Shadow Court Satyr, RTR

Basic question is: Why? Old and irrelevant text: If the card has a cost, he pays with 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. Existing rules: Shadow Court Satyr: Shadow Court Satyr cannot use a mutli-discipline effect (an effect that requires two Disciplines), although it can use any single discipline effect of a split discipline card. [LSJ 20021216] [LSJ 20021210] Can only use the combat card when he is in combat. [LSJ 20060502] Shadow Court Satyr cannot use a mutli-discipline effect (an effect that requires two Disciplines), although it can use any single discipline effect of a split discipline card. [RTR ] [ ] We have solid correspondence between old (and irrelevant) card text and the rulings. New (and relevant card text): If the card requires a vampire to play (e.g. costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any). Observe how the reference to the key word 'Discipline' has changed to a clarification. The second time the word the term Discipline occurs it's to limit its use to the basic ability, with a further clarification that such a limitation is only implemented if there are any disciplines associated with the card at all. The main change of the card text has gone from how to handle costs and disciplines to how to handle cards normally only playable by vampires. The rulings suffer from poor correspondence with the new card text. There is (for rather obvious reasons) nothing inherent with vampires normally disallowing them to play dual discipline cards. The limitation given in the new cardtext has changed to allow this ally to make us of a combat card that requires a vampire to play, followed by a clarification of how to define such a card, and then again followed by a limition to only use the basic level of such a discipline, as referenced in the first clarification. At best the card text is ambigious as to wether dual disciplines are allowed or not. At worst it's explicitly in conflict with the current ruling.

Discipline is singular not plural in the text. It is only ambiguous, if you ignore that fact.

The word 'Discipline' is used inside brackets, to clarify and exemplify the meaning of 'card requires a vampire to play'. The second use of the word 'Discipline' refers back to the singular form used in the clarification. This is a result of using proper English grammar in the sentence and has nothing to do with the fact that 'Discipline' in singular form is only used as a clarification to the meaning of 'requires a vampire to play'. Given that 'English language' has been given as a rules enforcing argument on numerous occasions it follows that RAW and not RAI should be followed. A fully valid alternative is of course to change official card text in order to make RAW correspond to RAI. Edit: To clarify my argumnt above. The second instance of the word 'Discipline' refers back to a clarification. As the primary key to the card text is 'requires a vampire', the interpretation becomes dependent on a positivitic or negativistic interpretation of the aggregated card text. You end up with an ambiguity with three perfectly valid interpretations of the card text: 1) It's only a clarification. Handle dual discipline cards as single discipline cards (both disciplines involved may only be used at inferior) 2) You may only use one discipline (dual discipline cards are illegal to play) 3) The restriction to inferior level only applies to single discipline cards, because there is an explicit referral to that example in the clarification. Apart from that specified limitation, any other card-effect that 'requires a vampire' is legal to play (dual discipline cards may be played at any combination, including superior/superior). Version 3 is obviously not RAI, but RAW always takes presedence over RAI, and in this case that would be a BAD thing.

> yappo wrote: > The word 'Discipline' is used inside brackets, to clarify and exemplify the meaning of 'card requires a vampire to play'. > And to restrict it to levels of cards requiring one discipline. See the various rulings you've cited for confirmation of this.

See clarification above.

> yappo wrote: > See clarification above. > Your argument is still that you magically know what the word was meant to mean, despite multiple rulings telling you, quite explicitly, that the card doesn't work the way you want it to. Since the argument boils down to "I'M PSYCHIC SHUT UP", you'll make little headway.

No, I'm reading the card text. The card reads as follows, in sequential order: 1) May play cards that requires a vampire. 2) Two examples in brackets to clarify the meaning of 'requires a vampire'. 3) One restriction pertaining to one of the examples given. Nothing more and nothing less. I have a card in my hand, and follow RAW (ie, the very opposite of making a magic understanding). 1) Does it require a vampire to play? Yes. Check. 2) Is it restricted by the restriction referring to one of the examples given to clarify the meaning of 'requires a vampire'? Yes/No. Check. 3) Apply card. 1) I have a dual discipline card in my hand. Does it require a vampire to play? Yes, cards requiring one, two or more disciplines to play implicitly requires a vampire to play. Check. 2) Is a dual discipline card included in the restriction referring to one of the examples given by card text? No. Check. 3) Apply it at superior/superior. Now, how on earth can I make this insane interpretation? Because a dual discipline cards doesn't require 'a' (one) discipline to play. How can I be certain that 'a' means one? Because the second referral to the word 'Discipline' is prepended by the word 'the'. A dual discipline card explicitly requires two (more than one) disciplines to play, and is thus not covered by the restriction, but still fills the requirement of being a card that 'requires a vampire'. Of course I'm totally aware that the Satyr was never means to play dual discipline cards at a stronger level than single discipline cards. However, how the card was meant to function has never prevented us from allowing actual text to override designer intent before. Guard Duty is a very good example of a card where card text takes presedence over designer intent. While RTR is the sound ruling of how we want the card to function, card text should still correspond to the ruling, and in this case it no longer does.

