Forum der deutschen VTES-Community

Maö wrote:Ist das vielleicht super gemein wenn man dann nach einem Mask ein Kiss of Ra dem Gegner reinlatzt?

Mateusz wrote:Mal ne andere Frage. Minion A sagt eine Aktion an (z.B. equip) und es wird kein Block deklariert. Kann dann minion B noch Mask spielen und somit das euqipment bekommen ohne das jemand dann noch blocken kann/darf?

Von: LSJ <vtesrep@white-wolf.com>
An: vtes-rules@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [vtes-rules] Re: Mask + Marked Path
Datum: Wed, 09. May 2007 09:28:05 -0400

Darby Keeney wrote:
> Topics from last weekend's Colorado tournament.
>
> Confirmation requested for the legality of the following sequence.
>
> Minions A and B are both untapped, both with [PRE][OBF]
> I play Legal Manipulations at [PRE] with minion A.
> Opposing player attempts to block.
> I play True Love's Face at [PRE][OBF] with minion A.
> Opposing player burns 1 pool to cancel the card.
> I play Mask of 1000 Faces at [obf] to transfer the action to minion B
> with no stealth
> I play True Love's Face at [PRE][OBF] with minion B.
> Opposing player burns 1 pool to cancel the second True Love's Face.
> I play Lost in Crowds at [OBF] with minion B for +2 stealth.
> Opposing player generates 2 intercept (method is irrelevant).
> I play Mask of 1000 Faces at [OBF] to transfer the action to minion A
> with +1 stealth.
> Opposing player generates 1 more intercept.
> I play Lost in Crowds for +2 stealth.
> Opposing player does not generate more intercept.
> Block fails, no additional cards played by either player
> The bleed resolves for 3, minion A pays 1 blood, I gain 1 pool.
>
> Summary:
> Minion A played/paid for Legal Manipulations
> Both minions played Mask of 1000 Faces, True Love's Face and Lost in
> Crowds.
>
> Previous posts show this to be legal - and it remains legal, correct?

Correct.

> Then, we had additional discussions around my play of Marked Path.
>
> Marked Path
> Type: Action Modifier
> Requires: Obfuscate
> Only usable after a successful (D) action.
> [obf] Put this card on the acting vampire. If this vampire performs a
> (D) action against the same Methuselah or his or her minions, this
> vampire may burn this card to get +1 stealth.
> [OBF] As above, but this vampire may burn this card to get +2 stealth.
>
> Let's say I have Marked Path on both minions A and B, played at [obf]
> so they will generate only +1 stealth when burned. I also influence
> Aristotle (innate +1 stealth).
>
> Question 1.
> When I burn a Marked path, does the ACTION get +1 stealth, or does the
> MINION get +1 stealth?

Action.

> This is an important distinction:

Not in this case.

> If the MINION gets +1 stealth, then I cannot mask back to a minion
> that does not have innate +stealth that matches the Marked Path
> (making only Aristotle eligible to Mask into the action).
>
> If the ACTION gets +1 stealth, there is no restriction on and I could
> Mask back to minion A (and even burn another Marked Path if I needed
> additional stealth)

In either case, it doesn't matter, since you cannot play Mask after burning the
Marked Path (since doing so is an effect that could not have been applied if the
would-be Masker had been acting).

> Question 2.
> Currently, there is a restriction around Masking away from Aristotle
> if he is acting in this configuration, because minions A and B don't
> have his innate +1 stealth. If question 1 results in a MINION getting
> +stealth matching Aristotle's innate +stealth, one assumes that the
> restrictions around Masking back and forth are removed, as long as
> minion A/B are acting and burn the Marked Path for exactly +1 innate
> stealth before Aristotle Masks into the action. Correct (assuming
> MINIONS get stealth), or moot?

Moot.

> Question 3.
> In order to burn a Marked Path, I must be acting against the target on
> whom I originally acted sucessfully (in this case, my prey). After I
> burn the card, the +stealth applies regardless of any redirecting
> effect (e.g., deflection) played after burning the Marked Path,
> correct?

Correct.