Satyr and Leathery Hide [LSJ]

Specifically: Can the Shadow Court Satyr, when recruited, have a Leathery Hide put on it and be able to use it once per combat? There was a question because of the bold text at the top of the card: A vampire may play only one Leathery Hide each round. In General: Please clarify the interaction of SCS and the below cards: Abandoning the Flesh Ashes to Ashes (thn) Burst of Sunlight Pack Alpha Torn Signpost If the combat card placed on SCS mentions..."this vampire...", can or cannot the SCS use the ability?

tigernat1 wrote: > Specifically: > Can the Shadow Court Satyr, when recruited, have a Leathery Hide put on > it and be able to use it once per combat? No. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/653be04385763ad2 > There was a question because of the bold text at the top of the card: A > vampire may play only one Leathery Hide each round. > > In General: > Please clarify the interaction of SCS and the below cards: > > Abandoning the Flesh Play. > Ashes to Ashes (thn) Play, prevents damage, but still burns. > Burst of Sunlight Play. Takes self-inflicted agg. Burns life to handle the agg, like any ally would. > Pack Alpha Play. > Torn Signpost Play, but gains no benefit. The "no benefit" part is under review. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/03936c6504510308 > If the combat card placed on SCS mentions..."this vampire...", can or > cannot the SCS use the ability? Can. He plays cards he plays as a vampire as a vampire.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, at 5:10am, LSJ wrote: > tigernat1 wrote: > > Specifically: > > Can the Shadow Court Satyr, when recruited, have a Leathery Hide put > > on it and be able to use it once per combat? > > No. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/653be04385763ad2 Sorry to reopen an old topic, but the reasoning behind this ruling is unclear. (Let me state for the record that I don't wish that Shadow Court Satyr worked one way or the other. I just feel that rulings should follow from card text, and that the current ruling does not seem to.) Card text of Shadow Court Satyr, as of July 2006, according to <http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Cardlist_S>: > When Shadow Court Satyr comes into play, you may put a combat card from > your hand on him. Once each combat, Satyr may use the ability of that > card as if that card had been played from your hand. If the card has a > cost, he pays its cost in life to use its ability. If the card requires > a Discipline, he may only use the basic ability of that card as a > vampire with a capacity of 1. If the ability would give him blood, give > him life instead. The key distinction is the difference between "play a card" and "use the ability of a card as if that card had been played." "HAD BEEN played" is the operative turn of phrase; by the time a combat card has been played, it's requirements to be played are no longer relevant to using its ability. Thus, it seems that the "requires a discipline" part of the card text is not actually conferring the option to use the ability of a card which requires a discipline -- that's already granted -- but rather it is restricting this use to the basic ability of the card. LSJ wrote on Wed, Apr 9 2003 7:06 am, in the message he just cited, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/653be04385763ad2> > AL wrote: > > he gets [the combat card on him] but cannot play it because he is not > > a [member of the appropriate clan.] > Google: "satyr mirror author:LSJ" Again, Shadow Court Satyr is not playing the card, but using the ability as if it had been played. The suggested Google search leads back to what appears to be the original ruling: LSJ wrote on Tues, Mar 27 2001 6:33 am, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e0247d355af19e0b> > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Jean-Francois Caron wrote: > > > I think it would not work: Reality mirror can only be played *by* a > > > Malkavian antitribu vampire... > > To play in combat, that's true. By the card text of Shadow Court > > Satyr, you may place any combat card on top of him as you put him into > > play. If you had to observe the same requirements for this act as you > > did to play that combat card for him in combat normally, it would be > > impossible to place any cards requiring a discipline on him, either - > > since his card text does not allow him to do that. (However, the combo > > doesn't work well for another reason, apparently...) > > And it doesn't work for that reason, as well. You can put the > clan-requiring combat card on him, but he cannot use the ability, since > card text doesn't allow for that. It seems like Frederick and LSJ are talking past eachother here. Frederick makes the point that Satyr can hold a card, regardless of whether he could play it; for example, Satyr can hold a card which requires a discipline, even though he could never play such a card. LSJ then restates this in a way that changes the meaning, saying that Satyr can hold a clan-requiring card but is unable to use its ability. Again, I think there is an important difference between "unable to play" and "unable to use the ability of." This distinction is not without precedent. For example, Anson is unable to play a Femur of Toomler, but thanks to Heidelburg Castle, he is able to use its ability. Furthermore, LSJ's assertion that "he cannot use the ability since card text doesn't allow for that" seems not to be correct. There is card text allowing the use of the ability: "Once each combat, Satyr may use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from your hand." Depending on the wording of the ability, this may not be useful. For instance, Raking Talons operates on "this Gargoyle," which would do nothing for the Satyr. In light of all this, I'm left wondering why Shadow Court Satyr can't benefit from a Leathery Hide. One can assert that Satyr does not meet the requirements to play the card, but that is moot, because he is not trying to play the card. On the contrary, by card text, he is using the ability of the card as if it had been played, and once it has been played, its requirements to be played would not be relevant.