Here is the card text. Changeling with 3 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any). Here is the card text, with out the clarifications (i.e. within parenthesis). Changeling with 3 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire , he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline. Here are the clarifications(i.e. within parenthesis) (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline) (if any) What portion of any this text leads you to think that the satyr can "emulate" more than one discipline? .

> yappo wrote: > No, I'm reading the card text. > So are other people - see, for example, the very first reply you got. You disagree with other people's interpretations. How very convenient, then, that we have a consistent history of rulings regarding how LSJ intended Shadow Court Satyr to interact with multi-discipline cards.

There was a reason that I included the old card text. LSJ 2002 refers to that text. It has since been changed. LSJ 2006 doesn't concern disciplines at all. So, LSJ 2002 corresponds perfectly with the card text it pertains to. The RTR does not. I don't expect LSJ to be pre-scient. He had no reason to base a ruling during the year 2002 on a card text which didn't yet exist. Now, if you would please cease with your condescending tone the rules conversation could continue to be civil. In no way have I disagreed with peoples intepretation of a card text which is no longer valid. The opposite. I made it prefectly clear that that intepretation was based on an old card text, and that such an intepretation made perfect sense given the card text at that time. When the design team decided to change the card text, then such a change risks invalidating rulings based on the previous card text. It is this problem I'm pointing out. In VTES we rule restrictions on 1) text written on the card, or 2) in the absence of such text, text written in the general rules. If there still is an absence of written restrictions, then you are allowed to do it. I believe you yourself have described and explained this in very consice terms in another thread on this forum. Stacking effects if I recall correctly. Now, back on topic, and also a reply to Shard. For grammatical reasons you can't just remove the clarification from the sentence. The construction 'the Discipine' requires a referee, in this case 'a Discipline'. Also, when only one referee exists, then the construction 'the Discipline' MUST refer to that referee. This is what creates a problem, because the clarification actually reads (including, but not limited to, the following two attributes associated with requiring a vampire). This is not how I want it to read, but how it is indeed written. Given that we don't allow restrictions which are not explicitly written anywhere, this creates a problem. The aggregated constructions 'a Discipline' and 'the Discipline' forces us to read 'a Discipline' as 'one Discipline' because the referer is written in singular form. A dual discipline card explicitly requires two (more than one) discipline, and the card text doesn't place any restrictions here. However, a dual discipline card still belongs to the category of cards which requires a vampire to play. Hence, in difference from a single discipline card, its use is not restricted by card text. Satyr presents us with the opposite to Ian Forestal. He's allowed to use X requiring a (one) Y. For this reason he may not use X requiring both Y and Z. Satyr has a restriction on using X requiring a (one) Y. For this reason he does NOT have a restriction on using X requiring both Y and Z. This is a bad thing, because RAW supercedes RAI. I most definitely don't want Satyr to be allowed to play dual discipline cards at superior/superior, but what I want really doesn't have any impact on how the card text is actually written. And currently it would seem that Satyr may play duals at the most powerful effect. This should be rectified.

> The aggregated constructions 'a Discipline' and 'the Discipline' forces us to read 'a Discipline' as 'one Discipline' because the referer is written in singular form. > > A dual discipline card explicitly requires two (more than one) discipline, and the card text doesn't place any restrictions here. However, a dual discipline card still belongs to the category of cards which requires a vampire to play. > Warning: Spoiler! When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any). I believe having the discipline is requirement for a minion to play a card that requires a discipline. I also believe having both disciplines is a requirement for playing a dual discipline card. Since Shadow Court Satyr forces you to play it as if from your hand and only allows for one discipline it is not legal to play a dual discipline card.

