Due to the non-telecentricity of the EUV illumination, the EUV mask flatness budget dictates the use of an electrostatic chuck in the exposure tool. Since the mask backside flattening provided by the electrostatic chuck in the exposure tool is very different from the 3-point mounts currently employed to hold reticles in pattern generation and registration measurement tools, this raises the question of which mounting techniques to apply in future patterning and registration tools. In case drastic changes need to be made to the tool configurations, it is important to know, and as early as possible, whether backside chucking of reticles, via an electrostatic or vacuum chuck, is absolutely required or if a 3-point mounting scheme can suffice in these tools. Using finite element simulations, the effects on EUV mask image placement of stressed layers and their patterning, as well as substrate and chuck non-flatness were predicted for these different conditions. The results can be used to calculate image placement error budgets and determine what substrate and blank specifications are needed for the implementation of EUV at the 32-nm node.