1st Question
==========
Can Mata Hari play the folliwing cards during the same combat (Raking
Talons, Reality Mirror and Leathery Hide)? And if so, will each card
take effect (i.e., Mata Hari's hand damage will be aggravated)? Why?
Name: Raking Talons
[LoB:C]
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Gargoyle
Only usable before range is determined.
For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes
is aggravated. A vampire may play only one Raking Talons each combat.
Artist: David Day
Name: Reality Mirror
[SW:R]
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Malkavian antitribu
Choose a combat card in the opposing minion's controller's ash heap,
and use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from
your hand (pay cost as normal). If the card requires a Discipline this
vampire does not have, you can only use the basic ability of that card.
Only one Reality Mirror can be played during a game.
Artist: Drew Tucker
Name: Leathery Hide
[KMW:C/PG3]
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Gangrel antitribu
A vampire may play only one Leathery Hide each round.
Prevent four non-aggravated damage from the opposing minion's strike.
Artist: Richard Thomas
2nd Question
==========
Mata Hari plays Clandestine Contract on another vampire.
A turn later, Mata Hari plays Bum's Rush on that vampire.
Can Mata Hari play The Khabar: Honor as a strike (when in combat with
that vampire)? Why?
Name: Clandestine Contract
[FN:C2]
Cardtype: Action
Clan: Assamite
Cost: 1 pool
Contract. Requires an Assamite with a capacity above 4. +1 stealth
action.
(D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah
and put this card on that minion. This Assamite is chosen for this
contract. This Assamite may enter combat with the minion with this card
as a +1 stealth (D) action.
Artist: Drew Tucker
Name: The Khabar: Honor
[AH:V3, FN:PA2]
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Assamite
Only usable if this Assamite has been chosen for a contract on the
opposing minion.
Strike: {make a hand strike at} +3 damage.
Artist: Michael Astrachan
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1146254413....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> 1st Question
> ==========
(snip)
Damnans, I don't have the answers to your questions, and I'm curious to see
them, but I have to say this...
My friend, you're in serious need of some heavy mental therapy !! lolololol
And me who thought I had a twisted brain...
-------
Orpheus
1st Question
"This Gargoyle's hand strike" means that this must be a gargoyle that
must strike.
So mata hari can play the card but doesn't benefit from the aggravated
damage.
However, Reality mirror and Leathery hide can be used fully by Mata
Hari.
2nd Question
Mata Hari cannot benefit from the bonus of khabar; the honor, because
she's no longer the assamite chosen for the clandestine contract when
she plays the khabar.
Damnans wrote:
> 1st Question
> ==========
>
> Can Mata Hari play the folliwing cards during the same combat (Raking
> Talons, Reality Mirror and Leathery Hide)? And if so, will each card
> take effect (i.e., Mata Hari's hand damage will be aggravated)? Why?
IANLSJ, but
> Name: Raking Talons
> [LoB:C]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Gargoyle
> Only usable before range is determined.
> For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes
> is aggravated. A vampire may play only one Raking Talons each combat.
> Artist: David Day
Ongoing effects will see Mata Hari as a Ravnos, not what clan she is
impersonating to play the effect. See Keminitri and Closed Session in
this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/571e93365e932a10>
She can play the card, but it's ongoing effect will not see her as
"this Gargoyle".
> Name: Reality Mirror
> [SW:R]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Malkavian antitribu
> Choose a combat card in the opposing minion's controller's ash heap,
> and use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from
> your hand (pay cost as normal). If the card requires a Discipline this
> vampire does not have, you can only use the basic ability of that card.
> Only one Reality Mirror can be played during a game.
> Artist: Drew Tucker
She plays Reality Mirror just fine, as long as it hasn't already been
played this game. She plays it as if she were a !Malk, chooses the card
to imitate, and imitates the chosen card all as part of the resolution
of Reality Mirror.
> Name: Leathery Hide
> [KMW:C/PG3]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Gangrel antitribu
> A vampire may play only one Leathery Hide each round.
> Prevent four non-aggravated damage from the opposing minion's strike.
> Artist: Richard Thomas
Leathery Hide works fine. She prevents four (non-agg) damage as part of
the resolution of the card.
>
> 2nd Question
> ==========
>
> Mata Hari plays Clandestine Contract on another vampire.
> A turn later, Mata Hari plays Bum's Rush on that vampire.
> Can Mata Hari play The Khabar: Honor as a strike (when in combat with
> that vampire)? Why?
>
> Name: Clandestine Contract
> [FN:C2]
> Cardtype: Action
> Clan: Assamite
> Cost: 1 pool
> Contract. Requires an Assamite with a capacity above 4. +1 stealth
> action.
> (D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah
> and put this card on that minion. This Assamite is chosen for this
> contract. This Assamite may enter combat with the minion with this card
> as a +1 stealth (D) action.
> Artist: Drew Tucker
Any effect which sees Mata Hari as an Assamite will also see her as the
Assamite chosen for this contract.
> Name: The Khabar: Honor
> [AH:V3, FN:PA2]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Assamite
> Only usable if this Assamite has been chosen for a contract on the
> opposing minion.
> Strike: {make a hand strike at} +3 damage.
> Artist: Michael Astrachan
Yes. The Khabar: Honor sees Mata Hari as an Assamite for it's play and
resolution (and therefore the chosen Assamite for the contract).
Witness1
-ItE
> Name: Raking Talons
> [LoB:C]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Gargoyle
> Only usable before range is determined.
> For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes
> is aggravated. A vampire may play only one Raking Talons each combat.
> Artist: David Day>Ongoing effects will see Mata Hari as a Ravnos, not what clan she is
>impersonating to play the effect. See Keminitri and Closed Session in
>this post:><http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/571e...>>She can play the card, but it's ongoing effect will not see her as
>"this Gargoyle".