I agree with Yappo that the text of Shadow Court Satyr is ambiguous. It incorrectly defines what a card that requires a vampire is and explains the Satyr's power using the incorrect definition. I see that LSJ ruled that SCS can only use cards that require a single discipline, but truly the card should have been given an erratum once dual discipline cards came out. Wasn't it even reprinted in Third Edition, which would have been the opportunity to make the update? In any case, you cannot say that the card text as written rules out dual discipline cards, because whoever wrote the text didn't even know that they were going to exist! The text doesn't rule them out; to rule them out, it should have said: "If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires any Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of one of any Disciplines required.

> AaronC wrote: > I agree with Yappo that the text of Shadow Court Satyr is ambiguous. > Since it's ambiguous, we consult the rulings to see which interpretation we should use. And look, there's a consistent pattern of rulings stating that Yappo's interpretation is not the correct one. Hurrah! Problem solved!

The text of Shadow Court Satyr is in no way ambiguous > When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any). > It uses the word Discipline in singular, which in VTES language means ONE, and no more than ONE. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > The text of Shadow Court Satyr is in no way ambiguous > > > When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any). > > > It uses the word Discipline in singular, which in VTES language means ONE, and no more than ONE. > If there is a VTES language, can you please point me to a VTES/English dictionary? It isn't just singular, you know. It's *definite* singular. I think at least one of your native languages is German, and they have definite/indefinite in that language, so you should get the concept. You can't refer to the discipline on a card in the definite singular unless you've established that you're only talking about one particular discipline; the existence of dual discipline cards means that it has to be explicitly stated. The text here does not establish that it's talking about single discipline cards. It mentions single discipline cards as an example (exempli gratia) of a card that requires a vampire, not a limiting definition of a card that requires a vampire. Therefore the use of the definite singular is semantically incorrect and thus ambiguous. As a native English-speaker, the first thing I think of when I read the last sentence is "What if the card requires a dual discipline?" As Jamesatzephyr just pointed out, there are rulings answering that question exactly because the card text is ambiguous.

> AaronC wrote: > It mentions single discipline cards as an example (exempli gratia) of a card that requires a vampire, not a limiting definition of a card that requires a vampire. Therefore the use of the definite singular is semantically incorrect and thus ambiguous. > > As a native English-speaker, the first thing I think of when I read the last sentence is "What if the card requires a dual discipline?" > > As Jamesatzephyr just pointed out, there are rulings answering that question exactly because the card text is ambiguous. > Two valid arguments, well rounded. Kudos ! Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

I wouldn't say "incorrect", because in some cases, it is correct. I could agree that, in somes cases, it can't apply, but that's what the ruling is here for. Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings? I don't know. This one would be in such a change.

> Pascal wrote: > Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings? I don't know. This one would be in such a change. > If it meant that you could no longer tell that the most recent printing (or, indeed, every printing) differed from the online text, that would most likely prove to be unhelpful.

> Pascal wrote: > Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings? > Yeah, so we could call them " The Tintin Rulings" Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Pascal wrote: > Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings? I don't know. This one would be in such a change. > Most rulings are clarifications or context descriptions, not overwriting of card texts. Since we don't have any way to reprint cards, I think that an online repository of "true" card texts is very, very counter intuitive.

Well, the thing is, whatever the most recent printing is, if there's a ruling on a card that is not visible on that print, you'll need to check the online data at some point.

> Pascal wrote: > Well, the thing is, whatever the most recent printing is, if there's a ruling on a card that is not visible on that print, you'll need to check the online data at some point. > Having an easy, obvious way to spot "This card text is different from the real cards" (and preferably how) is helpful, though. Question from Random Punter: How do I use Floppy's Top Hat when facing a Lasombra Antitribu pirate deck? *check text* Answer: It works like follows. [blah blah blah] Do be careful, because the card text got changed so it only works if the Lasombra Antiribu pirate has a peg leg OR an eye patch, but not both. The last point is easy to overlook - and is sometimes the most useful part of an answer. The card text migrations resource used to be useful for exactly this reason - but was hopelessly out of date for numerous years.

