Infernal Pact
Type: Master
Requires: Tremere antitribu
Cost: 1 pool
Unique master.
Put this card on a Tremere antitribu you control and choose a Discipline. The vampire with this card can play cards that require that Discipline as though he or she has the superior version of that Discipline.
Vidal Jarbeaux
Clan: Toreador (group 5)
Capacity: 8
Disciplines: PRE aus cel obf pot
Camarilla: Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed.
I don´t know if playing Infernal Pact as Tremere antitribu and choosing a Tremere antitribu count as two different things for Vidals special or only as one.
> Dr.Mafrune wrote:
> I don´t know if playing Infernal Pact as Tremere antitribu and choosing a Tremere antitribu count as two different things for Vidals special or only as one.
>
Only as one. When and while playing the card, he emulates the Tremere antitribu clan, because playing the card is an unitary thing.
EDIT: Vidal's special doesn't allow YOU to play Infernal Pact though. But he could play Concert Tour (see my answer below).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Dr.Mafrune wrote:
> > I don´t know if playing Infernal Pact as Tremere antitribu and choosing a Tremere antitribu count as two different things for Vidals special or only as one.
> >
> Only as one. When and while playing the card, he emulates the Tremere antitribu clan, because playing the card is an unitary thing.
>
Sorry, I replied a little hastily.
Vidal doesn't allow YOU (the Methuselah) to play Infernal Pact because his cardtext only allows HIM to play (minion) cards.
For instance he could play Concert Tour (using his special once as requirement and target of the card).
Name: Concert Tour
Cardtype: Action
Clan: Daughter of Cacophony
Cost: 1 blood
Burn Option
+1 stealth action.
Put this card on this acting Daughter of Cacophony. During your next untap phase, burn this card to restore this vampire to full capacity with blood from the blood bank.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Admitelly, for once the wording on Jarbeaux is really confusing, since it does not clearly state he must play the card to use his ability.
(caveat : maybe it's because I'm not a native english speaker)
Not that I'd be keen on making hilarious retarded decks but if you had Mata Hari in play to allow you to play Infernal Pact, and then play it on Videl, everything would be ok?
"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."
If I understand correctly, no you can't, because you still can't use Jarbeaux ability.
Since he does not play the infernal pact, he can't meet any part of the requirement with its cardtext.
Exactly. The wording of his text doesn´t specify to whom the playing ability applies, so to play refers to whichever can benefit from it, for example you as methuselah.
Is this an official errata?
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Admitelly, for once the wording on Jarbeaux is really confusing, since it does not clearly state he must play the card to use his ability.
>
> (caveat : maybe it's because I'm not a native english speaker)
>
Exactly. The wording of his text doesn´t specify to whom the playing ability applies, so to play refers to whichever can benefit from it, for example you as methuselah.
Is this an official errata?
> Dr.Mafrune wrote:
> Exactly. The wording of his text doesn´t specify to whom the playing ability applies, so to play refers to whichever can benefit from it, for example you as methuselah.
>
> Is this an official errata?
>
It's more a clarification than an errata since the text of Vidal isn't changed.
If there were to be an errata, it could be : "Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement for him to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed."
Or "If there were to be an errata, it could be : "Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement for him and you to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> jpas wrote:
> Not that I'd be keen on making hilarious retarded decks but if you had Mata Hari in play to allow you to play Infernal Pact, and then play it on Videl, everything would be ok?
>
> "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."
>
I wouldn´t dare to make the great mistake of underestimating a deck featuring Mata Hari and Vidal Jarbeaux the way you do.
The way I see it: Vidal cannot have the Pact played on him because he can only meet the requirements if he plays a card. Since a master is played by the Methuselah on Vidal, he cannot meet the requirements.
If he could get the Infernal Pact, then he would be able to use the discipline because the Pact allows him to do so, not his ability.
With Mata Hari in play, you can only play the Pact on her, because she is the only one that meets the requirements for the Pact (ergo, you can play Infernal Pact, because you control a vampire that meets the clan requirements, but you can only play it on her).
I think I got it all right, but we could use a O-ruling from Floppy.
Vidal's text allows for playing master cards too.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/a6a6bb99867a3443?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
"He can meet a given requirement only once each game"
Hum... just a doubt...
He can play a given requirement only once, I am inferring that he can do something like this:
Play Undue Influence (anarch) and then play Uncontrolled Impulse (Ishtarri)...
And later on the game play open war (Baron) and maybe knotted cord (infernal) in a different action...
But after this he wont be able to play more anarch, ishtarri, baron or infernal cards...
Or can he only play one of the above?
He play the four card you say without problem.
I don't know however if he can play a first Parity Shift, meeting "prince" requirement, and then another one as a justicar.
He cannot play infernal trait cards. Read text:
Vidal Jarbeaux
Clan: Toreador (group 5)
Capacity: 8
Disciplines: PRE aus cel obf pot
Camarilla: Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> I don't know however if he can play a first Parity Shift, meeting "prince" requirement, and then another one as a justicar.
>
He can.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Haze wrote:
> Vidal's text allows for playing master cards too.
