rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

(LSJ?) - Clarification on Mata Hari's text

3 messages from 2 participants · 07 January 2010
original thread on Google Groups

technobabble66

I kno this has been greatly discussed over the last few years, but i need an "official" clarification as the discussions are a bit fragmented. I need to kno exactly how cards may be played using Mata Hari's text. Obviously she can meet any clan or sect requirement (excluding anarch) when she plays a card. However, how does the text apply for cards stating things like "... This blah blah gets +1 blah ..."? I'm under the impression that the played card "sees" MH as the appropriate clan/sect for the *duration of the action* and then she reverts to being indep Rav. Hence MH should be able to play Bloodstorm of Chorazin, Ritual Challenge or Raking Talons to full effect. MH could also play Ahrimane Protectorate, burn 1 blood to untap and burn it to cause a D action against a location to fail, but would not be able to burn it to gain the +1 intercept (or rather could burn it, but noone gains the +1). Could the answer please be also posted on the WW site as an official clarifcation? (apologies if it already is and i'm too blind to find it) - i'm fairly sure i've checked for this several times over the last few years. Thanks! (and for the melbourne players reading this, i dont think im ready to build an intercepting aggro MH deck just yet ...mmm, tho maybe there is some potential there ... ;-P ) Mata Hari Ravnos Capacity: 7 Group: 4 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. Bloodstorm of Chorazin Reaction Baali Only usable when a Baali successfully blocks an ally or a younger vampire. Tap this Baali and end the action (with no combat). This Baali inflicts 1 unpreventable damage on the acting minion and each of his or her retainers. Ritual Challenge Action Gangrel +1 stealth action. If this action succeeds, put this card on the acting Gangrel. This vampire gets +1 strength. A vampire may have only one Ritual Challenge card. Raking Talons Combat 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. Ahrimane Protectorate Action Ahrimane +1 stealth action. Unique. Put this card in play, and this Ahrimane may burn 1 blood to untap at the end of this action. You may burn this card to cause a (D) action directed at an ally or location you control to fail. You may burn this card during a (D) action against you to give an Ahrimane you control +1 intercept.

LSJ

On Jan 7, 2:51 am, technobabble66 <stujaq...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I kno this has been greatly discussed over the last few years, but i > need an "official" clarification as the discussions are a bit > fragmented. But the answers are not. > I need to kno exactly how cards may be played using Mata Hari's text. > Obviously she can meet any clan or sect requirement (excluding anarch) > when she plays a card. However, how does the text apply for cards > stating things like "... This blah blah gets +1 blah ..."? For effects of the play of the card, she is treated as the thing she plays the card as. Everything else (including effects of cards in play) treat her as what she is. > I'm under the impression that the played card "sees" MH as the > appropriate clan/sect for the *duration of the action* and then she > reverts to being indep Rav. For action cards, sure. > Hence MH should be able to play Bloodstorm of Chorazin, Ritual > Challenge or Raking Talons to full effect. Yes. > MH could also play Ahrimane > Protectorate, burn 1 blood to untap and burn it to cause a D action > against a location to fail, but would not be able to burn it to gain > the +1 intercept (or rather could burn it, but noone gains the +1). Yes. (If you controlled an Ahrimane, then you could burn it to give that Ahrimane +1 intercept). > Could the answer please be also posted on the WW site as an official > clarifcation? (apologies if it already is and i'm too blind to find > it) - i'm fairly sure i've checked for this several times over the > last few years. Playing cards "as" is described for allies in [1.6.3] (due to the need to describe handling of blood/life and capacity). Vampires work the same way (that is, by card text, they "play" the card "as" something), but without the need for all the special handling. [ quoted text not captured ]

technobabble66

"For effects of the play of the card, she is treated as the thing she plays the card as. Everything else (including effects of cards in play) treat her as what she is. " Thanks - full answer is greatly appreciated! re: " the discussions are a bit fragmented." - i tried a few searches to discover a categorical answer/explanation and couldn't find one, tho i did learn a lot about a debate on defining anarchs from 2006 ;-) Listing it under allies in 1.6.3 is fabulous if you plough thru the rulebook; but it might be worthwhile cross-referencing it under an other heading or mata hari specifically to direct people looking for it in WW's 'All Rulings" section. Just a thought.