That's bologna! (Spelling?) She should obviously play it as a gargoyle
and get agg hand damage. If leathery hide says that this gangrel anti
can prevent four damage, then Mata, playing as a !Gangrel, prevents
four. Mata, playing Raking as a gargoyle, gets agg hand damage.
>2nd Question
>==========>Mata Hari plays Clandestine Contract on another vampire.
>A turn later, Mata Hari plays Bum's Rush on that vampire.
>Can Mata Hari play The Khabar: Honor as a strike (when in combat with
>that vampire)? Why?>Name: Clandestine Contract
>[FN:C2]
>Cardtype: Action
>Clan: Assamite
>Cost: 1 pool
>Contract. Requires an Assamite with a capacity above 4. +1 stealth
>action.
>(D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah
>and put this card on that minion. This Assamite is chosen for this
>contract. This Assamite may enter combat with the minion with this card
>as a +1 stealth (D) action.
>Artist: Drew Tucker>Name: The Khabar: Honor
>[AH:V3, FN:PA2]
>Cardtype: Combat
>Clan: Assamite
>Only usable if this Assamite has been chosen for a contract on the
>opposing minion.
>Strike: {make a hand strike at} +3 damage.
>Artist: Michael Astrachan
I know that Mata can't use the Clandestine to enter combat after the
initial action (without a Clan impersonation), but the Khabar question
is very interesting...
Obelisk wrote:
> That's bologna! (Spelling?) She should obviously play it as a gargoyle
> and get agg hand damage. If leathery hide says that this gangrel anti
> can prevent four damage, then Mata, playing as a !Gangrel, prevents
> four. Mata, playing Raking as a gargoyle, gets agg hand damage.
That isn't how her ability works. She counts as clan X when she plays
the card, but not later on for the card. When she plays Raking Talons
at the begining of the round, she counts as a Gargoyle, so she can play
it. By the time she gets to strike resolution, the card no longer sees
her as a Gargoyle, so no aggro damage. On the other hand, when she
plays Leathery Hide, no time passes between playing the card and using
the card. She prevents the damage as she plays the Leathery Hide, so no
confusion. But Raking Talons works differently. So it works
differently.
-Peter
In message <1146258792....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Obelisk <nozle...@hotmail.com> writes:
>That's bologna! (Spelling?) She should obviously play it as a gargoyle
>and get agg hand damage. If leathery hide says that this gangrel anti
>can prevent four damage, then Mata, playing as a !Gangrel, prevents
>four. Mata, playing Raking as a gargoyle, gets agg hand damage.
The difference is that Leathery Hide plays and resolves instantly.
Raking Talons sets up a lingering effect for "this Gargoyle". Mata
Hari's ability only allows her to *play* cards as if she was a Gargoyle,
it doesn't allow her to pretend to be a Gargoyle for the duration of a
lingering effect.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On 28 Apr 2006 14:00:59 -0700, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> IANLSJ, but
IANLSJE, but I agree with most of the answers. Except:
>> 2nd Question
>> ==========
>>
>> Mata Hari plays Clandestine Contract on another vampire.
>> A turn later, Mata Hari plays Bum's Rush on that vampire.
>> Can Mata Hari play The Khabar: Honor as a strike (when in combat with
>> that vampire)? Why?>> Any effect which sees Mata Hari as an Assamite will also see her as the
> Assamite chosen for this contract.
>> [...]>
> Yes. The Khabar: Honor sees Mata Hari as an Assamite for it's play and
> resolution (and therefore the chosen Assamite for the contract).
This part. I'm not entirely sure this is how it works. I mean, Khabar:
Honor has two requirements: being an Assamite and being chosen for a
contract against the opposing minion. Mata's text allows her to play cards
that require Assamite, and if she plays Honor, it will see her as the
Assamite chosen for the contract, but I'm not sure she can play it to
begin with, not being an Assamite chosen for the contract (a requrement of
the card) before the card is actually being played.
Or maybe I've just seen too many Star Trek episodes with time paradox in
them? ;)
Anyway, it certainly makes sense to rule (or clarify) it so that she can
use Honor, however I could see why the opposite could be the case.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Damnans wrote:
> Can Mata Hari play the folliwing cards during the same combat (Raking
> Talons, Reality Mirror and Leathery Hide)? And if so, will each card
> take effect (i.e., Mata Hari's hand damage will be aggravated)? Why?
Yes. Yes (although the "i.e.," doesn't follow, see below)
> Name: Raking Talons
> [LoB:C]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Gargoyle
> Only usable before range is determined.
> For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes
> is aggravated. A vampire may play only one Raking Talons each combat.
She can play this. And the for the remainder of combat "this Gargoyle"
has agg hand strikes. Since Mata is not a Gargoyle for the lingering
effect, she gets no benefit.
> Name: Reality Mirror
> [SW:R]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Malkavian antitribu
> Choose a combat card in the opposing minion's controller's ash heap,
> and use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from
> your hand (pay cost as normal). If the card requires a Discipline this
> vampire does not have, you can only use the basic ability of that card.
> Only one Reality Mirror can be played during a game.
She can play it and use it.
> Name: Leathery Hide
> [KMW:C/PG3]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Clan: Gangrel antitribu
> A vampire may play only one Leathery Hide each round.
> Prevent four non-aggravated damage from the opposing minion's strike.
> Artist: Richard Thomas
She can play it and use it.
> Mata Hari plays Clandestine Contract on another vampire.
> A turn later, Mata Hari plays Bum's Rush on that vampire.
> Can Mata Hari play The Khabar: Honor as a strike (when in combat with
> that vampire)? Why?
Yes. She meets the requirements.
Note that this comes from a new ruling, issued to answer this question
just now, as to the choosing being an activity accomplished (and
completed) by the resolution of the play of the Clandestine Contract
card.
As opposed to the alternate reading of choosing being some state of
"being the chosen one" bestowed upon the Assamite by the Clandestine
Contract being in play (which would then cease to see Mata as an
Assamite once it was in play, so would stop marking her as "chosen"
until she actually changed clans).