>
> groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/a6a6bb99867a3443?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
>
So, reading this source and connecting this with what Ankha said about playing a card is an unitary can we say that you definitely can play an infernal pact on Vidal Jarbeaux ?
> Dr.Mafrune wrote:
>
> > Haze wrote:
> > Vidal's text allows for playing master cards too.
> >
> > groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/a6a6bb99867a3443?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
> >
> So, reading this source and connecting this with what Ankha said about playing a card is an unitary can we say that you definitely can play an infernal pact on Vidal Jarbeaux ?
>
Looks like it, might want to wait for Mr B to come back though. Personally I found the discussion about 'traits' not currently on minions very interesting (e.g. govenment or inconnu).
> Cyrus wrote:
> Looks like it, might want to wait for Mr B to come back though. Personally I found the discussion about 'traits' not currently on minions very interesting (e.g. govenment or inconnu).
>
Was John Flouroy a rule reference ? I don't see LSJ confirming what he say, and floppy wasn't rule lawyer back then.
It's not that I inherently don't trust him. It's just that, not knowing who he is, I have no reason to put his reasonment above the one from Ankha.
Uh?
LSJ says in that thread:
> LSJ wrote:
> If his controller wants to play a card that requires <blah>, "Vidal can meet the requirement to play [that] card."
>
That seems quite clear, no?
He then also goes on to note that Kemintiri works different because she's worded different and that this is intended.
> Izaak wrote:
> That seems quite clear, no?
>
No, but I can take your word for it if it's english comprehension. Especially since, I already misread the conversation to understand "Kemintiri, like Jarbeaux, cannot be used to play master requiring ventrue".
Edit : also, it mean that Mata Hari could be rewrited from :
> You and she may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan.
>
to
> Mata Hari may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan.
>
so that there is no ambiguity on whether she work differently from Jarbeaux or not.
Jarbeaux can use only one of the abilities. You can always use mata hari to play cards that require Ventrue, Baali, or else. Jarbeaux can only play one of the cards for each trait.
> wesile wrote:
> Jarbeaux can use only one of the abilities. You can always use mata hari to play cards that require Ventrue, Baali, or else. Jarbeaux can only play one of the cards for each trait.
>
Yes, but what I want to say is that Mata Hari current text have a (supposedly) useless reminder that master card you play are also affected, while Jarbeaux does not have such text and yet work on the same fashion.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> also, it mean that Mata Hari could be rewrited from :
>
> > You and she may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan.
> >
> to
>
> > Mata Hari may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan.
> >
> so that there is no ambiguity on whether she work differently from Jarbeaux or not.
>
Not sure what you want to say exactly here.
Rewriting Mata Hari's text in the manner you suggest would change the scope of her special ability.
The current text allows both her and the Muthuselah to play (minion and master) cards.
The new text would limit her special to minion cards only (compare to Kemintiri (ADV)'s card text, which uses the "She can play minion cards that require..." text).
Vidal's card text, in my opinion, is NOT like what you suggest as rewritten version of Mata Hari; it does NOT use the "[Minion] can play..." wording.
"It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality"
---
Hardy Range
Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager
> hardyrange wrote:
> Rewriting Mata Hari's text in the manner you suggest would change the scope of her special ability.
>
It seem you didn't read the above post.
LSJ said, as Izaak point out, that Jarbeaux with current text allow Master to be played. So Mata Hari with this text would still allow to play master card.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > hardyrange wrote:
> > Rewriting Mata Hari's text in the manner you suggest would change the scope of her special ability.
> >
> It seem you didn't read the above post.
>
> LSJ said, as Izaak point out, that Jarbeaux with current text allow Master to be played. So Mata Hari with this text would still allow to play master card.
>
Well, I did in fact read the whole thread.
Maybe we leave it at the statement that I have the exact opposite opinion about this, as the text you proposed for Mata Hari is not using the same wording used in Vidal's text, so in my opnion would lead to a differnet special ability?
"Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement to play any card..."
versus
"Mata Hari may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan."
But maybe this is indeed confusion in a discussion between non-native speakers....
"It was a perfect plan - until it had contact with reality"
---
Hardy Range
Playgroup Tradition Compliance Manager
I agree with hardyrange -- the way Ohlmann worded Mata Hari means she is the only one (of her and the Methuselah who controls her) that can play cards which require [exotic stuff].
That's because "Mata Hari may play" binds to Mata Hari, while the "to play" in Vidal's text is not bound to him, apparently.
> Sérgio wrote:
> I agree with hardyrange -- the way Ohlmann worded Mata Hari means she is the only one (of her and the Methuselah who controls her) that can play cards which require [exotic stuff].
>
The fun thing is - I agree with that. But LSJ does not, so it's more or less "there is an official statement that I, hardyrange, and Sergio are wrong".
Then again, look at the Izaak post.
Yes in English (using Mata as the example)
Mata can play...
and
Mata can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement to play any card
are not the same
The first states that Mata plays the card, the second means that she can meet the requirement to play the card e.g. like having a ready Malk in play allows you to meet the requirement to play Asylum HG.
hardyrange/Sergio aren't wrong they're just trying to point out from a non-native speakers perspective where you have erred.
