Mata Hari and kholo cards

I just made a breed vote deck with Mata Hari Tsunda and a bunch of Eldest are Kholo, Tumnimos, Embraces and a couple of Bambas. Several questions of how the kholo cards (Akunanse kholo etc.) work with Mata Hari came up in the game and I can't seem to find any answers online. 1) We were pretty sure that Mata Hari can play Akunanse kholo on herself, but that it would result in her having a useless title of kholo since she can't have 2 titles (she loses her independent title) and isn't an Akunanse anymore after the action ends. Is this the case? 2) Can Mata Hari make a Laibon Tumnimos? The card requires Ravnos, but it takes on the clan and sect of the vamp that brings it into play, both of which Mata Hari can impersonate. 3) Can Mata Hari make a Laibon Akunanse Tumnimos, or Laibon Guruhi Tumnimos, etc so that she or those Tumnimos can play Akunanse Kholo or Guruhi Kholo during the next referendum? 4) Can Mata Hari make a Laibon Akunanse Embrace or Bamba? Those don't require a specific clan. Here are the relevant card texts. Thanks for your inout. Mata Hari [aus] [for] [qui] [CHI] [OBF] [Ravnos] 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. Akunanse Kholo [Action Modifier] Action Modifier [Reaction] Reaction [Akunanse] Akunanse Only usable during a referendum. Usable by a tapped vampire. Title. Put this card on this Laibon Akunanse to represent the unique Laibon title of Akunanse Kholo (worth 2 votes). Not usable if there are any older ready untitled Laibon Akunanse. Whenever this vampire is not a ready Laibon Akunanse or there is an older ready untitled Laibon Akunanse, move this card to (one of) the oldest ready untitled Laibon Akunanse (if any). Bamba [Action] Action [1 Blood] Requires a non-sterile Laibon with capacity 4 or more. +1 stealth action. Put this card in play; it becomes a 1-capacity non-unique Laibon of the same clan and cannot act this turn. If the acting Laibon is a magaji, you may search your library, hand and ash heap for a master: Discipline card to play on this vampire (pay cost as normal) and you may move 1 blood from that magaji to this Laibon. Tumnimos [Action] Action [Ravnos] Ravnos [2 Blood] Requires a ready non-Sterile Ravnos with a capacity above 4. +1 stealth action. Put this card in play; it becomes a 2-capacity Ravnos with one level of Chimerstry [chi] . You may move a master: Discipline card from your hand to this vampire (pay cost as normal). This vampire is not considered unique, must hunt this turn and is the same sect as the acting Ravnos. Embrace, The [Action] Action [2 Blood] +1 stealth action. Requires a ready non-Sterile vampire. Put this card in play; it becomes a non-unique vampire with 1 capacity of the same clan as the acting vampire. This vampire must hunt this turn.