davey <da...@pobox.com> wrote: > ....LSJ....seems not to be correct. Moot. Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston (I'm back from Brazil, did you miss me? :) )

davey wrote: > > [Shadow Court Satyr cannot use a card that requires a clan] > Sorry to reopen an old topic, but the reasoning behind this ruling is > unclear. The reason: the ability that has a requirement for use cannot be used by someone who doesn't meet the requirement. > (Let me state for the record that I don't wish that Shadow Court > Satyr worked one way or the other. I just feel that rulings should follow > from card text, and that the current ruling does not seem to.) > > Card text of Shadow Court Satyr, as of July 2006, according to > <http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Cardlist_S>: > > > When Shadow Court Satyr comes into play, you may put a combat card from > > your hand on him. Once each combat, Satyr may use the ability of that > > card as if that card had been played from your hand. If the card has a > > cost, he pays its cost in life to use its ability. If the card requires > > a Discipline, he may only use the basic ability of that card as a > > vampire with a capacity of 1. If the ability would give him blood, give > > him life instead. Card text extends to him the ability to meet a basic Discipline requirement of a card. It doesn't extend to him the ability to meet a clan requirement, sect requirement, title requirement, Anarch requirement, Black Hand requirement, &c. > The key distinction is the difference between "play a card" and "use the > ability of a card as if that card had been played." "HAD BEEN played" is > the operative turn of phrase; by the time a combat card has been played, > it's requirements to be played are no longer relevant to using its > ability. Not relevant to SCS -- the card on the SCS is never "played". The ability of the card may be used as if the card had been played from your hand. Now, question: how could the SCS use the ability of a clan-requiring card like Leathery Hide played from your hand? Answer: he couldn't, since he doesn't meet the requirements. > Thus, it seems that the "requires a discipline" part of the card text is > not actually conferring the option to use the ability of a card which > requires a discipline -- that's already granted -- but rather it is > restricting this use to the basic ability of the card. But no, it is indeed conferring the option to use that ability. > LSJ wrote on Wed, Apr 9 2003 7:06 am, in the message he just cited, > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/653be04385763ad2> > > > AL wrote: > > > > he gets [the combat card on him] but cannot play it because he is not > > > a [member of the appropriate clan.] > > > Google: "satyr mirror author:LSJ" > > Again, Shadow Court Satyr is not playing the card, but using the ability > as if it had been played. Which equates to: no effect (that is, he would get no effect from it played from your hand, so that's the effect he gets when looking for the effect he would get as if it were played from your hand). > The suggested Google search leads back to what appears to be the original > ruling: > > LSJ wrote on Tues, Mar 27 2001 6:33 am, > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e0247d355af19e0b> > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > Jean-Francois Caron wrote: > > > > > I think it would not work: Reality mirror can only be played *by* a > > > > Malkavian antitribu vampire... > > > > To play in combat, that's true. By the card text of Shadow Court > > > Satyr, you may place any combat card on top of him as you put him into > > > play. If you had to observe the same requirements for this act as you > > > did to play that combat card for him in combat normally, it would be > > > impossible to place any cards requiring a discipline on him, either - > > > since his card text does not allow him to do that. (However, the combo > > > doesn't work well for another reason, apparently...) > > > > And it doesn't work for that reason, as well. You can put the > > clan-requiring combat card on him, but he cannot use the ability, since > > card text doesn't allow for that. > > It seems like Frederick and LSJ are talking past eachother here. Frederick > makes the point that Satyr can hold a card, regardless of whether he could > play it; for example, Satyr can hold a card which requires a discipline, > even though he could never play such a card. > > LSJ then restates this in a way that changes the meaning, saying that > Satyr can hold a clan-requiring card but is unable to use its ability. This isn't "talking past each other", this is "conversing" -- the exchange of ideas. At least on my part; I assume as much for Fred's part in