Mata Hari and Hakim's Law: Leadership

Mata Hari plays Haqim's Law: Leadership. There is no other Assamite on the table. Does Mata Hari's controller gain 2 pool? Mata Hari 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. Haqim's Law: Leadership Action Assamite +1 stealth action. Each Methuselah who controls any of the oldest ready Assamites gains 2 pool.

I would think "no" because when it resolves it checks for Assamites on the table, and Mata Hari isn't one. You and her can play cards as though she were of any clan or sect, but that wouldn't apply to effects that check for clan / sect. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Mata Hari plays Haqim's Law: Leadership. There is no other Assamite on the table. Does Mata Hari's controller gain 2 pool? > > Mata Hari > 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. > > Haqim's Law: Leadership > Action > Assamite > +1 stealth action. > Each Methuselah who controls any of the oldest ready Assamites gains 2 pool. > Haqim's Law: Leadership sees Mata Hari as an Assamite since she is playing it as an Assamite, so her controller gains 2 pool. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thanks. Is that ruling written somewhere? I could only find it for allies playing cards as vampires in the General Rulings section. That could be replaced by a more general version since it holds.

O geez. So should read may play (ie meet requirements) and be considered as of a clan or sect for the resolution of the card. #facepalm

So what you're saying is that once she plays the card she becomes an assamite until the end of the action? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

May play as if.... Also not the dumbest

> DJHedgehog wrote: > So what you're saying is that once she plays the card she becomes an assamite until the end of the action? > No. When a vampire plays a card "as a (whatever)" (clan, sect, whatever), that card - and only that card - sees that vampire as being whatever it is for three things: 1) Playing the card. 2) Resolving the card e.g. Call the Great Beast: "Put this card on the acting Baali " (put it on Mata). These are usually pretty uncontroversial. Hakim's Law is working the same way as Call the Great Beast. The fact that actions have split play/resolution may make it look slightly wonky when compared to, say, an action modifier resolving immediately like Blood Brother Ambush (requires !Brujah), but it's the same in both cases. 3) Lingering effects that come from that card play. The commonest example here is Raking Talons. "For the remainder of combat, damage from this Gargoyle's hand strikes is aggravated." For the remainder of combat, Mata's hand strikes are aggravated. (This didn't always work this way, if you look at aged rulings.) In none of these circumstances does any other card see Mata as being anything other than her proper clan or sect. (Unless that card is also being played "as a...", of course.) If you play Scorn of Adonis (action modifier, requires Toreador) on a referendum that Mata calls, only Scorn of Adonis sees Mata as a Toreador. Nothing else does. Alexandra cannot use her Toreador-targeting ability to tap Mata, because Alexandra sees her as Ravnos. The Louvre cannot use its Toreador-targeting to tap Mata, because Louvre sees Mata as Ravnos. The other situation is effects provided by a card once it's gone in play. Those cards do not see Mata as anything other than her proper clan or sect for the effects provided by the card being in play. Example: Sight Beyond Sight Requires: Salubri Unique master. Put this card on a Salubri you control. The Salubri with this card gets +1 intercept. When you play it, it sees her as a Salubri. So you can play it. When you resolve it - "Put this card on a Salubri you control" - it sees her as a Salubri. So it goes on her. It provides no lingering effect from card play (a la Raking Talons). When the card is in play, it provides a bonus to "The Salubri with this card". This effect sees Mata as a Ravnos, and so doesn't provide her with +1 intercept. The same would be true if you had put it on a real Salubri, and then played Clan Impersonation: Ravnos with that Salubri - the card would be there, but not helping it. This also means that Call the Great Beast (an example from above) isn't very helpful if you need to take subsequent actions to call the Great Beast. Put this card on the acting Baali and put X ritual counters on it, where X is the capacity of this Baali. This Baali may put a ritual counter on this card as a +1 stealth action. The first sentence is part of the resolution of Call the Great Beast - put the card on the acting Baali with some counters. Once it's in play, "This Baali" (i.e. the Baali with this card) can take actions. That second sentence sees her as a Ravnos. The same would be true if a Baali put Call the Great Beast on itself, but was then Clan Impersonated to Ravnos - it wouldn't be able to take the actions provided by CtGB being in play. (So you're obviously unlikely to do it, but maybe someone Mind Rapes you and makes you play Clan Impersonation or something.)