I'll add a short philological analysis of the problem. Satyr is first printed with the Sabbat Expansion. I can verify this because I own a copy. Satyr is reprinted with the Sabbat War expansion. Again I can verify this with a copy I own. I cannot verify if official card text was changed between these prints or not. For the purposes of the problem discussed in this thread the changes in texts were comparatively minor. The Sabat War print introduces the concept of using the ability as a vampire with a capacity of 1. Notably both prints lack the current card text construction with blood and discipline being used as examples of what it means to 'require a vampire'. Both old texts only specify that costs are paid in life and that if the ability requires a discipline, then only the basic lvel effect may be used. Then the Bloodlines expansion is released, introducing cards with more than one discipline. As a result LSJ makes a ruling 2002. This ruling is applied to a card text created when a card only used one, single discipline for specifying effects. If I recall correctly, similar rulings were made to, for example, Ian Forestal. With Third Satyr is once again reprinted. Verified from owned copy. Eventual changes to official card texts between those prints are once again unknown to me. It is this last reprint that introduces a radical change in card text. Radical because the new text holds a very different semantic value. Satyr may use the effect from a combat card, just as before. For the first time the satyr's ability to 'break the rules' is keyed to 'requires a vampire'. Also for the first time cost and discipline are relegated to a role as examples of the meaning of 'requires a vampire'. Notably cost becomes equal to blood cost. The problematic wording of this last print has been thoroughly analysed earlier in this thread. LSJ makes a ruling during 2006 with zero bearing on the problem described in this thread. Lastly there is an undated RTR. Hence, the only ruling which could possibly be applied to Satyr, for the purposes of the problem in this thread, is the RTR. The LSJ ruling is invalid due to radical changes in card text. End of philology. I'll make a wild assumption. RTR is based on LSJ 2002 without any closer look at the card text which changed since that ruling. Hence we arrive at the problem I have presented in this thread. I suggest that all rulings made prior to known changes to card text be looked over, since those rulings were applied to card texts which for one reason or another were deemed unsatysfying to the degree that they were changed. The new ruling could of course end up being exactly the old one, but should still be given a new time stamp.

