that
action modifier for +2 bleed?
Pasting in from the other subthread:
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com...
> da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote:
> > for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is
> > Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz
Gryzbowsky,
> > but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same
pool-loss
> > effect of another Aching Beauty?
>
> Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz
> and Mat are capable of doing.
Sorry to keep beating this topic to death, and to jump back and forth
from email to newsgroup, but since I still haven't reached enlightenment
I can't help it. :-)
If Torn Signpost is played at superior, any vampire who can play Torn
Signpost at superior can Mask to take over the action. Is that hand
strike for 3 also "the same" as Lazverinus's hand strike for 3? So Laz
could Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? But not
vice versa? (At least, so far, it sounds like a vampire's ability to
play an effect to gain strength of 3 does not make him or her eligible
to Mask to take over from Laz - the vampire has to have "always on"
strength of 3 to have that ability).
Presumably Seal of Veddartha's "bleed for 2" is the same as Sheila
Mezarin's "bleed for 2" as well, yes? And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage
each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each
combat"? But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs,
that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so Mask
would be prohibited in that case?
If so, I may be approaching understanding of your thoughts here. But
then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could lay
out to make it more clear...?
Josh
seeker on the fivefold path:
untap
master
minion
influence
discard
LSJ
> I guess the logic is supposed to be that "Aching Beauty Copy #1" has an
> effect, and "Aching Beauty Copy #2" has an effect, but they are not "the
> same" effect because they are from different instances of cards in play
> and each has its own special card text. By contrast (well, supposedly
> by contrast), "Lazverinus's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play
> and "Mateusz's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play, but their
> effect is to result in a "strike: hands for 3 damage", which is the same
> across any vampire who can strike hands for 3 damage. (But apparently
Right. The effect is "strike: hands for 3".
> not the same as "playing a Fists of Death to gain the ability to say
Well, Fists of Death is not a strike. It is an effect itself (a card that
requires potence, for example).
> "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2
> strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from
> Fists of Death's +2 strength.)
They aren't different. They're all +2 strength. Fist of Death also happens
to be a card that requires potence. See also Ozmo's +1 strength (which
won't preclude Mask) vs. inferior Threats (which, when played, will prevent
a vampire without Dominate from Masking).
LSJ
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
>> I guess the logic is supposed to be that "Aching Beauty Copy #1" has an
>> effect, and "Aching Beauty Copy #2" has an effect, but they are not "the
>> same" effect because they are from different instances of cards in play
>> and each has its own special card text. By contrast (well, supposedly
>> by contrast), "Lazverinus's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play
>> and "Mateusz's +2 strength" is an effect of a card in play, but their
>> effect is to result in a "strike: hands for 3 damage", which is the same
>> across any vampire who can strike hands for 3 damage. (But apparently
>
>
> Right. The effect is "strike: hands for 3".
>
>> not the same as "playing a Fists of Death to gain the ability to say
>
>
> Well, Fists of Death is not a strike. It is an effect itself (a card that
> requires potence, for example).
>
>> "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's +2
>> strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from
>> Fists of Death's +2 strength.)
>
>
> They aren't different. They're all +2 strength. Fist of Death also happens
> to be a card that requires potence. See also Ozmo's +1 strength (which
+1 bleed, I meant. :-)
LSJ
> Does the mitigating effect of [Mateusz] at long range change his to "I strike:
> hands strike for 2" or does the reduction occur during resolution?
The former.
LSJ
>>-1 intercept, then the action cannot be Masked by a vampire of
>>capacity four or less, but only by a vampire of capacity 5 or above
>>(with mel, of course). Matching the Redirection ruling.
>>(Redirection offers a poor parallel, of course, since it is a
>>one-time effect, not an on-going one like the others you bring
>>up above).
>
> Sure. The one-time/on-going difference seems not to matter too much,
> though.
>
> It sounds like you're saying, then, that the "use" of the Missing Voice
> only becomes "locked in" when a younger vampire actually receives -1
> intercept because of trying to block the action - it is not a one-time
> effect applied to the action like "from now on, allies and vampires with
> capacity 5 or below get -1 intercept trying to block this action"?
No. When you play Missing Voice, it is used (at one of three effects).
Those three effects are ongoing.
When you apply -1 intercept to a minion (another ongoing effect applied
from the MV ongoing effect), that is used as well. That's why I note that
it is a bit different than an instantaneous effect.
