LSJ- Mata Hari and Terra Incognita

If I only have Mata Hari in play, am I able to play Terra Incognita? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > If I only have Mata Hari in play, am I able to play Terra Incognita? Mata Hari can play Terra Incognita as a Laibon, yes. If she does, then she is not a "non-Laibon", so doesn't run afoul of that restriction.

> If I only have Mata Hari in play, am I able to play Terra Incognita? I'd say yes... but IANLSJ Relevant text: Mata Hari: You and she may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect or clan. Terra Incognito: Requires a ready Laibon. Not usable if you control any ready non-Laibon vampires. Whilst playing the card, Mata is treated as Laibon. Which means if you only control Mata and no other vamps, I'd assume that game state would see you with 1 Ready Laibon and 0 ready non-Laibon. Of course, you know what they say about assumptions. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] beaten to the punch,.... at least i got it right though. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1178800228....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> writes: >Whilst playing the card, Mata is treated as Laibon. Which means if >you only control Mata and no other vamps, I'd assume that game state >would see you with 1 Ready Laibon and 0 ready non-Laibon. That card would see you as having 1 Laibon (Mata) etc. The rest of the game state would see you as having what you really have. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> >Whilst playing the card, Mata is treated as Laibon. Which means if > >you only control Mata and no other vamps, I'd assume that game state > >would see you with 1 Ready Laibon and 0 ready non-Laibon. > > That card would see you as having 1 Laibon (Mata) etc. > > The rest of the game state would see you as having what you really have. Which is what I said... To repeat... "Which means ** if you only control Mata and no other vamps ** <snip>" [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you're focusing on the wrong part of his nit pickery; the nuance he's sussing out is that only the Terra Incognita sees her as Laibon and that "game state" is broader than just that card. Other cards or effects that may happen whilst the card is being played don't necessarily see her as Laibon. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/499c1c3a7553e7e0

> I think you're focusing on the wrong part of his nit pickery; the > nuance he's sussing out is that only the Terra Incognita sees her as > Laibon and that "game state" is broader than just that card. Other > cards or effects that may happen whilst the card is being played don't > necessarily see her as Laibon. That is irrelevant as we are only discussing the Game State according to her playing Terra Incognito. If that is his point, it is moot. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You're probably right that it's irrelevant and moot. Your answer seemed to say you and he were saying the same thing, which could cause confusion since it is incorrect.

[ quoted text not captured ] I did qualify it by starting with "When playing the card" When responding to a question about a card, it's not going to help anything if we talk about other things that don't affect said card. Thus the response only pertains to that card and what affects that card. Personally I can't see anything less confusing than that. But, meh... it doesn't really matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1178844269.2...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> writes: >On May 11, 10:30 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 10, 5:04 pm, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > I think you're focusing on the wrong part of his nit pickery; the >> > > nuance he's sussing out is that only the Terra Incognita sees her as >> > > Laibon and that "game state" is broader than just that card. Other >> > > cards or effects that may happen whilst the card is being played don't >> > > necessarily see her as Laibon. >> >> > That is irrelevant as we are only discussing the Game State according >> > to her playing Terra Incognito. If that is his point, it is moot. >> >> You're probably right that it's irrelevant and moot. >> >> Your answer seemed to say you and he were saying the same thing, which >> could cause confusion since it is incorrect. > >I did qualify it by starting with >"When playing the card" And it's still wrong, and not moot. That card will see her as a Laibon etc. The rest of the game state will not. For example, while playing that card, it is important that the rest of the game state does *not* see her as a Laibon if she has become an Anarch. If the rest of the game state saw her as Laibon, it would have to note a sect change and revoke her Anarch status. However, since it is only that card that sees what it sees, there is no problem. [ quoted text not captured ]