Can a 1-cap with Inceptor utilise cards which require Maleficia or Striga?
Case against:
- Mal/Str are not disciplines, Inceptor only fakes disciplines.
Case for:
- Mal/Str are not disciplines, so the Inceptor makes them playable.
Inceptor
Type: Master
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.
Maleficia
Type: Master
Master: trifle.
Put this card on an infernal vampire. This vampire may play cards that require Maleficia [mal] (not a Discipline). With two of these cards, he or she may play cards that require superior Maleficia [MAL]. Burn this card if this vampire is not infernal.
Striga
Type: Master
Master: trifle.
Put this card on an infernal vampire. This vampire may play cards that require Striga [str] (not a Discipline). With two of these cards, he or she may play cards that require superior Striga [STR]. Burn this card if this vampire is not infernal.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Ah yes, "Read the F***ing Card". Just like LSJ's old "Card Text" posts.
Ladies & Gents... it's a legitimate question because the card text isn't perfectly clear. Juggernaut actually made that quite clear in his original post.
Given that Striga cards don't require disciplines, Inceptor might reasonably be though to let the vampire "play other copies of these cards" -- flat-out.
Now, I'm not arguing that this is the right interpretation of the rules. My VTES instincts pull the other way -- after all, would they be played at superior or inferior?
But it's not at all clear from the language of the card and I really wish people would stop pretending that this game is written in some sort of Fregean-Russellian perfect logical notation.
It's messy as hell. But that's OK. Because it's a great game anyway.
Ok here's the logic behind it. You may put any three cards on Inceptor, knock yourself out. You must meet the requirements of the card to play it, which Inceptor cannot help you with if it is not a discipline. Striga and Mal are not a discipline, therefore you do not gain the ability to play those cards through Inceptor.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
> Ok here's the logic behind it. You may put any three cards on Inceptor, knock yourself out. You must meet the requirements of the card to play it, which Inceptor cannot help you with if it is not a discipline. Striga and Mal are not a discipline, therefore you do not gain the ability to play those cards through Inceptor.
>
Agreed, this is what I said.
Pascal, thanks for the official confirmation.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
> Ok here's the logic behind it... You must meet the requirements of the card to play it, which Inceptor cannot help you with if it is not a discipline.
>
I appreciate the effort to help me see the Light of Natural Reason as set forth in the Rulebook, but I have to disagree with you. Not with your interpretation of what happens in this situation, obviously. I just disagree that we're in any way talking about "logic." It's not logic. It's an agreed-upon convention with which any given player may or may not be familiar.
Here's the logic behind saying it's not logic:
There's a rule that you must meet the requirements of a card to play it. (1.6.1.3; see also 1.6.3)
But there's also a rule that says that card text takes precedence over the rules. (1.4)
You're telling me that 1.6.1.3 takes precedence over Inceptor's wording, which says:
> This vampire may play other copies of these cards as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior.
>
Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause. It's a perfectly reasonable (although, as it happens, incorrect) reading of Inceptor to say that the Vampire can play other copies of these cards, with that ability taking precedence under Rule 1.4 over rule 1.6.1.3.
So to make the ruling one of "logic", you must assume (correctly) that the "may play" language of Inceptor is subordinate to 1.6.1.3.
And that's an allowable assumption -- because that's the convention. But the one thing it's not is a logical extension of the rules or the card text, which by themselves do not tell us which way to resolve this particular situation.
> Legendre wrote:
> So to make the ruling one of "logic", you must assume (correctly) that the "may play" language of Inceptor is subordinate to 1.6.1.3.
>
No, it's just that you're reading half a sentence on a card and claiming that that means something it doesn't, when the whole sentence says something different. This is true even if you underline some of the words to try and distract people from the whole sentence. Similarly, we don't play Eyes of the Serpent and read it as saying "This acting minion cannot be blocked by allies until the end of this action ." Which is what you're doing with the card text here.
You may play the cards as if you met the discipline requirement (if any). This isn't "You may play the cards irrespective of every other rule in the game." If the card requires an anarch and you're not an anarch, you can't play it, even though you meet the discipline requirement. If you don't have the blood to pay for the card, you can't play the card. But but but the card text says "This vampire may play other copies of these cards" so I have to be able to play the card even though I can't afford it, right? If the card requires a clan that you're not, you can't play the card. But the card says "This vampire may play other copies of these cards" so I have to be able to play the card, right? RIGHT? If the card requires an ally and you're a vampire, you can't play the card. But how can you not see that the card tells me right there I can play it? It says "MAY PLAY", look at only those two words and I'm right, right?