(The ruling parallels the way most of the other contracts work -- the
only one that works by continually broadcasting a chosen state is
Haqim's Law: Judgment, so that any new Assamites who come into play can
also join in).
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146488195....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Damnans wrote:>> Can Mata Hari play the folliwing cards during the same combat (Raking
>> Talons, Reality Mirror and Leathery Hide)? And if so, will each card
>> take effect (i.e., Mata Hari's hand damage will be aggravated)? Why?>
> Yes. Yes (although the "i.e.," doesn't follow, see below)
>>> Name: Raking Talons
>> [LoB:C]
>> Cardtype: Combat
>> Clan: Gargoyle
>> Only usable before range is determined.
>> For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes
>> is aggravated. A vampire may play only one Raking Talons each combat.>
> She can play this. And the for the remainder of combat "this Gargoyle"
> has agg hand strikes. Since Mata is not a Gargoyle for the lingering
> effect, she gets no benefit.
It doesn't seem to me like this jibes with the similar 'lingering effect' of
Daring the Dawn, Force of Will, etc, when played by allies "as a vampire
with Fortitude".
In this message:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/dbe90fa7da8bd90c
Daring the Dawn was ruled to apply damage to allies who had played it "as a
vampire". Its text is "Vampires cannot block this action. The acting
vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action
resolves." That seems pretty much the same (there is no "acting vampire"
after the action resolves) as Raking Talons vs Mata Hari to me (there is no
"this Gargoyle" when the strike resolves).
I had always thought of Raking Talons (and Bone Spur, etc) as having
immediate (on card resolution) effects on the playing vampires, rather than
lingering effects on the combat that would kick in and alter the playing
vampire's hand damage during each later strike resolution. That would mesh
with the concept of Daring the Dawn setting up its effect on the playing
vampire immediately when played, rather than being a "lingering effect" that
would no longer find its target at the end of the action - seems to me like
it would make more sense overall.
Josh
malingering gargoyle
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > She can play this. And the for the remainder of combat "this Gargoyle"
> > has agg hand strikes. Since Mata is not a Gargoyle for the lingering
> > effect, she gets no benefit.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like this jibes with the similar 'lingering effect' of
> Daring the Dawn, Force of Will, etc, when played by allies "as a vampire
> with Fortitude".
Daring the Dawn's damage is not a lingering effect. It comes from the
play of the card.
Similarly for Force of Will's damage.
See also the resolution of an action -- an effect of the action, even
though it is delayed until the action reaches resolution.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146498072....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right, that's what doesn't make sense to me - why would "For the remainder
of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes is aggravated" be a
"lingering effect" when "The acting
vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action
resolves" is not "lingering", but an effect "from the play of the card"?
Just as the resolution of an action is an effect of the action, although
delayed, it seems to me that the effect of Raking Talons is an effect of the
play of the combat card, although it is an effect that applies to the entire
duration of the combat.
Just as a Bima with a Potence card can play Fists of Death to have +1
strength for the remainder of combat, I would expect Mata Hari to be able to
play Raking Talons to have aggravated hand damage for the remainder of
combat. The card she's playing should treat her as a Gargoyle for all
aspects of its own resolution.
Josh
har de har hari
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Daring the Dawn's damage is not a lingering effect. It comes from the
> > play of the card.
> > Similarly for Force of Will's damage.
> >
> > See also the resolution of an action -- an effect of the action, even
> > though it is delayed until the action reaches resolution.
>
> Right, that's what doesn't make sense to me - why would "For the remainder
> of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes is aggravated" be a
> "lingering effect" when "The acting
> vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action
> resolves" is not "lingering", but an effect "from the play of the card"?
How can the application of damage be lingering? It happens once, not
continually.
> Just as the resolution of an action is an effect of the action, although
> delayed, it seems to me that the effect of Raking Talons is an effect of the
> play of the combat card, although it is an effect that applies to the entire
> duration of the combat.
That's what is refered to as a lingering effect.
And handled (for allies) in 1.6.3
Mata follows a parallel.
> Just as a Bima with a Potence card can play Fists of Death to have +1
> strength for the remainder of combat, I would expect Mata Hari to be able to
> play Raking Talons to have aggravated hand damage for the remainder of
> combat. The card she's playing should treat her as a Gargoyle for all
> aspects of its own resolution.
That's a new revelation -- Fists (and Torn Signpost) both set up
lingering effects that only apply to "this vampire" so, by 1.6.3.,
won't stick to an ally.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146504125....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:>> Right, that's what doesn't make sense to me - why would "For the
>> remainder
>> of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes is aggravated" be a
>> "lingering effect" when "The acting
>> vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action
>> resolves" is not "lingering", but an effect "from the play of the card"?>
> How can the application of damage be lingering? It happens once, not
> continually.
I was thinking of "lingering" as referring to position in time, but it seems
you mean it to refer only to duration over a period of time, rather than
placement. Since the damage is in the future, it "lingers" until it is
applied.
>> Just as a Bima with a Potence card can play Fists of Death to have +1
>> strength for the remainder of combat, I would expect Mata Hari to be able
>> to
>> play Raking Talons to have aggravated hand damage for the remainder of
>> combat. The card she's playing should treat her as a Gargoyle for all
>> aspects of its own resolution.>
> That's a new revelation -- Fists (and Torn Signpost) both set up
> lingering effects that only apply to "this vampire" so, by 1.6.3.,
> won't stick to an ally.
Actually a rather old revelation. It seems that the old revelation was
undone by the current 1.6.3 rulebook text, without my noticing.
-----------------
LSJ 03-May-2002:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/20c49dfa511b6a9e
"And Ghouled Street Thug could no longer play Torn Signpost, Increased
Strength, or Disarm?
(Replace "play" with "benefit from", depending on your "solution",
is needed.)"
-----------------
The difficulty I'm having now is that there doesn't seem to be any card-text
logic to follow as to what effects are "lingering" and what effects are
"instantaneous". There is another existing ruling that Drawing out the
Beast's effect is "instantaneous" and won't kick in later as a "lingering"
effect if you lose your immunity to it after the card was played.
