If Mata Hari has a capacity of 10, can she effectively Call the Great Beast?

Say you skill up Mata Hari to be a 10 cap and then play Call the Great Beast --- Does the card text trigger as the action succeeds? Does the Great Beast come into play? Is Mata Hari burned as a Baali?

<david.cor...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1132707180.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Say you skill up Mata Hari to be a 10 cap and then play Call the Great > Beast --- > > Does the card text trigger as the action succeeds? Not if Mata Hari is only a 10-cap, no. The card text requires *more than* 10 counters to trigger. Make her an 11-cap and it will trigger immediately. > Does the Great Beast come into play? Sure, why not. > Is Mata Hari burned as a Baali? She plays the card "as a Baali", therefore she burns as a Baali, yes. You expecting her to excape her fate somehow because it's all a lie? Fred

david.cor...@gmail.com wrote: > Say you skill up Mata Hari to be a 10 cap and then play Call the Great > Beast --- Let's assume you mean "to be an 11 cap"... > Does the card text trigger as the action succeeds? I would imagine, while she is playing the card, the following happens: 1. This card is placed on her (the acting Baali). 2. Eleven ritual counters are placed on it. Then, while the card is in play: 1. If Mata is a Baali, she may place a counter on it a +1 stealth action. 2. If this card has more than 10 counters, Mata is burned if she is a Baali and you choose three disciplines etc. Since it reads "and", both things happen, like when using Temptation on an untapped vampire. Neither is required for the other to happen, so when you have 11 counters, you should not burn her unless she is a Baali, and you should get a Great Beast. > Does the Great Beast come into play? I would say it does, yes. > Is Mata Hari burned as a Baali? Only if she is a Baali. Cool trick, man, hope LSJ confirms. -- Brian

Fred Scott wrote: > <david.cor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1132707180.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>Say you skill up Mata Hari to be a 10 cap and then play Call the Great >>Beast --- >> >>Does the card text trigger as the action succeeds? > > Not if Mata Hari is only a 10-cap, no. The card text requires *more > than* 10 counters to trigger. Make her an 11-cap and it will trigger > immediately. > >>Does the Great Beast come into play? > > Sure, why not. > >>Is Mata Hari burned as a Baali? > > She plays the card "as a Baali", therefore she burns as a Baali, yes. Correct. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > Cool trick, man, hope LSJ confirms. He didn´t. Anyway, any combo requiring playing 4 skill cards on a vampire isn´t exactly what I would call "cool trick" :-/ -- johannes walch

> >>Does the Great Beast come into play? > > > > Sure, why not. > > > >>Is Mata Hari burned as a Baali? > > > > She plays the card "as a Baali", therefore she burns as a Baali, yes. > > Correct. Since the card "Call the Great Beast" has text that puts it in play, and that text is on the card before the "burn this card when it has more than 10 counters" text, doesn't that mean that CtGB is put into play before the "burn this Baali" effect would happen? Given the above is true, wouldn't that mean that the "burn this Baali" effect is generated from a card already in play? Given the above and the previous ruling that Mata Hari only *plays* a card as if she meets the clan/sect requirement, and no continuing effects of a card in play see her as whatever clan she played it as, wouldn't this mean that Mata Hari is not seen by CtGB as a Baali once it's in play, and therefore would not burn ("burn this Baali")? A little confused, -- Brian