that thread. Fred offered a reason that it might work one way; I responded as to why it doesn't. > Again, I think there is an important difference between "unable to play" > and "unable to use the ability of." This distinction is not without > precedent. For example, Anson is unable to play a Femur of Toomler, but > thanks to Heidelburg Castle, he is able to use its ability. He isn't using the Femur's "as played" effect "as if he had played it from your hand" however, so the parallel fails. > Furthermore, LSJ's assertion that "he cannot use the ability since card > text doesn't allow for that" seems not to be correct. There is card text > allowing the use of the ability: > > "Once each combat, Satyr may use the ability of that card as if that card > had been played from your hand." It is correct. The text you quote is followed. He uses that ability as he would if the card had been played from your hand. The effect he would get when playing the card from your hand is nothing (failing to meet the requirements), so that is the effect he gets when using the ability as if it were played from your hand. > Depending on the wording of the ability, this may not be useful. For > instance, Raking Talons operates on "this Gargoyle," which would do > nothing for the Satyr. > > In light of all this, I'm left wondering why Shadow Court Satyr can't > benefit from a Leathery Hide. One can assert that Satyr does not meet the > requirements to play the card, but that is moot, because he is not trying > to play the card. On the contrary, by card text, he is using the ability > of the card as if it had been played, and once it has been played, its > requirements to be played would not be relevant. It is not moot, since one has to determine what effect he would get had the card been played from your hand, and the requirements of the card factors into that.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, at 11:31am, LSJ wrote: > davey wrote: > > > [Shadow Court Satyr cannot use a card that requires a clan] > > Sorry to reopen an old topic, but the reasoning behind this ruling is > > unclear. > > The reason: the ability that has a requirement for use cannot be used by > someone who doesn't meet the requirement. (Thanks for responding.) How is the requirement of using the ability of Leathery Hide anything other than "playing the card?" If you're asserting a clan-requirement to use the ability, based on the clan symbol, where does this follow from? The rulebook [1.6.3] only covers the clan symbol in terms of playing a card, not using its ability. (I'd be happy to know that it follows from something, I'd just like to know what and how.) > Not relevant to SCS -- the card on the SCS is never "played". The > ability of the card may be used as if the card had been played from your > hand. > > Now, question: how could the SCS use the ability of a clan-requiring > card like Leathery Hide played from your hand? Answer: he couldn't, > since he doesn't meet the requirements. Which requirements? Do you mean the requirements to play the card? In which case, why does it matter that he can't play the card, when we're permitted to use the ability as if he did play it? > > Again, Shadow Court Satyr is not playing the card, but using the ability > > as if it had been played. > > Which equates to: no effect (that is, he would get no effect from it > played from your hand, so that's the effect he gets when looking for > the effect he would get as if it were played from your hand). (There's a difference between "cannot use" and "can use but to no effect." For instance, if the or ability ability had a cost, SCS would pay it in the latter case. Your orignal post said "cannot use" but now you are saying "can use to no effect." Please clarify.) Usually the effect of playing a card from hand is whatever's printed on the card. Why would the effect of playing Leathery Hide from hand ever be "no effect?" > > Thus, it seems that the "requires a discipline" part of the card text > > is not actually conferring the option to use the ability of a card > > which requires a discipline -- that's already granted -- but rather it > > is restricting this use to the basic ability of the card. > > But no, it is indeed conferring the option to use that ability. Fine, I retract the above assertion. The rulebook [1.5.4] describes the requirements to play a discipline-requiring card separately [though same section] from the discipline-level-dependant effect(s) of playing a discipline-requiring card. It makes sense that SCS would have text to address this. However, the main point is still the difference between "playing a card" and "using the ability of a card" -- in particular, the difference between "requirements to play a card," which