-----------------
LSJ 10-Feb-2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8291216bbd5e3c21
"This is a REVERSAL of the ruling on Lucian stealing a Sire's Index Finger
to become immune to Terror Frenzy - LSJ 16-DEC-2003
The frenzy cards resolve when played. If the target is not immune, the
target gets frenzied and suffers the effect for the duration stated.
Acquiring the Finger in the middle of the frenzy will not snap one out
of it.
Similarly, if the target is immune because of the Finger, the target
doesn't frenzy. Losing the Finger before the frenzy effect would have
ended (had it been able to be applied in the first place) doesn't
cause the target to suddenly enter into frenzy partway through."
-----------------
Card text of Drawing out the Beast:
"Only usable before range is determined on the first round. {Frenzy.}
[ani] During this combat, opposing vampire gets +1 strength, but he or she
cannot use maneuvers to maneuver to long range, cannot use presses to end
combat and cannot use equipment. A vampire may play only 1 Drawing Out the
Beast each combat.
[ANI] As above, and the opposing vampire takes 1 damage during the press
step each round. This damage cannot be prevented."
"During this combat", in this case, is not a lingering effect, but "for the
remainder of combat", for Raking Talons or Torn Signpost or Fists of Death,
is? It's not clear to me why that would make sense.
Josh
outdrawn
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > How can the application of damage be lingering? It happens once, not
> > continually.
>
> I was thinking of "lingering" as referring to position in time, but it seems
> you mean it to refer only to duration over a period of time, rather than
> placement. Since the damage is in the future, it "lingers" until it is
> applied.
That would be "delayed", right.
Like strike resolution. Or action resolution.
> The difficulty I'm having now is that there doesn't seem to be any card-text
> logic to follow as to what effects are "lingering" and what effects are
> "instantaneous".
Right. Just regular English.
An effect that lasts for some non-instantaneous period is "lingering"
> There is another existing ruling that Drawing out the
> Beast's effect is "instantaneous" and won't kick in later as a "lingering"
> effect if you lose your immunity to it after the card was played.
Using the same terms to describe a different ruling, yes.
> "During this combat", in this case, is not a lingering effect, but "for the
> remainder of combat", for Raking Talons or Torn Signpost or Fists of Death,
> is? It's not clear to me why that would make sense.
They both are lingering. It's just a matter of application. Sorry for
overloading the terms.
So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
"lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
away.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146514249....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:>> There is another existing ruling that Drawing out the
>> Beast's effect is "instantaneous" and won't kick in later as a
>> "lingering"
>> effect if you lose your immunity to it after the card was played.>
> Using the same terms to describe a different ruling, yes.
>>> "During this combat", in this case, is not a lingering effect, but "for
>> the
>> remainder of combat", for Raking Talons or Torn Signpost or Fists of
>> Death,
>> is? It's not clear to me why that would make sense.>
> They both are lingering. It's just a matter of application. Sorry for
> overloading the terms.
Ah... well, thanks for the explanation, then. Though I'm not sure that the
current situation has become entirely clear to me, since it seems like
Drawing out the Beast ought to fit the regular-English definition of "an
effect that lasts for some non-instantaneous period", which implies that the
moving Sire's Index Finger actually should be able to turn DotB on and off.
The idea (as in that ruling) of DotB giving "a one time effect (that affects
the opposing minion for a given length)" seems identical to how Torn
Signpost reads: as a one-time effect (when the card is played) that affects
the playing minion for the duration of combat - the very definition of a
card with a lingering effect, as you describe it.
> So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
> "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
>
> If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
> away.
Well, getting rid of that limitation on effects of cards that allies play as
vampires would presumably make it possible for them to use the untap on
Rutor's Hand, the strength bonus from Torn Signpost, the aggravated damage
from Wolf Claws, etc. It would also seem to allow Mata Hari and related
vampires to benefit from or use things like Raking Talons, Call the Great
Beast, Enforcer, Overseer + No Secrets from the Magaji, the Kholo titles,
and so on. If allies are ever printed that can use superior discipline
effects, the list would get longer.
Whether these changes would be a problem for game balance is a question for
the rule team, I think. I don't think they would be a problem for clarity
of the rules, though.
Josh
out of it
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:1146514249....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
> > "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
> >
> > If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
> > away.
>
> Well, getting rid of that limitation on effects of cards that allies play as
> vampires would presumably make it possible for them to use the untap on
> Rutor's Hand, the strength bonus from Torn Signpost, the aggravated damage
> from Wolf Claws, etc. It would also seem to allow Mata Hari and related
> vampires to benefit from or use things like Raking Talons, Call the Great
> Beast, Enforcer, Overseer + No Secrets from the Magaji, the Kholo titles,
> and so on. If allies are ever printed that can use superior discipline
> effects, the list would get longer.
>
It seems that there would be less problem if the distinction was made
not on "lingering" or "instantaneous" effects, but on a card played and
a card in play. A Torn Signpost or Wolf Claws is really a one-shot
effect that lasts a certain amount of time. Whereas a Rutor's Hand or
something like that can be played as a vampire, but shouldn't be
useable as a vampire once it's in play.
Chris Berger wrote:
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:1146514249....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
> > > "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
> > >
> > > If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
> > > away.
Interesting that the intercept from, e.g., Second Tradition with
Keminitri, was (AFAIK) never considered a 'lingering' effect, even
though it lasts for the whole action.
> > Well, getting rid of that limitation on effects of cards that allies play as
> > vampires would presumably make it possible for them to use the untap on
> > Rutor's Hand, the strength bonus from Torn Signpost, the aggravated damage
> > from Wolf Claws, etc. It would also seem to allow Mata Hari and related
> > vampires to benefit from or use things like Raking Talons, Call the Great
> > Beast, Enforcer, Overseer + No Secrets from the Magaji, the Kholo titles,
> > and so on. If allies are ever printed that can use superior discipline
> > effects, the list would get longer.
