[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Mask of 1k faces question (easy one, this).

BeAst

7/2/2010 9:47:00 AM

relevant texts and rulings:

Mask of a Thousand Faces
Action Modifier

obf:
Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion
who is capable of performing the action. Not usable if any action
modifiers or other effects have been used that could not have been
used if this vampire were the acting vampire. Untap the acting minion
and tap this vampire instead. The action continues with this vampire
as the acting minion.
OBF:
As above, with +1 stealth.

Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers, reactions,
or other effects (including inherent stealth) have been played on this
action that could not have been played/used if the Masking vampire
were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been
spent.) [RTR 19980623] [RTR 20030519] [RTR 20041202]

Blind Spot
Master.
Choose a vampire you control and an ally or younger vampire controlled
by your prey. While the first chosen vampire is acting this turn, the
other chosen minion cannot block or play reaction cards.

---------------------------------

Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
predator, also with 1 vamp.

In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...

*interrupt*

I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
could have declared a block attempt against.
4 Answers

BeAst

7/2/2010 9:57:00 AM

0

On Jul 2, 10:46 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> relevant texts and rulings:
>
> Mask of a Thousand Faces
> Action Modifier
>
> obf:
>  Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion
> who is capable of performing the action. Not usable if any action
> modifiers or other effects have been used that could not have been
> used if this vampire were the acting vampire. Untap the acting minion
> and tap this vampire instead. The action continues with this vampire
> as the acting minion.
> OBF:
>  As above, with +1 stealth.
>
> Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
> capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers, reactions,
> or other effects (including inherent stealth) have been played on this
> action that could not have been played/used if the Masking vampire
> were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been
> spent.) [RTR 19980623] [RTR 20030519] [RTR 20041202]
>
> Blind Spot
> Master.
> Choose a vampire you control and an ally or younger vampire controlled
> by your prey. While the first chosen vampire is acting this turn, the
> other chosen minion cannot block or play reaction cards.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
> predator, also with 1 vamp.
>
> In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
> of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
> block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
> undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
> vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...
>
> *interrupt*
>
> I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
> B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
> B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
> could have declared a block attempt against.

If the order of acting had been changed (so A's non- Blind Spotted
vamp started the undirected action) and B's vamp had declared a block
attempt, if A's Blind Spotted vamp then played Mask of 1k faces to
take over the action, would B's block attempt simply fizzle?

floppyzedolfin

7/2/2010 11:42:00 AM

0

On Jul 2, 11:46 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
> predator, also with 1 vamp.
>
> In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
> of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
> block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
> undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
> vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...
>
> *interrupt*
>
> I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
> B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
> B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
> could have declared a block attempt against.

So A plays Blind Spot, and chooses B's vampire and, say, vampire A1
she controls.
A1 declares an action. Since B can't block, she declines any block
attempt. C can now attempt to block, which she does - there's no
restriction to block for C's minions.
A2 can play Mask - if all the requirements of Mask are met. The fact
that B declined the block doesn't matter - unless something the Mask
coulnd't carry was used to have B cancel a block attempt.

See also Mask of a Thousand Faces + Toreador Grand Ball.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bf113e...

floppyzedolfin

7/2/2010 11:43:00 AM

0

On Jul 2, 11:56 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:46 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
> > capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers, reactions,
> > or other effects (including inherent stealth) have been played on this
> > action that could not have been played/used if the Masking vampire
> > were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been
> > spent.) [RTR 19980623] [RTR 20030519] [RTR 20041202]
>
> > Blind Spot
> > Master.
> > Choose a vampire you control and an ally or younger vampire controlled
> > by your prey. While the first chosen vampire is acting this turn, the
> > other chosen minion cannot block or play reaction cards.
>
> > ---------------------------------
>
> > Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
> > predator, also with 1 vamp.
>
> > In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
> > of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
> > block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
> > undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
> > vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...
>
> > *interrupt*
>
> > I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
> > B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
> > B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
> > could have declared a block attempt against.
>
> If the order of acting had been changed (so A's non- Blind Spotted
> vamp started the undirected action) and B's vamp had declared a block
> attempt, if A's Blind Spotted vamp then played Mask of 1k faces to
> take over the action, would B's block attempt simply fizzle?


I suppose it'd fail immediately (not sure block attempts can "fizzle").

LSJ

7/2/2010 11:56:00 AM

0

On Jul 2, 7:43 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:56 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 10:46 am, BeAst <john.b...@zeninternet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not
> > > capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers, reactions,
> > > or other effects (including inherent stealth) have been played on this
> > > action that could not have been played/used if the Masking vampire
> > > were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been
> > > spent.) [RTR 19980623] [RTR 20030519] [RTR 20041202]
>
> > > Blind Spot
> > > Master.
> > > Choose a vampire you control and an ally or younger vampire controlled
> > > by your prey. While the first chosen vampire is acting this turn, the
> > > other chosen minion cannot block or play reaction cards.
>
> > > ---------------------------------
>
> > > Meth A has 2 vampires, Meth B is his prey with 1 vamp, Meth C is A's
> > > predator, also with 1 vamp.
>
> > > In A's master phase they select one of their vampires for the effects
> > > of Blind Spot, choosing B's only vamp. B's vamp now cannot declare a
> > > block attempt, nor play reaction cards. A's first vampire takes an
> > > undirected action. C declares their vamp attempts to block. A's second
> > > vamp plays mask of 1k faces to take over the action...
>
> > > *interrupt*
>
> > > I believe this is not legal, since the "effect" of Blind Spot to deny
> > > B's vamp a block is not applicable to the second of A's vampires, and
> > > B (in effect) has been denied a block window against a vampire they
> > > could have declared a block attempt against.
>
> > If the order of acting had been changed (so A's non- Blind Spotted
> > vamp started the undirected action) and B's vamp had declared a block
> > attempt, if A's Blind Spotted vamp then played Mask of 1k faces to
> > take over the action, would B's block attempt simply fizzle?
>
> I suppose it'd fail immediately (not sure block attempts can "fizzle").

No. In this case, an effect has been applied ("B's vamp attempts to
block") that could not have been applied had A's Blind-Spotted vampire
been acting, so A's Blind-Spotted vampire cannot play Mask.