is presented in the rulebook [1.6.3], and "requirements to use the ability of a card played," which does not seem to be presented anywhere as far as clan requirements go. > He isn't using the Femur's "as played" effect "as if he had played it > from your hand" however, so the parallel fails. Fair enough. > > Furthermore, LSJ's assertion that "he cannot use the ability since card > > text doesn't allow for that" seems not to be correct. There is card text > > allowing the use of the ability: > > > > "Once each combat, Satyr may use the ability of that card as if that card > > had been played from your hand." > > It is correct. The text you quote is followed. Your original post ends after what I quoted, so I assume you mean the card text here. I don't mean to quote out of context. However, the remaining card text does not seem relevant to your clarification below, or to the topic of clan-requiring cards. For example, a sentence which starts "If the card requires a Discipline" does not seem relevant to a card (Leathery Hide) which does not require a discipline. > He uses that ability as he would if the card had been played from your > hand. The effect he would get when playing the card from your hand is > nothing (failing to meet the requirements), so that is the effect he > gets when using the ability as if it were played from your hand. (Again, using an ability to no effect is different from being unable to use the ability.) > It is not moot, since one has to determine what effect he would get had > the card been played from your hand, and the requirements of the card > factors into that. Again, which requirements? Are you saying that once a card is already played, its effects can still depend on the clan requirements to play it somehow? In particular, if a minion somehow plays a combat card he cannot play, there is no effect?

davey wrote: > > Not relevant to SCS -- the card on the SCS is never "played". The > > ability of the card may be used as if the card had been played from your > > hand. > > > > Now, question: how could the SCS use the ability of a clan-requiring > > card like Leathery Hide played from your hand? Answer: he couldn't, > > since he doesn't meet the requirements. > > Which requirements? > > Do you mean the requirements to play the card? In which case, why does it > matter that he can't play the card, when we're permitted to use the > ability as if he did play it? Because 'does he meet the requirements to play the card' is checked not only when a card is played, but when a card's effect is resolved - and sometimes, those two timing windows are different (see below for an example) - or in this case, only one ever gets checked. But it still does get checked at resolution, even though the card isn't ever initially played. > > > Again, Shadow Court Satyr is not playing the card, but using the ability > > > as if it had been played. > > > > Which equates to: no effect (that is, he would get no effect from it > > played from your hand, so that's the effect he gets when looking for > > the effect he would get as if it were played from your hand). > > (There's a difference between "cannot use" and "can use but to no effect." > For instance, if the or ability ability had a cost, SCS would pay it in > the latter case. Your orignal post said "cannot use" but now you are > saying "can use to no effect." Please clarify.) > > Usually the effect of playing a card from hand is whatever's printed on > the card. Why would the effect of playing Leathery Hide from hand ever be > "no effect?" In the specific case of Leathery Hide being played, you would (currently) be correct; it'd never be 'no effect'. On the other hand, no minion that is not (or does not count as) a Gangrel Antitribu can ever play the card, either. This is however moot, as the SCS never actually plays the card, merely tries to use the effect following the rules as if the effect were being generated by the card being played at that moment from his hand (instead of read from in play). Most cards resolve as soon as they are played, with no chance for the changing of whether or not requirements are met before that effect resolves. However, 'most' is not 'all', and requirements _can_ change for a broad category of cards (action cards, mainly). And for _any_ effect resulting from playing a card from your hand, if you cannot meet the requirements at card resolution, the effect fails. When a card is played for an effect, 'do I meet the requirements' is checked for both at the initial declaration and at resolution. SCS never has the initial 'declare as you play it step', because there's never a play, but it still has to pass the 'does it meet the requirements when the effect resolves' part, and since it's not a !Gangrel, it