If we wish to split semantic hairs here... then "may" and "can" are not equivalent.
"May" implies a permission to, or some allowance.
"Can" implies capability.
The old stupid joke of Student: "Can I go to the toilet teacher?" T: "Well I hope you can, you're old enough to be at school!".
That Inceptor says the minion MAY play copies does not say that it CAN play copies UNLESS those copies require disciplines (if any are required).
So, the logic is rather simple.
1) You may put any three cards you wish onto Inceptor. Inceptor does not care which cards you choose to place on it.
2) You have permission to play those cards, and those cards only, AS IF the minion had the REQUIRED DISCIPLINES if that card requires disciplines.
3) If those cards do NOT require disciplines, then Inceptor cannot help you play them.
So to conclude the logic from those three premises you get these two statements.
A: Inceptor will let you fake any Superior Discipline, including all those quasi-broken Bloodlines Disciplines like Temporis, required to play the cards placed on Inceptor.
B: Inceptor will NOT let you fake anything that is NOT a Discipline (since it is AS IF the minion had the REQUIRED DISCIPLINES at Superior (if any)). Since Mal & Str are NOT Required Disciplines (they are Required Non-Disciplines) they cannot be faked by Inceptor. This is similar to if the card required Black Hand, Seraph or a specific Clan.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> If we wish to split semantic hairs here... then "may" and "can" are not equivalent.
> "May" implies a permission to, or some allowance.
> "Can" implies capability.
>
Rule-wise, "can" and "may" are strictly equivalent in V:TES. Beast doesn't ask for permission before entering combat for instance.
> Legendre wrote:
>
> > This vampire may play other copies of these cards as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior.
> >
> Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause. It's a perfectly reasonable (although, as it happens, incorrect) reading of Inceptor to say that the Vampire can play other copies of these cards, with that ability taking precedence under Rule 1.4 over rule 1.6.1.3.
>
The important part is the "can play ... as if..." so you skipped half of the syntax. This syntax allows the vampire to emulate some part of the requirements, not all the requirements.
The syntax that would match your interpretaion is well-known and would be "This vampire may play other copies of these cards ignoring its requirements."
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Legendre wrote:
> >
> > > This vampire may play other copies of these cards as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior.
> > >
> > >
> > Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause. It's a perfectly reasonable (although, as it happens, incorrect) reading of Inceptor to say that the Vampire can play other copies of these cards, with that ability taking precedence under Rule 1.4 over rule 1.6.1.3.
> >
> The important part is the "can play ... as if..." so you skipped half of the syntax. This syntax allows the vampire to emulate some part of the requirements, not all the requirements.
>
> The syntax that would match your interpretaion is well-known and would be "This vampire may play other copies of these cards ignoring its requirements."
>
Yes, it is well-known. You're totally right. Almost everyone who plays VTES knows that "ignoring its requirements" is required language for ignoring requirements.
Just like almost everyone knows that "as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior" means not that if a question arises about whether a card that can be played is played at superior or inferior, it can be either, but rather that the minion can ignore discipline requirements only, but no other requirements.
But that's my point: it's well-known. It's not listed out in the rules, or in the card text.
And the answer to someone who doesn't know these well-known things should just be an explanation of what's going on in the conventions and the language of the game, not a demand that they RTFC -- which doesn't help if you don't already know what's "well-known".
> Legendre wrote:
> Just like almost everyone knows that "as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior" means not that if a question arises about whether a card that can be played is played at superior or inferior, it can be either, but rather that the minion can ignore discipline requirements only, but no other requirements.
>
> But that's my point: it's well-known. It's not listed out in the rules, or in the card text.
>
Your point is that because the card text says you can play it as if you met the discipline requirements, it also means you can jettison every other rule in the game?
It doesn't say the card has to be in your hand. Quick, play cards from the ash heap. Play them from your library! Play them from your box of cards over there! It doesn't list, anywhere, that you have to play them from your hand.
It doesn't say you have to play them during you turn. You can take an action right in the middle of your prey's influence phase. It says you can play them, so you can play them anytime, right?