In message <1132816039....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, firstco...@aol.com writes: >Since the card "Call the Great Beast" has text that puts it in play, >and that text is on the card before the "burn this card when it has >more than 10 counters" text, doesn't that mean that CtGB is put into >play before the "burn this Baali" effect would happen? It does, but it's put there as part of action resolution and so - for the purposes of the card - she's still a Baali at that point. The card text then notices it has 11 counters, during action resolution. Consider: Waters of Duat is put into play by Mata Hari. There are definitions of what the vampire is, later on the card: not unique, must hunt this turn and same sect as the acting Follower of Set. Mata Hari would trigger as the acting Follower of Set. Hence, we can see that even after a card is put in play, it can trigger during the action. Call the Great Beast appears to do this too: Call the Great Beast is put in play with counters. There is a condition about what the counters do. It's triggered. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: >>>>Does the Great Beast come into play? >>> >>>Sure, why not. >>> >>> >>>>Is Mata Hari burned as a Baali? >>> >>>She plays the card "as a Baali", therefore she burns as a Baali, yes. >> >>Correct. > > > Since the card "Call the Great Beast" has text that puts it in play, > and that text is on the card before the "burn this card when it has > more than 10 counters" text, doesn't that mean that CtGB is put into > play before the "burn this Baali" effect would happen? Perhaps. > Given the above is true, wouldn't that mean that the "burn this Baali" > effect is generated from a card already in play? That doesn't necessarily follow, no. In the case of an 11-cap, the action to put the CtGB card in play is also the action that puts 11 counters on the card and burns the Baali. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Since the card "Call the Great Beast" has text that puts it in play, > > and that text is on the card before the "burn this card when it has > > more than 10 counters" text, doesn't that mean that CtGB is put into > > play before the "burn this Baali" effect would happen? > > Perhaps. > > > Given the above is true, wouldn't that mean that the "burn this Baali" > > effect is generated from a card already in play? > > That doesn't necessarily follow, no. > > In the case of an 11-cap, the action to put the CtGB card in play > is also the action that puts 11 counters on the card and burns the > Baali. First, I want to make sure that I'm correct when I say that counters can only be on a card while it is in play. Assuming that's correct, which seems safe to assume, then the card must already be in play to have counters, and must have counters to be burned, and therefore must be in play to be burned. If you're suggesting that CtGB's text has two functions: 1) while you're playing this card, if there are 11 counters, burn this Baali, and 2) while this card is in play, if there are 11 counters, burn this Baali, then how many other cards' texts can be applied once while being played and once while in play? The only other card I can think of right now which has text which could be read to have effect while being played OR while in play, is repulsion. From a previous thread, on Repulsion: "Repulsion OBE puts a card into play. The card, being in play, grants additional stealth." That is, you don't play Repulsion to get stealth: You play repulsion. Then, when it's in play, you have stealth. If its text applies while being played AND when in play, then you would have 1 stealth from playing it--much as CtGB's text applies while being played--and 1 stealth from it being in play. Does this seem relevant? More after you post, I suppose. I'll wait for you to correct/agree/clarify and then go from there. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: >>>Since the card "Call the Great Beast" has text that puts it in play, >>>and that text is on the card before the "burn this card when it has >>>more than 10 counters" text, doesn't that mean that CtGB is put into >>>play before the "burn this Baali" effect would happen? >> >>Perhaps. >> >>>Given the above is true, wouldn't that mean that the "burn this Baali" >>>effect is generated from a card already in play? >> >>That doesn't necessarily follow, no. >> >>In the case of an 11-cap, the action to put the CtGB card in play >>is also the action that puts 11 counters on the card and burns the >>Baali. > > First, I want to make sure that I'm correct when I say that counters > can only be on a card while it is in play. Sure. > Assuming that's correct, which seems safe to assume, then the card must > already be in play to have counters, and must have counters to be > burned, and therefore must be in play to be burned. Sure. > If you're suggesting that CtGB's text has two functions: > 1) while you're playing this card, if there are 11 counters, burn this > Baali, and > 2) while this card is in play, if there are 11 counters, burn this > Baali, > > then how many other cards' texts can be applied once while being played > and once while in play? The only other card I can think of right now > which has text which could be read to have effect while being played OR > while in play, is repulsion. From a previous thread, on Repulsion: > > "Repulsion OBE puts a card into play. The card, being in play, grants > additional stealth." > That is, you don't play Repulsion to get stealth: You play repulsion. > Then, when it's in play, you have stealth. Correct. > If its text applies while being played AND when in play, then you would > have 1 stealth from playing it--much as CtGB's text applies while being > played--and 1 stealth from it being in play. Does this seem relevant? Sure. But they're ruled differently. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > First, I want to make sure that I'm correct when I say that counters > > can only be on a card while it is in play. > > Sure. > > > Assuming that's correct, which seems safe to assume, then the card must > > already be in play to have counters, and must have counters to be > > burned, and therefore must be in play to be burned. > > Sure. By the above, we have established that CtGB must be in play. If CtGB is in play, and the effect to burn the Baali comes from CtGB, then the "burn this Baali" effect is an effect from a card in play. If "burn this Baali" is an effect from a card in play, and Mata Hari's ability does not consider her to be a Baali for effects from cards in play, then Mata Hari is not burned from this effect. How could it be understood to be otherwise--are you saying that the effect to burn the Baali also comes from the resolution of the action? Or are you saying something else? -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: >>>First, I want to make sure that I'm correct when I say that counters >>>can only be on a card while it is in play. >> >>Sure. >> >> >>>Assuming that's correct, which seems safe to assume, then the card must >>>already be in play to have counters, and must have counters to be >>>burned, and therefore must be in play to be burned. >> >>Sure. > > By the above, we have established that CtGB must be in play. Sure. > If CtGB is in play, and the effect to burn the Baali comes from CtGB, > then the "burn this Baali" effect is an effect from a card in play. That logic would mean that adding 11 counter is an effect from the card in play. It is not. It is from the card being played. It could easily have been ruled to be from the card in play. That ambiguity is what is resolved by the current ruling. Just because the play of a card also puts that card in play doesn't mean that every effect generated by the play is to be considered to have come from the card in play instead. See Create Gargoyle, for example. If Mata Hari plays it as a Tremere, then the Gargoyle (a card in play) is a Tremere Slave, not a Ravnos Slave. The enslavement is set by the play of the card, not by the card in play. > If "burn this Baali" is an effect from a card in play, and Mata Hari's > ability does not consider her to be a Baali for effects from cards in > play, then Mata Hari is not burned from this effect. True, but the "if" premise is not true. The "burn this Baali" comes from the play of the card when it is played by an 11-cap vampire. > How could it be understood to be otherwise--are you saying that the > effect to burn the Baali also comes from the resolution of the action? Yes, if the acting vampire's capacity is 11. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > That logic would mean that adding 11 counter is an effect from the card > in play. It is not. It is from the card being played. It could easily > have been ruled to be from the card in play. That ambiguity is what > is resolved by the current ruling. > > Just because the play of a card also puts that card in play doesn't > mean that every effect generated by the play is to be considered to > have come from the card in play instead. > Hmm, this ruling makes Rötschreck peculiar when countered by Psyche!, or Telepathic Tracking. You're saying that the effects from Call the Great Beast are not ordered, or at least that the order is NOT: Put this card on the minion and add counters -> Give this minion an ability -> Control the number of counters and invoke effect. I read the text as when the action has fully resolved the card is placed on the minion and counters are added to the card. After resolution the minion with the card has an ability and it's time to check the number of counters in order to eventually invoke an effect. Compare: Rötschreck: Put this card on the minion -> End combat -> Invoke effect -> Add primary persistent effect -> Add secondary persistent effect. In the latter card there's a ruling that allows for an insertion in the chain of effect. Chain is broken after "End combat", ie, there's a distinct order of events. For me this is a matter of timing, the way that a cap 2 inf for vampire equipping with Drum of Xipe Totec is NOT allowed to Forced March the action because CEL is not gained until AFTER the action is resolved. On a side-note. I guess that Rötschreck actually stays on the receiving minion until the controller of Rötschreck is ousted, the controller of the minion is ousted or game ends. Not that it matters much apart from decks able to manipulate ashheaps. If I've misunderstood things completely, please reply with an exstended answer :) Sten During