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > When a vampire plays a card "as a (whatever)" (clan, sect, whatever), that card - and only that card - sees that vampire as being whatever it is for three things: > > 1) Playing the card. > 2) Resolving the card e.g. Call the Great Beast: "Put this card on the acting Baali " (put it on Mata). > > These are usually pretty uncontroversial. Hakim's Law is working the same way as Call the Great Beast. > But it's not though? Hakim's Law doesn't reference the acting minion. It would seem like it looks around (checks) for Assamite, which Mata Hari isn't, even though she can (and did) play cards as though she were Assamite. It does not explicitly call back to her as being [clan] when she played it. It seems like it's just up to the arbitration of our rules director, so it's whatever. But I wonder, can Mata Hari call a Cardinal Benediction on herself? And once (if) she's a Cardinal, can she then play Blood Feast to gain 1 blood? Maybe to prevent future confusion, the cards should be more explicitly worded. Such as: Mata Hari may count and be considered as any sect and / or clan for your intents and purposes of meeting card requirements and / or effects. That might be a buff though. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

@James and wall of text I know for me, as a native English speaker, the wording leaves a lot to be desired. As if should never be used unless you are an actor in 1995 movie clueless. Using it on a card shows poor judgement.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > But it's not though? Hakim's Law doesn't reference the acting minion. It would seem like it looks around (checks) for Assamite, which Mata Hari isn't, even though she can (and did) play cards as though she were Assamite. It does not explicitly call back to her as being [clan] when she played it. > > It seems like it's just up to the arbitration of our rules director, so it's whatever. > This x100. Just a random decision in a sea of random decisions. The card says "The players with the highest capacity Assamites gain pool".

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > But it's not though? Hakim's Law doesn't reference the acting minion. It would seem like it looks around (checks) for Assamite, which Mata Hari isn't, even though she can (and did) play cards as though she were Assamite. It does not explicitly call back to her as being [clan] when she played it. > > > > It seems like it's just up to the arbitration of our rules director, so it's whatever. > > > This x100. Just a random decision in a sea of random decisions. > > The card says "The players with the highest capacity Assamites gain pool". > Well yeah, it's random. The wording on cards like art of pain or sight beyond sight were not determined with this in mind. It seems the sloppiness of this wording has been noted and corrected for that new tzimiche guy, vlad dracu??? At any rate we have such a mess of words and effects it's a miracle the game functions on any level.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > When a vampire plays a card "as a (whatever)" (clan, sect, whatever), that card - and only that card - sees that vampire as being whatever it is for three things: > > > > 1) Playing the card. > > 2) Resolving the card e.g. Call the Great Beast: "Put this card on the acting Baali " (put it on Mata). > > > > These are usually pretty uncontroversial. Hakim's Law is working the same way as Call the Great Beast. > > > But it's not though? > It is. > LivesByProxy wrote: > Hakim's Law doesn't reference the acting minion. > It doesn't need to. At the point of resolution, Hakim's Law sees Mata Hari as an Assamite. At the point of resolution, Call the Great Beast sees Mata as a Baali. > LivesByProxy wrote: > It would seem like it looks around (checks) for Assamite, which Mata Hari isn't, > ...but due to the way ""as a..." works, Hakim's Law is fooled into thinking she is one at the point of resolution - even though she isn't one really. The same is true for Sight Beyond Sight. It doesn't say "Put this card on the acting Salubri" - obviously, because there isn't an acting Salubri during a master phase action - it just says "Put it on a Salubri you control." At the point of resolution, Sight Beyond Sight sees Mata Hari as a Salubri - so it resolves with no issues and goes onto Mata. (But then doesn't provide her with intercept when in play.)