> So if a 6-cap plays Missing Voice at [mel] "just to cycle" when a block
> attempt has not yet been declared, it is still legal for a 4-cap to Mask
> to take over the action? But if the 6-cap plays Missing Voice when a
Yes, if he has [mel], since he could've play the MV effect.
> 4-cap attempts to block, and that causes the block to fail, *then* an
> effect has been "used" that a 4-cap would-be Mask-playing-vampire would
> not have been able to use?
Correct, since the -1 intercept application could not have been done
if the 4-cap were the acting vampire.
>>There is no "Toreador" level on Aire. It has only a [pre] and a [PRE]
>>level. See above.
>
> Sure. Consider a hypothetical action modifier: "[pre]: +1 bleed, +2
> bleed if the acting vampire's capacity is above 6." If a 7-cap plays
> that card, can any vampire with the right discipline Mask in, as with
> Aire of Elation, and the Masking vampire simply loses the bleed bonus if
> its capacity is below 7?
If the acting vampire's capacity were reduced during the action, would
the bleed amount be reduced?
> Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed if
> *this* vampire's capacity is above 6"? Would the use of "this" vampire
> mean that the vampire *did* play an effect giving the action +2 bleed,
> so no other vampire can Mask it unless it also could have played that
> action modifier for +2 bleed?
Probably not.
> Pasting in from the other subthread:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com...
>
>>da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote:
>>
>>>for me, the only ruling that i do not understand is this one: why is
>>>Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz
>
> Gryzbowsky,
>
>>>but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same
>
> pool-loss
>
>>>effect of another Aching Beauty?
>>
>>Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz
>>and Mat are capable of doing.
>
>
> Sorry to keep beating this topic to death, and to jump back and forth
> from email to newsgroup, but since I still haven't reached enlightenment
> I can't help it. :-)
>
> If Torn Signpost is played at superior, any vampire who can play Torn
> Signpost at superior can Mask to take over the action. Is that hand
> strike for 3 also "the same" as Lazverinus's hand strike for 3? So Laz
Yes.
> could Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? But not
> vice versa? (At least, so far, it sounds like a vampire's ability to
If Laz had played TS, he'd be striking for 5.
If TS hadn't been played, the dingus vampire couldn't have struck for 3.
> play an effect to gain strength of 3 does not make him or her eligible
> to Mask to take over from Laz - the vampire has to have "always on"
> strength of 3 to have that ability).
Right. Just like a vampire's ability to play Bonding doesn't make him
eligible to Mask an action modified by Fata Morgana.
> Presumably Seal of Veddartha's "bleed for 2" is the same as Sheila
> Mezarin's "bleed for 2" as well, yes?
No. Actions have always been distinct by "granted by card in play".
> And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage
> each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each
> combat"?
Sure.
> But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs,
> that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so Mask
> would be prohibited in that case?
Sure.
> If so, I may be approaching understanding of your thoughts here. But
> then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could lay
> out to make it more clear...?
Just the ones already laid.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > Sure. Consider a hypothetical action modifier: "[pre]: +1 bleed, +2
> > bleed if the acting vampire's capacity is above 6." If a 7-cap
plays
> > that card, can any vampire with the right discipline Mask in, as
with
> > Aire of Elation, and the Masking vampire simply loses the bleed
bonus if
> > its capacity is below 7?
>
> If the acting vampire's capacity were reduced during the action, would
> the bleed amount be reduced?
I would say yes, as this hypothetical card was written to closely
parallel Aire of Elation.
> > Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed
if
> > *this* vampire's capacity is above 6"? Would the use of "this"
vampire
> > mean that the vampire *did* play an effect giving the action +2
bleed,
> > so no other vampire can Mask it unless it also could have played
that
> > action modifier for +2 bleed?
>
> Probably not.
Probably it can't be Masked, you mean, or probably my statement is
wrong? Hopefully the former, although it's true that there may not be
any existing cards written like this. :-)
> > If Torn Signpost is played at superior, any vampire who can play
Torn
> > Signpost at superior can Mask to take over the action. Is that hand
> > strike for 3 also "the same" as Lazverinus's hand strike for 3? So
Laz
>
> Yes.
So Laz can indeed Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn
Signpost? If I am approaching understanding, this is because Laz both
can strike for 3 just like the Torn Signpost-playing vamp *and* Laz
could have played the Torn Signpost. If the vampires in question were
Sargon and Koko, and Koko played inferior Torn Signpost, that would
prohibit Sargon from Masking, I think, since while Sargon could strike
hands for 2, he could *not* have played the Torn Signpost. Is that
right?