I am curious, does anyone else think Vidals' text could also be a negative?
Camarilla: Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g. anarch) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed.
> Squidalot wrote:
> Yes in English (using Mata as the example)
>
> Mata can play...
> and
> Mata can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement to play any card
>
> are not the same
>
> The first states that Mata plays the card, the second means that she can meet the requirement to play the card
>
For me, the problem comes from the "to play" part of the sentence that have no subject. One may think that it allows only Vidal to play cards, another may think it allows anyone (minion/Methuselah) to play card.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> For me, the problem comes from the "to play" part of the sentence that have no subject. One may think that it allows only Vidal to play cards, another may think it allows anyone (minion/Methuselah) to play card.
>
You could think that. There is a LSJ response, pointed out by some poster, that it allow to play master and any card that require presence, and not only card she play. So, saying she can "meet requirement" and "play as" is the same thing according to LSJ. I am not arguing semantics here.
> Ankha wrote:
> For me, the problem comes from the "to play" part of the sentence that have no subject. One may think that it allows only Vidal to play cards, another may think it allows anyone (minion/Methuselah) to play card.
>
Sure but without a subject for 'to play' you either stick with common English meaning (which for instance in other games would have Vidal meeting the requirements for a player to do something), stick with LSJS view (which is the same) or re-write the ruling which would actually require a rewrite and downgrading of Vidal.
> Squidalot wrote:
> Sure but without a subject for 'to play' you either stick with common English meaning (which for instance in other games would have Vidal meeting the requirements for a player to do something), stick with LSJS view (which is the same) or re-write the ruling which would actually require a rewrite and downgrading of Vidal.
>
To be picky Hugh, what was confusing people is that in the common English, a verb without a subject defaults to the last subject. So the sentence, expanded in common English would be: "Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement for him to play any card."
I don't think we could generalize this to other games... as many other games don't have cards playing other cards. In V:tES you do, so the expansion above would be valid.
That said, I think (both logically, and based on the posts from LSJ), that indeed he can play masters.
If you control Vidal and he hasn't faked !Tremere yet, you can play an Infernal Pact on Vidal. Vidal would be faking !Tremere for the resolution of playing that Infernal Pact (which means you can put that Infernal Pact on Vidal).
It is likely that I add a few words to Vidal's text to make this clearer.
Could we get a clear note, maybe in the card rulings, that Vidal's text allows his methuselah also to meet the requirements to play master card of a different clan (once per clan)?
Thanks in advance!
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
I did put the ruling in the codex.
codex-of-the-damned.org/card-search/index.html?card=Vidal%20Jarbeaux
If there’s any ruling you’d like to see added, do not hesitate to submit it on the form in the card search page.
Sorry to get back on this one, but it is still unclear imho.
Does Vidal's ability allow his Methuselah to play master cards from other clans/sects as well? Is there a specific ruling?
Vidal's text is fundamentally different from Mata Hari's, hence the confusion. While the former refers only to the minion himself, the latter highlights "You and she may play".
Name: Vidal Jarbeaux
[KoT:V]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Toreador
Group: 5
Capacity: 8
Discipline: aus cel obf pot PRE
Camarilla: Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., {Black Hand}) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed.
Artist: Mike Gaydos
Name: Mata Hari
[KMW:U/PAn]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Ravnos
Group: 4
Capacity: 7
Discipline: aus for qui CHI OBF
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.
Artist: Steve Prescott
> Does Vidal's ability allow his Methuselah to play master cards from other clans/sects as well? Is there a specific ruling?
>
Yes. Ruling is Pascal's, just above.
> If you control Vidal and he hasn't faked !Tremere yet, you can play an Infernal Pact on Vidal. Vidal would be faking !Tremere for the resolution of playing that Infernal Pact (which means you can put that Infernal Pact on Vidal).
>
Why do I have this habit of delving into rules questions first thing after waking up... uugh
> Camarilla: Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., {Black Hand}) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed.
>
> 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.
> Artist: Steve Prescott
>
The reason why Vidal and Mata Hari are different, is that Mata Hari specifically mentions the player in the card text. Mata Hari allows the player to play Ventrue HQ as if Mata Hari was a ventrue (she fulfills the requirement of a ventrue in play).
Vidal doesn't refer to the player. He refers only to himself. "To play any card" refers to Vidal playing the card. Therefore he shouldn't fulfill the requirements of playing master cards.
However, you apparently have LSJ ruling from the paleolithic period saying otherwise. So I see three options:
1. Errata Vidals cardtext to mention the player "for you and Vidal to play any card", mirroring Mata Haris text.
2. Obey the existing card text and actually rule against LSJ for once
3. Ban Vidal (I would shed no tears if you choose this option)
ps. We can all be silently thankful to BCP for omitting Vidal's reprint among the recent Keepers of the Tradition reprints.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Vidal doesn't refer to the player. He refers only to himself. "To play any card" refers to Vidal playing the card. Therefore he shouldn't fulfill the requirements of playing master cards.
>
This has already been discussed previously (see page 6). Nothing new here, nothing has changed.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
So perhaps change wording to match existing template ?
Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.