> DJHedgehog wrote: > The card says "The players with the highest capacity Assamites gain pool". > And Mata Hari's text has been ruled (consistently, many times) to mean that at the point of resolution, the card sees her as an Assamite. So the card might see her as the highest capacity Assamite. Mata Hari's text and other "as a..." cards essentially say: "Mata Hari can hoodwink a card into believing she is something else for play, resolution, and lingering effect." One motivation for things working like this is that - when designing cards - it massively simplifies the thought process that goes "Oh bloody hell, what does this really mean for Mata Hari? Or when Shadow Court Satyr plays it? Or when Tatiana Stepanova plays it? Or when Kemintiri plays it?" (And so on.) The card works for a Ravnos pretending to be a Gangrel the same way it works for a Gangrel. (It may then stop working when in play.)

> LivesByProxy wrote: > But I wonder, can Mata Hari call a Cardinal Benediction on herself? And once (if) she's a Cardinal, can she then play Blood Feast to gain 1 blood? > Work through it. Cardinal Benediction Requires a Sabbat vampire. Title. Choose a Sabbat vampire with a capacity over 6. If this referendum passes, put this card on that vampire to represent the Sabbat title of cardinal. Camarilla vampires cannot cast votes or ballots during this referendum. 1) Can Mata Hari call a Cardinal Benediction [and choose] herself [as the terms of the referendum]? Yes. She can play it as a Sabbat vampire, per her card text. Since it required a Sabbat vampire to be called, the card sees her as Sabbat for the remainder of the action, so she can name herself as the target of the card. If the referendum passes, she gains the title of cardinal, and thereby loses her title of two votes. However, as soon as the action is over, the cardinal title becomes inert, because independent vampires can't hold Sabbat titles. So, 2) And once (if) she's a Cardinal, can she then play Blood Feast to gain 1 blood? Only if she switches sects to become Sabbat, thereby reactivating her cardinal title.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > But it's not though? Hakim's Law doesn't reference the acting minion. It would seem like it looks around (checks) for Assamite, which Mata Hari isn't, even though she can (and did) play cards as though she were Assamite. It does not explicitly call back to her as being [clan] when she played it. > > > > It seems like it's just up to the arbitration of our rules director, so it's whatever. > > > This x100. Just a random decision in a sea of random decisions. > It's not random or arbitrary. It is consistent with ALL the other rulings about "X plays cards as a <something>". Or can you justify it's random? If you talk about the original decision, it is by definition arbitrary, as are all designer's decisions. Vampires bleed for 1 by default? Arbitrary. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Something can be arbitrary and consistent at the same time. You just refer to earlier arbitrary choices. Not sure why you are equating the 2 things in any way. These are not designer decisions. These are rulings. It wasn't ruled that minions default bleed of 1, that was a structure of the game. It was ruled that "as if" means "has until resolution". Not sure why you are equating the 2 things in any way. The equivalence between "as if" and "has until resolution" is arbitrary as it follows no reasoned design goal or standard rules of the English language. Its just what one guy decided one day and would be no more valid than some other guy deciding the exact opposite the next day.

> Ankha wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > > But it's not though? Hakim's Law doesn't reference the acting minion. It would seem like it looks around (checks) for Assamite, which Mata Hari isn't, even though she can (and did) play cards as though she were Assamite. It does not explicitly call back to her as being [clan] when she played it. > > > > > > It seems like it's just up to the arbitration of our rules director, so it's whatever. > > > > > > > > This x100. Just a random decision in a sea of random decisions. > > > It's not random or arbitrary. It is consistent with ALL the other rulings about "X plays cards as a <something>". Or can you justify it's random? > > If you talk about the original decision, it is by definition arbitrary, as are all designer's decisions. Vampires bleed for 1 by default? Arbitrary. > It's not intuitive in the least. I'm assuming because English isn't your first language that it's not as clear to you. Let's make a real life comparison: my company makes an exception and I can make a policy as if I were the CEO.I make a rule that the CEO should get a bonus. Does this in your mind mean I would get that bonus? By making a policy as a CEO do I become the CEO? Mata Hari isn't an assamite, the text doesn't say she becomes an assamite. It says she can play cards as if she were. Based on my understanding of the English language, her ability starts and stops when the card is played. The card text should reflect the intentions of the card. Sure, it's easier to make a blanket ruling but that ruling doesn't make sense based on the text of the card. The decision is random (as are all the other ones) in a sense that no native English speaking would look at those two cards and think they work the way it is ruled.