> > could Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn Signpost? But
not
> > vice versa? (At least, so far, it sounds like a vampire's ability
to
>
> If Laz had played TS, he'd be striking for 5.
> If TS hadn't been played, the dingus vampire couldn't have struck for
3.
>
> > play an effect to gain strength of 3 does not make him or her
eligible
> > to Mask to take over from Laz - the vampire has to have "always on"
> > strength of 3 to have that ability).
>
> Right. Just like a vampire's ability to play Bonding doesn't make him
> eligible to Mask an action modified by Fata Morgana.
>
> > Presumably Seal of Veddartha's "bleed for 2" is the same as Sheila
> > Mezarin's "bleed for 2" as well, yes?
>
> No. Actions have always been distinct by "granted by card in play".
But Sheila Mezarin is also a card in play. I'm not sure that "I declare
a bleed, currently for 2 because of Sheila Mezarin's special ability"
should be treated differently from "I declare a bleed, currently for 2
with the Seal of Veddartha ability". This may make sense, though, if my
interpretations below are correct - basically, I'm thinking that you're
thinking that "declare a bleed" is an effect, but using the +1 bleed on
Sheila is not an effect until the bleed resolves (ie the effect is not
"declare a bleed for 2" with Sheila, it is "declare a bleed with no
card, which will be for 2 later"). With Seal, the effect is "declare a
bleed with Seal of Veddartha's bonus"; even though it's a cardless bleed
it's still using a "special effect".
A sort of related question (sorry if this has been answered before and I
missed it): If Jason the World's Voice uses his "burn 1 blood for +1
bleed" ability, can the bleed still be Masked away from him? I would
think not, since that effect can't be played by any other vampire (even
if that vampire also has a "burn 1 blood for +1 bleed" special) - even
though the +1 bleed won't matter until the bleed resolves, using it was
an effect and no other vampire could have used that effect. Is that
right?
> > And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage
> > each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each
> > combat"?
>
> Sure.
>
> > But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs,
> > that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so
Mask
> > would be prohibited in that case?
>
> Sure.
It seems to me like this, logically, should be the same as the Aabbt
Kindred/Omaya situation. Omaya and Aabbt Kindred are also cards in
play; their "prevent 1 damage" abilities should be distinct just as Flak
Jacket #1's "prevent 1 damage" ability is distinct from Flak Jacket #2's
ability.
At least, that's what I think would make sense of the Torn Signpost/+2
strength examples: with those, it seems that the principle is that the
making of a strike for 3 hand damage is an effect that restricts
Maskability, but the playing of Torn Signpost is *also* an effect that
restricts Maskability. If you can do the first without the second, you
have only used one effect (and all "strike hands for 3" strikes are the
same), but if you need the second to accomplish the "strike hands for
3", you have an additional restriction on the Maskability.
I can understand this idea from the position that "all strikes of hands
for 3 are the same" just like "all cardless bleed actions are the same".
But even if all "prevent 1 damage" effects are the same, it seems to me
like using one *specific* prevent 1 damage effect should "lock in" the
use of *that card's* effect (just like Aching Beauty) rather than
counting as a "generic" prevent 1 damage effect.
(I apologize for having phrased the questions in the Omaya and Flak
Jacket examples before as if I thought I knew what the answers were; I
think I was thinking at the time that "vampire abilities" always match
while library-card-in-play abilities don't, but that idea wouldn't make
sense given other rulings, I think.)
> > If so, I may be approaching understanding of your thoughts here.
But
> > then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could
lay
> > out to make it more clear...?
>
> Just the ones already laid.
:-) I meant to ask if you could enumerate the axioms in one place. If
you've used axioms so far to build a model for how Mask-restrictions
work (ie what is an effect, and what effects are the same as each
other), I don't think you've done it explicitly.
Josh
mask of a thousand (and one) questions
Halcyan 2
>>> Lazverinus' "+2 strength" the same "+2 strength" as Mateusz Gryzbowsky,
>>> but the pool-loss effect of an Aching Beauty is not the same pool-loss
>>> effect of another Aching Beauty?
>>
>>Because the effect is "I strike: hands strike for 3", which both Laz
>>and Mat are capable of doing.