> mjvtes521 wrote: > 1) We were pretty sure that Mata Hari can play Akunanse kholo on herself, but that it would result in her having a useless title of kholo since she can't have 2 titles (she loses her independent title) and isn't an Akunanse anymore after the action ends. Is this the case? > She's never an Akunanse (unless you actually Clan Impersonate her, or similar). For example, Consanguineous Boon: Akunanse won't treat her as an Akunanse (giving you a pool) just because you played Akunanse Kholo with her. When you use Mata Hari's "as if..." special, the card she plays sees her as whatever for the purposes of: - playing the card (e.g. meeting the requirements) - resolving the card - lingering effects (e.g. "for the rest of combat, this !Salubri has +1 strength") But NOT: - effects from the card being in play, such as "The Abomination with this card has..." So, you play the card, with Mata Hari meeting the requirements (Akunanse). You resolve the card, putting it on her. She loses her existing title, because she now has two titles (one from her text, one from the incoming title card). Once the card is in play, it no longer sees her as Akunanse, so the title goes inert on her. [LSJ 20070212] > > LSJ wrote: > > And now that I think of it, maybe she can't play the Kholos at all. > > They confer sect-based titles, and she would be playing the card as an > > Ishtarri Independent vampire. Compare to a Crusade vote that she calls > > as a Ravnos Sabbat vampire. > She plays the Kholo (a card that requires a clan and a sect) as if she > were of that clan and sect -- a Laibon Ishtarri. > > So your first guess is correct. > > She receives the title Ishtarri Kholo. So she loses the title "Mata has > two votes". The new title immediately goes inert until she changes > clan (and sect) for real to Ishtarri. > Then, once in play, the card no longer sees her as a Laibon Akunanse (or Laibon Ishtarri, in LSJ's example), the card text about: "Whenever this vampire is not a ready Laibon Akunanse or there is an older ready untitled Laibon Akunanse..." will kick in, if there are any other untitled Akunanse around. At no point has Mata become Akunanse. Akunanse Kholo does not see her as being Laibon and Akunanse for the duration of the action. > mjvtes521 wrote: > 2) Can Mata Hari make a Laibon Tumnimos? The card requires Ravnos, but it takes on the clan and sect of the vamp that brings it into play, both of which Mata Hari can impersonate. > The card requires Ravnos, but it does not require a sect. Mata Hari can impersonate a sect when: You and she may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan. Since it doesn't require a sect, there is no "required sect" for her to impersonate. > mjvtes521 wrote: > 3) Can Mata Hari make a Laibon Akunanse Tumnimos, or Laibon Guruhi Tumnimos, etc so that she or those Tumnimos can play Akunanse Kholo or Guruhi Kholo during the next referendum? > Tumnimos doesn't require Akunanse, Guruhi or Laibon. Mata Hari's special only operates on cards that require things and she can be treated "as if" she were the required thing - if you play the card or she plays the card. Her special isn't: "If you or she play a card with a clan or sect requirement, pick any clan and/or sect you feel like and treat Mata Hari as if she was that clan and/or sect." > mjvtes521 wrote: > 4) Can Mata Hari make a Laibon Akunanse Embrace or Bamba? Those don't require a specific clan. > If a card doesn't require a clan or sect, Mata's Special is completely irrelevant - she's just a plain old Independent Ravnos. (Unless you've actually changed her clan and/or sect with Clan Impersonation, Mozambique Allure etc.)

And for the details: Bambas she creates are Laibon (per cardtext) Embraces she creates are independent (the default sect of Ravnos, per rulebook) Tumninos she creates are of the same sect as her (per cardtext): independent, unless she changed sect earlier Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thanks Ankha and James. Looks like my deck just got a lot worse

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > She loses her existing title, because she now has two titles (one from her text, one from the incoming title card). > There is something very fishy about that part. Without resorting to "because LSJ said so", can anyone explain where that time quantum where Mata Hari actually gets the Kholo title comes from? Mata Hari can play cards as if she were of the required clan and sect. In the case of the Kholo, the only effect of the card resolution is "put this card on this Laibon Akunanse", and everything else is the effect of the card being in play, that Mata hari does not get because she does not meet the clan and sect requirements. In particular, the second half of the sentence "to represent the unique Laibon title of Akunanse Kholo (worth 2 votes)" is already part of the "card-in-play" effect, because otherwise the new vampire would not get a title when the card moves around without being played.

> Non-existant user wrote: > There is something very fishy about that part. Without resorting to "because LSJ said so", can anyone explain where that time quantum where Mata Hari actually gets the Kholo title comes from? > It's potentially arguable either way (so it's handy we have a ruling). For me, we have a card that is a Title card (it says so, with a keyword). Ordinary handling of Title cards is that a new one coming in gets rids of a previous title - burning another title card, or getting rid of an innate/cardless title. Creating an extra way in which Mata Hari needs special rulings seems unhelpful, so I'd go with that. It's close to the "inert" title handling e.g. what happens if Mata calls a Praxis Seizure - which, note by card text, are now really an "in play" effect, the result of the referendum isn't, as in years gone by (pre-Title template), "Successful vote means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Chattanooga", or similar - so if we go down this rabbit hole, we may end up with Mata doing even weirder things. Similarly, I wouldn't personally want to deal with the case where the title reactivates and you have to explain to people which one of the two titles still works. Basically, Mata is already complicated enough. Adding another codicil to the rulings on her probably isn't for anyone's benefit.