fizzles the effect into nothingness. (There are also a few combat cards that have a lag time between play and the resolution of their effect; that distinction is at the core of the rules team reviewing cards like Torn Signpost and 'allies play like vampires' - currently, they count as a vampire when the card is played, but when the effect is actually checked they no longer 'are a vampire' so the extra strength is lost.) > > > Thus, it seems that the "requires a discipline" part of the card text > > > is not actually conferring the option to use the ability of a card > > > which requires a discipline -- that's already granted -- but rather it > > > is restricting this use to the basic ability of the card. > > > > But no, it is indeed conferring the option to use that ability. > > Fine, I retract the above assertion. The rulebook [1.5.4] describes the > requirements to play a discipline-requiring card separately [though same > section] from the discipline-level-dependant effect(s) of playing a > discipline-requiring card. It makes sense that SCS would have text to > address this. > > However, the main point is still the difference between "playing a card" > and "using the ability of a card" -- in particular, the difference between > "requirements to play a card," which is presented in the rulebook [1.6.3], > and "requirements to use the ability of a card played," which does not > seem to be presented anywhere as far as clan requirements go. That's correct; there's a difference between 'playing a card' and 'using the ability of a card', when referring to a _card already in play_. However, SCS specifically says _not_ to treat the card as a card in play (as you would if the SCS had no text beyond 'you can use the effect', but to treat it as if it is being played from your hand when you use the card's effect - so it reverts to the rules under 1.6.3, instead of being treated like it were a permanent card-in-play like a piece of equipment or location (for instance.) > Your original post ends after what I quoted, so I assume you mean the card > text here. I don't mean to quote out of context. However, the remaining > card text does not seem relevant to your clarification below, or to the > topic of clan-requiring cards. For example, a sentence which starts "If > the card requires a Discipline" does not seem relevant to a card (Leathery > Hide) which does not require a discipline. That's correct. However, nothing on SCS's text allows him to get around the other possible requirements of the card (cost, clan, sect, title, anarch, etc) - he is given an exemption specifically and only for disciplines, and has text explaining how to resolve cost. > > It is not moot, since one has to determine what effect he would get had > > the card been played from your hand, and the requirements of the card > > factors into that. > > Again, which requirements? Are you saying that once a card is already > played, its effects can still depend on the clan requirements to play it > somehow? In particular, if a minion somehow plays a combat card he cannot > play, there is no effect? Yep, that's exactly what he's saying. Consider this: I play an action card that costs 2 blood. Before the action resolves (for instance, when stealth and intercept are being played), I spend all my vampire's blood. The card has been played and at that time I could meet the requirements; however I no longer meet the requirements when it resolves (can't pay for it, in this case), so it has no effect at resolution as a result Other cards work the same way; it's just that actions are (most of the few) cases where the resolution of a card played isn't instantaneously as you play it. So following this parallel, the SCS tries to use the effect of Leathery Hide 'as if it had been played'; checks to see if he still meets the requirements when the effect of playing (or as if playing) resolves (just like when you play every other card in the game), fails to meet them and the card effect 'fizzles' and does nothing. -John Flournoy

On Wed, 25 Jul 2006, at 10:53pm, John Flournoy wrote: > Most cards resolve as soon as they are played, with no chance for the > changing of whether or not requirements are met before that effect > resolves. However, 'most' is not 'all', and requirements _can_ change > for a broad category of cards (action cards, mainly). > > And for _any_ effect resulting from playing a card from your hand, if > you cannot meet the requirements at card resolution, the effect fails. Thanks, this explanation is helpful. I'm familiar with this kind of issue when it comes to action cards, but I thought they were the exception. It's hard to find information about "requirements" that presents them as more than "requirements to play."