>
>
>if the effect is "you lose one pool to attempt to block", it seems like
>two vampires with Aching Beauties would both be capable of generating this
>effect...
Then again, two vampires with identical rush abilities aren't able to Mask over
the action. And one Archon can't Mask over the rush action started by another
Archon. Etc.
Halcyan 2
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "strike: hands for 3 damage"", though I can't tell you why Mateusz's
+2
> > strength is the same as Lazverinus's +2 strength but different from
> > Fists of Death's +2 strength.)
>
> They aren't different. They're all +2 strength. Fist of Death also
happens
> to be a card that requires potence. See also Ozmo's +1 strength (which
> won't preclude Mask) vs. inferior Threats (which, when played, will
prevent
> a vampire without Dominate from Masking).
This makes sense to me now, more or less. But what still doesn't make
sense to me is why a vampire with +1 stealth - even if it's an inherent
ability - isn't "using" that ability as soon as he or she declares an
action. The action is declared as "action X, at +1 stealth because of
vampire Y's ability". How is that not the use of an effect from a card
in play just as much as the use of, say, Seal of Veddartha to declare a
bleed at +1 bleed? Stealth, unlike +bleed, is not used only when the
action resolves. It is used at every instant that the action is going
on. At least, so it seems to me.
Josh
ninja vanish!
LSJ
> This makes sense to me now, more or less. But what still doesn't make
> sense to me is why a vampire with +1 stealth - even if it's an inherent
> ability - isn't "using" that ability as soon as he or she declares an
> action. The action is declared as "action X, at +1 stealth because of
> vampire Y's ability". How is that not the use of an effect from a card
> in play just as much as the use of, say, Seal of Veddartha to declare a
> bleed at +1 bleed? Stealth, unlike +bleed, is not used only when the
> action resolves. It is used at every instant that the action is going
> on. At least, so it seems to me.
Time for a reversal of that long-standing ruling, maybe?
I'll add it to the RT list.
LSJ
>>If the acting vampire's capacity were reduced during the action, would
>>the bleed amount be reduced?
>
> I would say yes, as this hypothetical card was written to closely
> parallel Aire of Elation.
Then there you go - it's Maskable.
>>>Does the answer change, then, if the wording is "+1 bleed, +2 bleed
>>Probably not.
>
> Probably it can't be Masked, you mean, or probably my statement is
> wrong? Hopefully the former, although it's true that there may not be
> any existing cards written like this. :-)
Probably the answer doesn't change, I meant.
> So Laz can indeed Mask to take over for a vampire who played Torn
> Signpost? If I am approaching understanding, this is because Laz both
Yes.
> can strike for 3 just like the Torn Signpost-playing vamp *and* Laz
> could have played the Torn Signpost. If the vampires in question were
> Sargon and Koko, and Koko played inferior Torn Signpost, that would
> prohibit Sargon from Masking, I think, since while Sargon could strike
> hands for 2, he could *not* have played the Torn Signpost. Is that
> right?
Yes.
>>No. Actions have always been distinct by "granted by card in play".
>
> But Sheila Mezarin is also a card in play. I'm not sure that "I declare
Sheila doesn't offer an action ability. She has +1 bleed.
> a bleed, currently for 2 because of Sheila Mezarin's special ability"
> should be treated differently from "I declare a bleed, currently for 2
> with the Seal of Veddartha ability". This may make sense, though, if my
It is. You don't "(declare a bleed of 2) because of Sheila", you
"declare a bleed (of two because of +1 bleed)".
The Seal gives an action option.
> interpretations below are correct - basically, I'm thinking that you're
> thinking that "declare a bleed" is an effect, but using the +1 bleed on
> Sheila is not an effect until the bleed resolves (ie the effect is not
> "declare a bleed for 2" with Sheila, it is "declare a bleed with no
> card, which will be for 2 later"). With Seal, the effect is "declare a
> bleed with Seal of Veddartha's bonus"; even though it's a cardless bleed
> it's still using a "special effect".
It's not a "cardless bleed". It's a bleed action allowed by a card in play.
> A sort of related question (sorry if this has been answered before and I
> missed it): If Jason the World's Voice uses his "burn 1 blood for +1
> bleed" ability, can the bleed still be Masked away from him? I would
> think not, since that effect can't be played by any other vampire (even
> if that vampire also has a "burn 1 blood for +1 bleed" special) - even
> though the +1 bleed won't matter until the bleed resolves, using it was
> an effect and no other vampire could have used that effect. Is that
> right?