I don't think this is about Mata, it is about the Kholo cards. > For me, we have a card that is a Title card (it says so, with a keyword). > Problem is: per card text, you can have the card on without having the title. For example, if a kholo goes Anarch and there is no other eligible vampire, nothing says that card must burn, so he just keep it on without benefiting from the title, and the other effects are still active (i.e.: the first eligible vampire that comes out becomes the new Kholo). If you argue that the "title" keyword on the card is enough to cause Mata Hari's title to burn, then you open another can of worms, because it means that a kholo who goes anarch (and somehow keeps the card) is still a titled vampire for all relevant effects, and there are a lot of those.

Kholo: "Put this card on this Laibon Akunanse to represent the unique Laibon title of Akunanse Kholo (worth 2 votes)." Mata Hari plays it as a Laibon Akunanse and is considered a Laibon Akunanse for the resolution of the card, which is gaining this card that represents a new title. She loses her own title at that moment. After resolution, she's now longer a Laibon Akunanse, so the title becomes inert (unless it moves to another Akunanse of course). Gaining the card is the same as gaining the title (that's why there's a "title" keyword). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Mata Hari plays it as a Laibon Akunanse and is considered a Laibon Akunanse for the resolution of the card, which is gaining this card that represents a new title. She loses her own title at that moment. After resolution, she's now longer a Laibon Akunanse, so the title becomes inert (unless it moves to another Akunanse of course). > If gaining the tile is part of resolution, then if a praxis burns for some reason, the vampire keeps his title? Do we agree that all effects on cards are either resolution effects or card-in-play effects (I hope I am not missing any stuff that triggers in the hand or ash heap?) > Gaining the card is the same as gaining the title (that's why there's a "title" keyword). > Source? The burden of proof is on you, because we already know that having the card is not the same as having the title: titles can go inert, and Kholo cards have more effects than granting a title, so the cards do not go "inert" when the title does.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Mata Hari plays it as a Laibon Akunanse and is considered a Laibon Akunanse for the resolution of the card, which is gaining this card that represents a new title. She loses her own title at that moment. After resolution, she's now longer a Laibon Akunanse, so the title becomes inert (unless it moves to another Akunanse of course). > > > If gaining the tile is part of resolution, then if a praxis burns for some reason, the vampire keeps his title? > No, he or she doesn't. > Rulebook wrote: > Title: A Title card is a placeholder for a title. If the title is yielded or lost, the card is burned. If the title is unique, contests are paid with vampire blood, as normal for titles. > The card is the title: if the title is contested, the card is out of play too. If the card is burned, the title is lost. If the card moves (that is the case with the Kholo), the title moves too. > Non-existant user wrote: > Do we agree that all effects on cards are either resolution effects or card-in-play effects (I hope I am not missing any stuff that triggers in the hand or ash heap?) > The question is too vague. Gaining the Kholo card is the same as gaining the title. > Non-existant user wrote: > > > Gaining the card is the same as gaining the title (that's why there's a "title" keyword). > > > Source? The burden of proof is on you, because we already know that having the card is not the same as having the title: titles can go inert, and Kholo cards have more effects than granting a title, so the cards do not go "inert" when the title does. > Source: the aforementioned rulebook section. I don't know what "we know", but the card is a placeholder for the title. It has also additional effects, so what? See also Regent in the Card Rulings section of this website. > Card wrote: > Regent: > Regent is a title card, so it is out of play if the title is contested (and the built-in rush is not usable when the card is not in play). [LSJ 20070808] > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director