I concede that it is not clear to all players, how SCS functions with the combat card on it. For the most part it appears the confusion leis with the "discipline" and its lack of definition within the rules(i.e.whether it is a collective noun or not). After some research I have found that there are some 89 cards with discipline in the text. 44 of those cards pertain to master discipline cards. 12 cards have to do with Striga and Maleficia, "not a discipline". 23 cards use "disciplines" its meaning is clear. The remaining 20 are... Botched Move, Camarilla Vitae Slave, Cloak of Blood, Compel the Spirit, Grandest Trick, The, Hell-for-Leather, Inceptor, Infernal Familiar, Infernal Pact, Mundane, Reality Mirror, Reliquary: Akunanse Remains, Reliquary: Biague, Resurrection, Sanguine Instruction, Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling), Spontaneous Power, Supernatural Resistance, Trophy: Discipline, Vial of Elder Vitae Of these cards the following use the text "choose a discipline" Camarilla Vitae Slave, Infernal Pact, Reliquary: Akunanse Remains, Sanguine Instruction, Spontaneous Power, Trophy: Discipline, Vial of Elder Vitae I do not who believes "a discipline" could be plural in these cases. Both Hell for Leather and Cloak of Blood seem self explanatory. The remaining 11 have some form of "requires a discipline" like SCS. Their card text will be included as spoilers. Botched Move Warning: Spoiler! Only usable as the opposing minion plays a card that requires a Discipline. The opposing minion's controller reveals the top two cards of his or her library (before drawing to replace). If another copy of the same combat card is revealed, the played card is canceled (cost is still paid), the opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage, and all revealed copies are burned. A minion may play only one Botched Move each combat . Mundane Warning: Spoiler! Master. Put this card on a Laibon with no Orun and no Mundane. Cards that require Disciplines cost this vampire 1 additional blood. Burn this card if this vampire gets an Orun. Alternatively, when a minion with no Orun plays an action card requiring a Discipline or Virtue, play this card to your ash heap as an out-of-turn master to cancel that card as it is played. Reliquary: Biague Warning: Spoiler! Equipment. During your untap phase, if the bearer is a ready Laibon, you may look at the top card of any Methuselah`s library. If the card does not require a Discipline, show it to all players, and this Laibon may burn a blood to allow you to look at that Methuselah`s hand. Supernatural Resistance Warning: Spoiler! Requires a Laibon with three or more Orun. Tap an Orun on this Laibon to cancel an action card targeting this Laibon or a strike card as it is played. Not usable to cancel a card that doesn`t require a Discipline or that requires Celerity [cel] or Potence [pot]. Burn option. Grandest Trick Warning: Spoiler! Only usable when an action is announced. Vampires cannot block this action. This acting vampire is treated as a mortal ally for the duration of the action (cannot spend or burn blood, cannot use Disciplines, will burn if reduced to 0 life, etc. ). This vampire`s blood represents his or her life while he or she is an ally. Only usable on an action that doesn`t cost blood or require a vampire, clan or Discipline. Burn option. These first five are reactionary, limited use or a limitation. I have looked but found no ruling regarding their interaction with dual discipline cards. The remaining six allow a minion to play cards that they do not meet the requirements for. Compel the Spirit Warning: Spoiler! +1 stealth action. Only usable if a retainer or ally you control has been burned since your last turn. [nec] Move the ally or retainer card from your ash heap to your hand. [NEC] Move the ally or retainer card from your ash heap to your ready region, even if this vampire doesn`t meet the requirements, if any, of the card (use the normal version if it requires a Discipline). Move X life counters from the blood bank to the card, where X is the number of life printed on the card. If a retainer is chosen, it must be placed on the acting minion. Resurrection Warning: Spoiler! +1 stealth action. Only usable if a retainer or ally has been burned since your last turn. [val] Move the retainer or ally card from your ash heap to your hand. [obe] Move the retainer card from its Methuselah`s ash heap to this acting vampire, with life from the blood bank equal to its starting life. Use the normal version, if it requires a Discipline. [OBE] As [obe] above, but move the ally card instead. Put it in your ready region, untapped. I have seen no ruling with either of the above and Hatch the Viper Inceptor Warning: Spoiler! Unique master. Put this card on a vampire of capacity 1, and put three cards from your hand, ash heap or library on this card, face up but out of play. This vampire may play other copies of these cards as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior. Reality Mirror Warning: Spoiler! 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. Infernal Familiar Warning: Spoiler! Demon with 2 life. [tha] The vampire with this retainer can play a card that requires a Discipline he or she does not have as if he or she had the basic level of that Discipline; if he or she does so, place an investment counter on the Infernal Familiar. If the number of investment counters on the Familiar is greater than this vampire`s capacity, burn this vampire. Shadow Court Satyr Warning: Spoiler! Changeling with 3 life. 1 strength, 1 bleed. When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any). The first 5 "requires a discipline", I can see applying to dual discipline cards. e.g. you must have one too get to two The last 6 are emulation(i.e. as if) effects. Rulings on such have been contestant "one emulation per card" www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3d4aa6e913ee7940&usg=AFQjCNF-dS1t7nbsTHplSVOYxrLxEyblIA My only problem with SCS is the use of "e.g." exemplī grātiā (“for example”) instead of i.e. id est (“that is”). I could be getting this wrong, but it seems like it does not preclude clan sect or sun-sect, though I know it has been ruled so.

Shard, the last problem you mention really isn't a problem at all. There is no explicit reason to allow 'requires a vampire' to include 'requires a specific version of vampire' (last quote invented by me). While, for example, 'Camarilla' is indeed an attribute associated with 'requires a vampire', it also limits what kind of vampire you refer to. In the case of SCS, the enabling 'requires a vampire' doesn't automatically include 'Camarilla'. The reasoning may be negativistic in nature, but we (as players and rules-mongers alike) don't find a problem, because we argue that if a Sabbat vampire (who very much fills the require ments of 'requires a vampire') isn't allowed to use 'Camarilla' -only effects, then something that doesn't belong to the category of the 'family' of vampire to begin with can't use 'Camarilla' -only effects unless explicitly allowed to do so. (see Mata Hari for a vampire who needs additional text to 'cheat' while still belonging to the 'family' of 'requires a vampire') Last, thank you for the philology. I can add Ian Forestal to the list of cards you mentioned. His card text doesn't exactly follow the frames for your search, but there are definitely rulings associated with him along the lines of this rules conversation.

I didn't search crypt cards, as noted. Here is a ruling on Inceptor, which is more like SCS than any other card in effect. groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3c17a14b93ff120d?dmode=print