Yes.
>>>And Omaya's "prevent 1 damage
>>>each combat" is the same as Aabbt Kindred's "prevent 1 damage each
>>>combat"?
>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>
>>>But if Anvil uses a Flak Jacket during an action he performs,
>>>that is not the same as the Flak Jacket that Miranda Sanova has, so
>
> Mask
>
>>>would be prohibited in that case?
>>
>>Sure.
>
>
> It seems to me like this, logically, should be the same as the Aabbt
> Kindred/Omaya situation. Omaya and Aabbt Kindred are also cards in
> play; their "prevent 1 damage" abilities should be distinct just as Flak
> Jacket #1's "prevent 1 damage" ability is distinct from Flak Jacket #2's
> ability.
You've got a point. Fortunately, it'll never come up :-)
There is no default prevention thing that Flak/Omaya are invoking, so
it's all just card-based (non-maskable) effects. (Reversal of above).
>>>then again, maybe not. I don't suppose there are axioms you could
> lay
>>>out to make it more clear...?
>>
>>Just the ones already laid.
>
> :-) I meant to ask if you could enumerate the axioms in one place. If
> you've used axioms so far to build a model for how Mask-restrictions
> work (ie what is an effect, and what effects are the same as each
> other), I don't think you've done it explicitly.
I haven't been collecting them, no.
The extreme corner-case aspect of power-up combat + S:CE and continue +
Mask lands compiling such a list pretty far off the back of the stove.
:-)
If anyone cares to sift through my ramblings on this thread, though,
feel free to email me the distilled version for archival. :-)
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
[re Seal of Veddartha vs Sheila Mezarin]
> > With Seal, the effect is "declare a
> > bleed with Seal of Veddartha's bonus"; even though it's a cardless
bleed
> > it's still using a "special effect".
>
> It's not a "cardless bleed". It's a bleed action allowed by a card in
play.
OK, sensible.
If Donatien attempts to bleed your prey using his "As a (D) action,
Donatien may bleed any Methuselah who has attempted an unsuccessful
bleeding action since your last minion phase" ability, is it un-Maskable
because he declared it using his special ability? Or Maskable because
any other vampire could have taken a default bleed action against your
prey, and it would be "the same action"? I think the former, but I'm
not 100% sure.
Not that there's any real reason to use the ability to bleed your prey,
of course...
[re Flak Jacket prevention vs Omaya/Aabbt Kindred prevention]
> You've got a point. Fortunately, it'll never come up :-)
> There is no default prevention thing that Flak/Omaya are invoking, so
> it's all just card-based (non-maskable) effects. (Reversal of above).
Well yeah, these are kind of unlikely to ever matter. But I think
clarity is increasing for me, so I'm happy. :-)
> I haven't been collecting them, no.
> The extreme corner-case aspect of power-up combat + S:CE and continue
+
> Mask lands compiling such a list pretty far off the back of the stove.
> :-)
Heh, reasonable...
> If anyone cares to sift through my ramblings on this thread, though,
> feel free to email me the distilled version for archival. :-)
I may write up a FAQ answer for what does and doesn't alter
Maskability...
Josh
faq of a thousand faces
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > This makes sense to me now, more or less. But what still doesn't
make
> > sense to me is why a vampire with +1 stealth - even if it's an
inherent
> > ability - isn't "using" that ability as soon as he or she declares
an
> > action. The action is declared as "action X, at +1 stealth because
of
> > vampire Y's ability". How is that not the use of an effect from a
card
> > in play just as much as the use of, say, Seal of Veddartha to
declare a
> > bleed at +1 bleed? Stealth, unlike +bleed, is not used only when
the
> > action resolves. It is used at every instant that the action is
going
> > on. At least, so it seems to me.
>
> Time for a reversal of that long-standing ruling, maybe?
> I'll add it to the RT list.
I am satisfied. :-)
Josh
well, i'll be more satisfied if it does get reversed, heh
LSJ
> play.
>
> OK, sensible.
>
> If Donatien attempts to bleed your prey using his "As a (D) action,
> Donatien may bleed any Methuselah who has attempted an unsuccessful
> bleeding action since your last minion phase" ability, is it un-Maskable
> because he declared it using his special ability? Or Maskable because
> any other vampire could have taken a default bleed action against your
> prey, and it would be "the same action"? I think the former, but I'm
> not 100% sure.
Correct.