Sten During wrote: > LSJ wrote: > >> >> That logic would mean that adding 11 counter is an effect from the card >> in play. It is not. It is from the card being played. It could easily >> have been ruled to be from the card in play. That ambiguity is what >> is resolved by the current ruling. >> >> Just because the play of a card also puts that card in play doesn't >> mean that every effect generated by the play is to be considered to >> have come from the card in play instead. >> > > Hmm, this ruling makes Rötschreck peculiar when countered by Psyche!, > or Telepathic Tracking. > > You're saying that the effects from Call the Great Beast are not > ordered, or at least that the order is NOT: Put this card on the minion > and add counters -> Give this minion an ability -> Control the number of > counters and invoke effect. No, I'm not saying that the order is not as above. I'm saying that the above is what happens when an 11-cap plays the card. > I read the text as when the action has fully resolved the card is placed > on the minion and counters are added to the card. After resolution the > minion with the card has an ability and it's time to check the number > of counters in order to eventually invoke an effect. > > Compare: Compare instead Corruption. After placing counters, a change-of-control effect is produced if the weight is right. This change of control is produced by the play of the Corruption card. > Rötschreck: Put this card on the minion -> End combat -> Invoke effect > -> Add primary persistent effect -> Add secondary persistent effect. > > In the latter card there's a ruling that allows for an insertion in the > chain of effect. Chain is broken after "End combat", ie, there's a > distinct order of events. Not entirely correct. There is no "primary"/"secondary" distinction. An effect which ends combat and does something else as part of its (singular) resolution can be disrupted as combat ends, since ending combat invariably produces an "as combat is ending" effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Compare instead Corruption. > After placing counters, a change-of-control effect is produced if the > weight is right. This change of control is produced by the play of > the Corruption card. Ok, got that, and got all data for the original purpose of this thread. > >> Rötschreck: Put this card on the minion -> End combat -> Invoke effect >> -> Add primary persistent effect -> Add secondary persistent effect. >> >> In the latter card there's a ruling that allows for an insertion in the >> chain of effect. Chain is broken after "End combat", ie, there's a >> distinct order of events. > > > Not entirely correct. > There is no "primary"/"secondary" distinction. > > An effect which ends combat and does something else as part of > its (singular) resolution can be disrupted as combat ends, since > ending combat invariably produces an "as combat is ending" effect. > Primary and secondary persistent effects are "doesn't untap as normal" and "burn this card". As per earlier rulings the untapping of cards goes before any other "during untap phase", so the doesn't untap as normal occurs before the burn clause. BTW, DOES the vampire keep the Rötschreck indefinitely if Pshyche! has been played? Sten During

Sten During wrote: > Primary and secondary persistent effects are "doesn't untap as > normal" and "burn this card". As per earlier rulings the untapping > of cards goes before any other "during untap phase", so the > doesn't untap as normal occurs before the burn clause. Actually, it's a negative -- the absence of activity, so it doesn't go in any order. If you have an effect that says you cannot gain pool for the Edge during your untap phase, do you order that effect before or after you gain pool for the Edge? No, it just is. It's "always on", preventing some other effect from being applied. > BTW, DOES the vampire keep the Rötschreck indefinitely if Pshyche! > has been played? No. The card in play makes a "burn me" effect (at the appropriate time). [ quoted text not captured ]