> >
> It seems that there would be less problem if the distinction was made
> not on "lingering" or "instantaneous" effects, but on a card played and
> a card in play. A Torn Signpost or Wolf Claws is really a one-shot
> effect that lasts a certain amount of time. Whereas a Rutor's Hand or
> something like that can be played as a vampire, but shouldn't be
> useable as a vampire once it's in play.
Definitely. Perhaps we could start listing some of the more potent of
these effects here, to make the decision easier for those who need to
make it?
Closed Session (Keminitri) - especially under Fall of the Camarilla,
with Ventrue HQ, Feraille, and Minion Tap/Voter Cap - likely a 10-0
vote each turn, but there's significant setup, so maybe it's okay.
Mata Hari + Raking Talons: Free agg hands for Mata may be a bit potent,
especially combined with all the other things she can do. Then again, a
Vitae Slave and Ankara Citadel could let her play Wolf Claws for free
if she wanted to take more setup, so maybe it's no problem.
I'm running out of time here, so maybe someone else can continue. If
not, I'll keep going when I get a chance.
Witness1
-ItE
witness1 wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1146514249....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
> > > > "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
> > > >
> > > > If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
> > > > away.
>
> Interesting that the intercept from, e.g., Second Tradition with
> Keminitri, was (AFAIK) never considered a 'lingering' effect, even
> though it lasts for the whole action.
Never mind. Ignore the crack pipe behind the curtain. None of those
cards refer to "this vampire" anyway, do they?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thinking about this some more, probably the most interesting
implication is that a Herald of Topheth would be seen as a vampire by a
lingering charming lobby (that he played last turn) if he plays another
one this turn. Doesn't seem incredibly potent in that example, but
imagine 10 Presence Bimas, each of which is considered a vampire by one
of ten lingering charming lobby effects. Of course, a single political
action called crosstable ends all the pre-existing lobby effects, but
the potential for a dozen automatically passing political actions each
turn may be undesirable. Probably not a major problem, though.
Witness1
-ItE
> So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
> "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
>
> If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
> away.
Can you precisely define what the "lingering" exemption is, in text, in
this thread? You know so that my piddyly vote will be cast
post-enlightenment rather than just lashing out at the levers in the
voting booth because they are there and I have to press them all before
I can leave? :)
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
> Can you precisely define what the "lingering" exemption is, in text, in
> this thread? You know so that my piddyly vote will be cast
> post-enlightenment rather than just lashing out at the levers in the
> voting booth because they are there and I have to press them all before
> I can leave? :)
You know. . . this is how I imagine Enkidu voting.
Coincidence?
No way.
Ankur
Chris Berger wrote:
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct. I'm only interested in the "lingering" part right now.
While having in-play cards track the minion that put them into play
(and remember if an ally put them into play "as a vampire") may not be
unbalancing (I'm not saying it is or it isn't), that adds to the
bookkeeping required, with little gain.
The "lingering" bit, though, seems to be itself more trouble than it is
worth.
witness1 wrote:
> Interesting that the intercept from, e.g., Second Tradition with
> Keminitri, was (AFAIK) never considered a 'lingering' effect, even
> though it lasts for the whole action.
And the blood gained from Summon Soul lasts until it is later burned.
Those examples are instant effect (the gaining of something). That the
something gained is tracked by the rules doesn't make the gaining a
lingering effect.
Contrast Torn Signpost, where the effect itself is a lingering,
well-deliniated-by-effect-text effect.
> Closed Session (Keminitri)
This seems the worst of the lot that I can turn up. If it is, then the
bar seems to be low enough that having lingering effects track the
minion who played them OK.
Or if Kemintiri Closed Session is problematic, the rule could just be
that "lingering effects applied to the playing vampire" track. Closed
Session failing that test, of course. Any confusion generated by that
distinction?
> Mata Hari + Raking Talons:
This looks OK.
XZealot wrote:
> > So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
> > "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per 1.6.3)?
> >
> > If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
> > away.
>
> Can you precisely define what the "lingering" exemption is, in text, in
> this thread? You know so that my piddyly vote will be cast
> post-enlightenment rather than just lashing out at the levers in the
> voting booth because they are there and I have to press them all before
> I can leave? :)
1.6.3: "In particular, the ally is not treated as a vampire for effects
of the card once it's in play or for lingering effects generated by the
card."
[ quoted text not captured ]
Agreed. And the Charming Lobby/Bima problem doesn't really seem to be
that bad, first because any combo you could build off that you can
probably do with presence weenies already, and second because they
can't even chain off each other's CL effect, so you're really more
likely to let other methuselah's pass some votes. However, it does
cause some bookkeeping issues in remembering which Bimas have a CL
effect that remembers them as a vampire.
Of course, updating Charming Lobby's text to read 'the next referendum
called by any _political action_ thereafter passes automatically' would
eliminate the bookkeeping problem, but might make Bimas into the new
weenie presence.
Witness1
-ItE
[ quoted text not captured ]
IMHO bookeeping is more of a pain here than the power of the effect.
Most of the effects under discussion can be achieved in other ways
using other combos. The result of treating 'lingering effects' in a
different manner to 'instant effects' and more like 'permanent effects'
actually creates a new card type. This adds confusion as the card type
is not actually included on the card.
I would like to see effects that treat "A as a B" apply to any non
permanent. So Mata Hari can play Raking Talons and Kemintiri could play
Closed Session. This should mean you don't need to track lingering
effects as if its not a permanent the effect is allowed. The division
is then all about looking for 'put this card in play' text and should
be clear an non-ambiguous.
in relation to Charming Lobby
Witness wrote
>>Agreed. And the Charming Lobby/Bima problem doesn't really seem to be
>>that bad, first because any combo you could build off that you can
>>probably do with presence weenies already, and second because they
>>can't even chain off each other's CL effect, so you're really more
>>likely to let other methuselah's pass some votes. However, it does
>>cause some bookkeeping issues in remembering which Bimas have a CL
>>effect that remembers them as a vampire.>>Of course, updating Charming Lobby's text to read 'the next referendum
>>called by any _political action_ thereafter passes automatically' would
>>eliminate the bookkeeping problem, but might make Bimas into the new
>>weenie presence.