You are reading the card as saying "YOU CAN PLAY THEM, REGARDLESS OF THE REST OF THE GAME. Oh, and, by the way, you meet the discipline requirement." The card text actually tells you in one whole sentence that you can play them as if you met the discipline requirement. You still have to meet the timing requirements. You still have to have a copy. You still have to pay costs. Other restrictions may in fact prevent the card being played.
The only thing the card tells you to disregard is the discipline requirement. It doesn't then go on to list all the things you have to continue to obey, because you have to continue to obey them. The Golden Rule of Cards is that to the extent necessary to facilitate the play, cards contradict the rules. The Golden Rule of Cards does not mean that a card poking a small hole in the rules is suddenly dropping a nuclear bomb on them. You get out of meeting discipline requirements. That's it. That's the Golden Rule of Cards in operation. Nothing else is overturned by card text.
Karsh-Adv may play Blood Hunt as a prince. ("Karsh may play a Blood Hunt card from your hand or ash heap as a prince.") He still has to be untapped. He still has to be able to act. You still have to have the impulse. Everything else still applies.
The bit on the card that contradicts the rules is the only bit of the rules that is contradicted.
> Legendre wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > Legendre wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This vampire may play other copies of these cards as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause. It's a perfectly reasonable (although, as it happens, incorrect) reading of Inceptor to say that the Vampire can play other copies of these cards, with that ability taking precedence under Rule 1.4 over rule 1.6.1.3.
> > >
> > >
> > The important part is the "can play ... as if..." so you skipped half of the syntax. This syntax allows the vampire to emulate some part of the requirements, not all the requirements.
> >
> > The syntax that would match your interpretaion is well-known and would be "This vampire may play other copies of these cards ignoring its requirements."
> >
> Yes, it is well-known. You're totally right. Almost everyone who plays VTES knows that "ignoring its requirements" is required language for ignoring requirements.
>
> Just like almost everyone knows that "as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior" means not that if a question arises about whether a card that can be played is played at superior or inferior, it can be either, but rather that the minion can ignore discipline requirements only, but no other requirements.
>
> But that's my point: it's well-known. It's not listed out in the rules, or in the card text.
>
> And the answer to someone who doesn't know these well-known things should just be an explanation of what's going on in the conventions and the language of the game, not a demand that they RTFC -- which doesn't help if you don't already know what's "well-known".
>
Now you skipped the important part of my argumentation, which was not "the well known part" but the fact that you missed the "as if" part of the syntax.
My examples were just there to approach the subject from another angle.
Here's another approach: according to you, "Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause."
So basically,
1) you're saying that any card without a discipline can be played by the minion with Inceptor since the Inceptor clause can be read as "This vampire may play other copies of these cards". Which means that you ignore any requirements (clan, sect, capacity etc.) for this card.
2) Now, if the card requires a Discipline, Inceptor allows you to consider you have the required discipline.
In the end, if we follow your logic, we could play any card put on Inceptor, whether it has a discipline (case 2) or not (case 1).
Question is: why was the "as if" clause added since it doesn't change anything according to your interpretation?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Here's another approach: according to you, "Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause."
> So basically,
> 1) you're saying that any card without a discipline can be played by the minion with Inceptor since the Inceptor clause can be read as "This vampire may play other copies of these cards". Which means that you ignore any requirements (clan, sect, capacity etc.) for this card.
> 2) Now, if the card requires a Discipline, Inceptor allows you to consider you have the required discipline.
>
> In the end, if we follow your logic, we could play any card put on Inceptor, whether it has a discipline (case 2) or not (case 1).
>
> Question is: why was the "as if" clause added since it doesn't change anything according to your interpretation?
>
That's an excellent question.
First off, let's dispense with the notion that I'm presenting anything as a matter of "logic". I'm presenting a possible interpretation of the card text (and one that I happen to know is wrong).
All I'm trying to do is explain that the ruling as presented is not the only reasonable ruling from the card text and the rulebook.
So now to address your question, which is a good one: if the first clause gives you carte blanche to play the cards, what's the second ("as if") clause even doing there? Surely I shouldn't read the first clause so as to render the second clause superfluous.
And I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable to read that clause as a clarification not *that* you can play the cards, but rather *how* you can play the cards.... as letting you know whether or not you can play a card at Superior or not. It's wrong -- but it's reasonable.