I would change the text to read..
'...put this card in play. Whilst this card is in play any referendum
called passes automatically. Burn this card when a referendum,
excluding the current action, is called or if another Charming Lobby is
put into play'.
This should mean you can't stack a bunch of these and have them hanging
about and causing bookeeping headaches and its a permanent while its in
play and abusing it becomes harder.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146571120.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Chris Berger wrote:>> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> > > So, RTR research time: is there any problem with doing away with the
>> > > "lingering" exemption on Allies playing cards as vampires (per
>> > > 1.6.3)?
>> > >
>> > > If so, speak up. If not, it might be time for that exemption to go
>> > > away.>> It seems that there would be less problem if the distinction was made>> not on "lingering" or "instantaneous" effects, but on a card played and
>> a card in play. A Torn Signpost or Wolf Claws is really a one-shot
>> effect that lasts a certain amount of time. Whereas a Rutor's Hand or
>> something like that can be played as a vampire, but shouldn't be
>> useable as a vampire once it's in play.>
> Correct. I'm only interested in the "lingering" part right now.
>
> While having in-play cards track the minion that put them into play
> (and remember if an ally put them into play "as a vampire") may not be
> unbalancing (I'm not saying it is or it isn't), that adds to the
> bookkeeping required, with little gain.
In principle, the same amount of bookkeeping already exists, doesn't it? As
far as I know, Talaq the Immortal can still put a Rutor's Hand on himself,
and it goes on him just fine because that's part of the resolution of the
action. But we currently have to remember that, although he played it "as a
vampire", he can't use it because the card doesn't think he's a vampire
while it's in play.
Sure, you could say that no one ever plays Rutor's Hand with Talaq *because*
it doesn't do anything. But if the ruling were reversed, the actual
game-play would be equally self-evident: it'd be perfectly easy to remember
that the Rutor's Hand on Talaq works, because there wouldn't be any (normal)
situation where a Rutor's Hand in play *didn't* work.
> The "lingering" bit, though, seems to be itself more trouble than it is
> worth.
I'm inclined to agree. Allowing "lingering" effects to apply to minions who
play cards "as if X" would make them behave more like all other minions who
can play those same cards do. That still requires bookkeeping, of course
(it's always been necessary to remember that Torn Signpost has been played
in a given combat, and at what level), but it would be the same bookkeeping
that we're already used to doing for minions who play those cards "the
normal way".
Josh
keeps too many books
jibbajibba wrote:
> IMHO bookeeping is more of a pain here than the power of the effect.
> Most of the effects under discussion can be achieved in other ways
> using other combos. The result of treating 'lingering effects' in a
> different manner to 'instant effects' and more like 'permanent effects'
> actually creates a new card type. This adds confusion as the card type
> is not actually included on the card.
No. It removes a distinction (a somewhat blurry distinction) between
effects provided by a card as it is played and a lingering effect
provided by the play of a card.
The current distinction between effects generated by the play of a card
(lingering or otherwise) and the effects generated by a card in play
will remain.
Nothing new is being added.
> I would like to see effects that treat "A as a B" apply to any non
> permanent. So Mata Hari can play Raking Talons and Kemintiri could play
> Closed Session. This should mean you don't need to track lingering
> effects as if its not a permanent the effect is allowed. The division
> is then all about looking for 'put this card in play' text and should
> be clear an non-ambiguous.
That's the current topic , yes: removing the existing "lingering" vs.
"as played" distinction.
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > While having in-play cards track the minion that put them into play
> > (and remember if an ally put them into play "as a vampire") may not be
> > unbalancing (I'm not saying it is or it isn't), that adds to the
> > bookkeeping required, with little gain.
>
> In principle, the same amount of bookkeeping already exists, doesn't it? As
> far as I know, Talaq the Immortal can still put a Rutor's Hand on himself,
> and it goes on him just fine because that's part of the resolution of the
> action. But we currently have to remember that, although he played it "as a
> vampire", he can't use it because the card doesn't think he's a vampire
> while it's in play.
That's not bookkeeping. You don't have to remember which of the cards
in play treat him as a vampire -- none of them do.
That's just a rule.
Changing it would mean that you'd then have to remember which of the
cards in play treat him as a vampire and which treat him like the ally
he is. That would be bookkeeping.
> Sure, you could say that no one ever plays Rutor's Hand with Talaq *because*
> it doesn't do anything. But if the ruling were reversed, the actual
> game-play would be equally self-evident: it'd be perfectly easy to remember
> that the Rutor's Hand on Talaq works, because there wouldn't be any (normal)
> situation where a Rutor's Hand in play *didn't* work.
Yes ... for Rutor's Hand.
There are other cards that are put into play for which the bookkeeping
would not be so clear.
> > The "lingering" bit, though, seems to be itself more trouble than it is
> > worth.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. Allowing "lingering" effects to apply to minions who
> play cards "as if X" would make them behave more like all other minions who
> can play those same cards do. That still requires bookkeeping, of course
> (it's always been necessary to remember that Torn Signpost has been played
> in a given combat, and at what level), but it would be the same bookkeeping
> that we're already used to doing for minions who play those cards "the
> normal way".
The bookkeeping in these cases is either obvious or short-term (and, in
the vast majority of cases, both).
The bookkeeping in-play cards would require tends to be longer term and
not always obvious.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146571567....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> witness1 wrote:>> Interesting that the intercept from, e.g., Second Tradition with
>> Keminitri, was (AFAIK) never considered a 'lingering' effect, even
>> though it lasts for the whole action.>
> And the blood gained from Summon Soul lasts until it is later burned.
(***Pokes head into highly technical rules discussion he has no business
commenting on.***)
I just wanted to say, I think that's an incredibly lame comparison.
..er, carry on... :-)
Fred
(Cripes. "Lingering exemption on allies." I thought the default
language in this newsgroup was English. :-P )
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146571120.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> While having in-play cards track the minion that put them into play
> (and remember if an ally put them into play "as a vampire") may not be
> unbalancing (I'm not saying it is or it isn't), that adds to the
> bookkeeping required, with little gain.
Frankly, some of us feel that the whole, "the-X-with-this-card" thing -
where "X" may or may not be the name of a member of a specific,
restrictive group - adds to the bookkeeping required with little gain.
I don't know if it can be done away with now. You'd lose distinctions
that affect the power of an Erebus Mask as opposed to, say, a Kali's
Fang. But it's always struck me as a mechanic that was far more of a
problem than it's worth.
Fred
Fred Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:1146571567....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > witness1 wrote:
> >> Interesting that the intercept from, e.g., Second Tradition with
> >> Keminitri, was (AFAIK) never considered a 'lingering' effect, even
> >> though it lasts for the whole action.
> >
> > And the blood gained from Summon Soul lasts until it is later burned.
>
> (***Pokes head into highly technical rules discussion he has no business
> commenting on.***)
>
> I just wanted to say, I think that's an incredibly lame comparison.
>
> ..er, carry on... :-)
Well, at least it was accompanied by a expository note and not left to
stand on its own.
I find it not incredibly lame. So that's 1-1, failing. :-P
> Fred
>
> (Cripes. "Lingering exemption on allies." I thought the default
> language in this newsgroup was English. :-P )
Often, we'll use rulebook terminology as well. I doubt if you actually
thought otherwise.
The lingering bit has been a part of the rulebook for quite some time.
Fred Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146571120.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > While having in-play cards track the minion that put them into play
> > (and remember if an ally put them into play "as a vampire") may not be
> > unbalancing (I'm not saying it is or it isn't), that adds to the
> > bookkeeping required, with little gain.
>
> Frankly, some of us feel that the whole, "the-X-with-this-card" thing -
> where "X" may or may not be the name of a member of a specific,
> restrictive group - adds to the bookkeeping required with little gain.
It doesn't. Card text is the opposite of bookkeeping. One need only
read the card, not rely on any notes or memory one has of what has gone
before.
> I don't know if it can be done away with now. You'd lose distinctions
> that affect the power of an Erebus Mask as opposed to, say, a Kali's
> Fang. But it's always struck me as a mechanic that was far more of a
> problem than it's worth.
Following card text is a mechanic that is vital.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146582593.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Fred Scott wrote:>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1146571120.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > While having in-play cards track the minion that put them into play
>> > (and remember if an ally put them into play "as a vampire") may not be
>> > unbalancing (I'm not saying it is or it isn't), that adds to the
>> > bookkeeping required, with little gain.
>>
>> Frankly, some of us feel that the whole, "the-X-with-this-card" thing -
>> where "X" may or may not be the name of a member of a specific,
>> restrictive group - adds to the bookkeeping required with little gain.>
> It doesn't. Card text is the opposite of bookkeeping. One need only
> read the card, not rely on any notes or memory one has of what has gone
> before.
OK, terming it "bookkeeping" makes my point self-contradictory, I agree.
Just say that even having "the-X-with-this-card" clauses is more trouble
than it's worth. I guess my personal preference is that it not be used.
And where a special limitation on who can use a card permanent possessed
by a minion is deemed necessary to balance the card, it should be an
explicit thing; e.g., "If Erebus Mask is possessed by a Harbinger of
Skulls, the possessing minion gains +1 stealth on all actions." These
sorts of clauses that affect a card by inference may streamline the text
a bit but they cause practical problems such as making the game harder
to explain to newbies and causing deckbuilding mistakes.
Fred
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146580009....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:>> I'm inclined to agree. Allowing "lingering" effects to apply to minions
>> who
>> play cards "as if X" would make them behave more like all other minions
>> who
>> can play those same cards do. That still requires bookkeeping, of course
>> (it's always been necessary to remember that Torn Signpost has been
>> played
>> in a given combat, and at what level), but it would be the same
>> bookkeeping
>> that we're already used to doing for minions who play those cards "the
>> normal way".>
> The bookkeeping in these cases is either obvious or short-term (and, in
> the vast majority of cases, both).
>
> The bookkeeping in-play cards would require tends to be longer term and
> not always obvious.
Fair enough. Though I'm not sure which put-in-play cards exist now that
would have non-obvious bookkeeping? Mata Hari + Song of Pan? Are there
others that would be more confusing? Mata Hari + Waters of Duat is a little
confusing already - I suspect that any Waters she makes will be Independent
because that's the default sect of the clan she's faking to play them
(Followers of Set), but it could be that they would inherit her actual sect
at the time she makes them? Mata Hari + Ahrimane Protectorate, I guess -
you'd have to remember that she counted as an Ahrimane who could benefit
from the intercept. And likewise Mata Hari + Brothers in Arms. Mata Hari +
Create Gargoyle is confusing right now too... I expect she creates Gargoyles
enslaved to the clan she's faking, of the sect of the clan she's faking; if
cards in play remembered who played them, then she could "count as"
Tremere/!Tremere for purposes of that slave, which would be a bit weird, I
admit. Mata Hari + King's Favor would also require tracking.
On the whole, while I can see that there *could be* cards that would go in
play and require overly-burdensome bookkeeping, I'm not sure that there
already are. Meanwhile, it seems to me that cards that *don't* go in play
but have lingering effects have the greater potential for bookkeeping
headaches, because in those cases, there is nothing on the table reminding
you of the effect's existence (for example, Cryptic Rider, Ancient
Influence, Sabbat Priest, Masai Blood Milk).
In any case, yes, the lingering effects of transient cards can be addressed
separately.