Of course, were you to read it like that -- or even if you were to just see that this is a possible reading of the text -- and if you were to know in addition that Striga and Maleficia were not disciplines, you might wonder whether or not you could play Striga and Maleficia cards at Superior, only at inferior, or not at all. And you might ask such a perfectly legitimate question on a forum dedicated (in part) to explaining and clarifying the language of the game.
And it wouldn't help to have someone who is so deeply familiar with the language of the game that they don't even realize that there are other interpretations to tell you to read the f***ing card. Because you would have done that already, and that wouldn't have answered your question.
Merci bien de votre temps. Vous avez mis pression excellente sur mon argument, en bon maniere. (And my apologies for my dreadful French.)
At some time common sense has to step in and leave philosophy behind. Otherwise you might use "carte blanche" reasoning whenever you use cards with keywords "burn", "destroy". Your playgroup might not like someone literally burning their cards
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
> Legendre wrote:
> So now to address your question, which is a good one: if the first clause gives you carte blanche to play the cards,
>
It doesn't. That's the point. Your bizarre, continued assertion that you can read half a sentence and divine the meaning of card from that means that Eyes of the Serpent makes me unblockable, because I can read half a sentence too.
See also:
Autonomic Mastery: "Combat ends immediately after this strike resolves, unless it is dodged." We only read the first half of the sentence because we are functionally illiterate, and combat ends even if we dodge.
Life Boon: "The first victory point that the Methuselah wins is given to you (unless you are ousted by then)." We only read the first half of the sentence, because reading a whole sentence is too hard, and we get the VP anyway.
Game of Malkav: "Each Methuselah gains the amount of pool he or she chose unless another Methuselah chose exactly one less than he or she did, in which case, he or she burns that amount of pool." Yay! Free pool for everyone! No need to read whole sentences! Reading is for boring squares! More pool for me!
Aabbt Kindred: "Aabbt Kindred cannot perform actions unless Nefertiti is ready." What the hell was LSJ thinking? These vampires can never act, because I decided to stop halfway through the sentence.
Vasily: "Contesting a title costs Vasily an additional blood unless you control the Edge." Man, it sucks that it costs him more blood even if I control the Edge!
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Legendre wrote:
> > So now to address your question, which is a good one: if the first clause gives you carte blanche to play the cards,
> >
> It doesn't. That's the point. Your bizarre, continued assertion that you can read half a sentence and divine the meaning of card from that means that Eyes of the Serpent makes me unblockable, because I can read half a sentence too.
>
Now you're just being obtuse.
Are you seriously telling me that you can't tell the syntactic difference between an "unless" clause that modifies an imperative and a conditional "as if" clause?
> Legendre wrote:
> Are you seriously telling me that you can't tell the syntactic difference between an "unless" clause that modifies an imperative and a conditional "as if" clause?
>
No, I'm telling you that your entire line of argument is a complete and total farcical bag of nonsense.
There is no rule in V:TES that means you can read half a sentence for one card and the whole sentence for another. Read the whole sentence (indeed, the whole card!) for both, irrespective of any use of the conditional, imperative, pluperfect, perfect, future perfect, subjunctive, passive, impersonal, past historic, present, or imperfect.
Are you seriously telling me that you can't read a whole sentence?
"Laughs heartily, as if this thread were comedic" would allow me to laugh if it weren't, right? Or only if there were? Crap, now I'm deeply confused. I should know better than to return to the forum after an extended absence.
I guess the object of the lesson is just laugh until someone tells me it's not permissible, then continue laughing anyway.
There's a difference between the language of Inceptor and the language of Eyes of the Serpent. With Inceptor, the second part of the relevant sentence, "as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior," suggests a situational clarification of the first half, "This vampire may play other copies of these cards." My language is a bit imprecise; I'm trying to suggest that it could be read as a non-necessary clarification concerning discipline cards in particular rather than a necessary clause. With Eyes of the Serpent, the second half is necessary to give the first half its meaning.
Anyway, even if this is ridiculous, I agree entirely with Legendre's basic argument, which is that "rtfc" is generally a bad response to give here considering the incredible complexity of VTES on the one hand and the English language on the other. The game doesn't have the precision of a science, and we shouldn't pretend that it does.
Sometimes you just have to say your piece, drop the mic and walk away from a thread. Some people won't get it and that's OK.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/