Though... thinking about it again... isn't the bookkeeping currently
produced by Clandestine Contract + Khabar: Honor + Mata Hari as difficult as
any other possible case? It is definitely a situation where you have to
remember which cards in play treat her as an Assamite and which treat her as
the Ravnos that she is.
It seems possible to me that Clandestine Contract *should* be treated as
conferring a continuous state of "being the chosen one", as Haqim's Law
does, and as it's normal for cards in play to have "always-on" rather than
one-time effects. If the Clandestine Contract's "This Assamite is chosen
for this contract" effect remains "stuck" to Mata Hari because it was chosen
when played, wouldn't pretty much the same logic apply to "This Assamite may
enter combat with the minion with this card as a +1 stealth (D) action"? If
she became "this Assamite" when the card was played for the "chosen for this
contract" piece, the "enter combat with the minion with this card" piece of
the ability could have an equal amount of memory of her playing the card as
"this Assamite"...
Josh
non-clandestine service
I would say its all semantics but that is way too obvious (all laws are
semantics after all) but should there be a consideration of intent? Is
the idea with Mata Hari that she be able to perform all clan based
actions and use all clan based equipment? You can apply the same point
to any ally that can take actions as a vampire.
Likewise you can apply the same test to say the Sword of Judgement.
Does the fact that Mata Hari can use the Sword of Judgement break a
principle of the game (currently she can't as the text is pretty
clear)?
I don't feel it does. I can envisage a role play situation where Mata
Hari wields the Sword of Judgement.
Once you have decided if there is a principle involved then you have to
think about game in terms of balance and simplicity. The Game balance
question has been looked at and no one has come up with a devastating
combo that really breaks anything.
>From a simplicity perspective if Mata Hari can play a card she should
be able to use it. Any other option adds complexity.
If there is no principle at stake and this doesn't create any broken
combos, or indeed if it resolves possible exploitative combos (Mata
Hari and Toreador Grand Ball...), then that should be the rule, KISS.
If there are possible broken combos then you need to decide if its
easier to 'fix' them or 'fix' the underlying rule. You don't need to
worry about future cards as you can write them with any new rule in
mind.
So is the complexity of differeniating between playing a card as x and
the lingering effects of a card played as x, or indeed the complexity
of playing a permanent and then not being able to actually use it
worthwhile?
witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Of course, updating Charming Lobby's text to read 'the next
> referendum called by any _political action_ thereafter passes
> automatically' would eliminate the bookkeeping problem, but
> might make Bimas into the new weenie presence.
Oh god, please don't change Charming Lobby. It'll take the next 10 years
for me to be allowed to play it in L.A. again. :P
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Seeing as though LSJ asked for opinions, I'd like to add my 5 cents
worth in here. It seems to me that the problem that is occouring is due
to the actual wording on the card (in this main case, Mata Hari) If we
look at her card as it stands now:
Mata Hari
Clan: Ravnos (group 4)
Capacity: 7
Disciplines: CHI OBF aus for qui
Independent. Red List: Mata Hari has 2 votes (titled). You and she may
play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that
required sect and/or clan.
The question arises is if this wording is the "designer intent" of the
card, or weather this particular wording was used to keep her in line
with all other vampires with a similar ability (Kementiri ADV, Lucinde,
Alastor etc)? What I mean by "designer intent" is was Mata Hari
intended to be able to "play" cards of any sect or clan, or was see
meant to be able to "use" cards of any sect or clan? The obvious answer
is "play of course, thats her card text" in which case most of this
discussion is technicaly moot, she plays a card A whilst
"impersonating" another clan/sect, the card effect is resolved, end of
action, Mata Hari returns to being a ravnos. If that card set up a
lingering clan/sect specific effect, then too bad for Mata Hari, no
longer being the required clan/sect she cannot access the effect, the
card is in play and no longer subjet to her card text. However, if the
"designer intent" was to be able to "use" cards requiring any clan/sect
then the issue is just as moot, she can use whatever clan/sect specific
card she wishes and gain the benefit of said cards whilst they are in
play or causing a conditonal effect.
For example, the Mata Hari contract question:
As Mata Hari is written, she should be able to play clandestine
contract in order to enter combat with another ready minion.
Clandestine Contract
Type: Action
Requires: capacity above 4 Assamite
Cost: 1 pool
Contract. Requires an Assamite with a capacity above 4. +1 stealth
action.
(D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah
and put this card on that minion. This Assamite is chosen for this
contract. This Assamite may enter combat with the minion with this card
as a +1 stealth (D) action.
As for the rest of the effect, as soon as the card is played /
resolved, Mata Hari is no longer an assamite and not eligable to use
the rest of the cards effect. In effect, making it a very expensive
rush action. As for using Khabar: Honor, I would think not.
Khabar: Honor, The
Type: Combat
Requires: Assamite
Only usable if this Assamite has been chosen for a contract on the
opposing minion.
Strike: make a hand strike at +3 damage.
Although in theory it looks like this should work, it probably
shouldn't. After playing clandestine contract, Mata Hari reverts to
being a ravnos and looses her assamite status, therefore, no longer
being the "this assamite chosen for the contract". Her card text as it
stands has no ability to effect cards that are already in play.
If however Mata Hari's card text was: "Independent. Red List: Mata Hari
has 2 votes (titled). You and she may USE cards that require a sect
and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan", then
that would be an entirely different story. This would allow Mata Hari
to play Clandestine contract and use the ability of the clandestine
contract once it was in play in order to gain the ability to use
Khabar: Honor (via the lingering effect of the clandestine contract
making Mata Hari The "Chosen Assamite") (Actually i'm not entirely fond
of that particular explanation, my wordsmithing skills are failing to
convey exactly what I mean, but I hope I get the intent across)
By changing Mata Hari's card text from "play any card" to "use any
card" you would solve alot of the problems arising from her card text,
but it may well make her too powerful, I'm not entirely sure.
Sutekh_23