LSJ's interpretations of his poor an inconsistent templating and card design are a detriment to the game. They have led to countless pages of rulings that don't align with the cards as written. This is just one of a hundred reasons why this game is inaccessible to new players.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > LSJ's interpretations of his poor an inconsistent templating and card design are a detriment to the game. > Playing cards "as a whatever" is, in fact, a WotC template - which LSJ then used consistently(*). See Talaq, the Immortal, Blood Brother Ambush, and Shadow Court Satyr. The "as a" rulings are consistent across different whatevers. (*) With the exception that the capacity/gain life/lose life element for allies was moved to the rulebook, to avoid having to have huge amounts of text on every ally being treated "as a" vampire.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > Based on my understanding of the English language, her ability starts and stops when the card is played. > This was basically how I read things. Another reason I read it as such: timing windows (as I perceived / assumed them.) 1) Announce / play action card. Mata Hari's ability works during this window. No ambiguity here. 2) Window for block attempts and reaction cards. 3) If not blocked or canceled somehow, then the action would resolve - In my mind, the card-text effect being separate from it's requirements and occurring in a different timing window, I would not have thought Mata Hari's ability worked like LSJ / Ankha's ruling. But then, all this does is remind me of the discussion on Black Cat's special ability a few months ago. She gets a gun for 1 cheaper, and then effects that check for the pool cost of the gun (like Illegal Search And Seizure) must recognize / remember / retroactively apply her discount, nevermind what the printed pool cost was. Some really weird rules decisions IMO. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > 3) If not blocked or canceled somehow, then the action would resolve - In my mind, the card-text effect being separate from it's requirements and occurring in a different timing window, I would not have thought Mata Hari's ability worked like LSJ / Ankha's ruling. > The initial rulings on how "as a whatever" works pre-date LSJ. Cryptic Mission giving Talaq the Immortal an extra life (when the acting vampire gains 1 blood) was ruled in [TOM 19960628] - which is a clear example of "as a vampire" working at the point of resolution of an action. > Non-existant user wrote: > It means they follow any instructions given to the "vampire" playing the > card as best they are able. In this case, it means that Talaq does lose > 1 life when playing Rutor's Hand, Cryptic Mission will give him 1 life, > and so on. >

> LivesByProxy wrote: > But then, all this does is remind me of the discussion on Black Cat's special ability a few months ago. She gets a gun for 1 cheaper, and then effects that check for the pool cost of the gun (like Illegal Search And Seizure) must recognize / remember / retroactively apply her discount, nevermind what the printed pool cost was. Some really weird rules decisions IMO. > A WotC rules team ruling. Cards on her cost less. www.vekn.net/card-rulings/card-rulings-a-to-f Black Cat: The lower pool cost is used for the "cost" of equipment on her. [RTR 19941109] Note that this includes equipment she didn't equip but that has since been moved to her. (Equip from another minion, Heidelberg etc.)

> Non-existant user wrote: > It means they follow any instructions given to the "vampire" playing the > card as best they are able. In this case, it means that Talaq does lose > 1 life when playing Rutor's Hand, Cryptic Mission will give him 1 life, > and so on. > ... Follow any instructions given to the "vampire". The instruction is to check the capacity of the Assasmites and to provide the controllers of the assamites with pool. How does that explanation fit the Hakim's law situation?

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > LSJ's interpretations of his poor an inconsistent templating and card design are a detriment to the game. > > > Playing cards "as a whatever" is, in fact, a WotC template - which LSJ then used consistently(*). See Talaq, the Immortal, Blood Brother Ambush, and Shadow Court Satyr. The "as a" rulings are consistent across different whatevers. > > (*) With the exception that the capacity/gain life/lose life element for allies was moved to the rulebook, to avoid having to have huge amounts of text on every ally being treated "as a" vampire. > This is not the same wording. "as a vampire" and "as if she were of the required sect and or clan" do not mean the same thing. If we choose to arbitrarily interpret them as the same thing that is another issue. If the designers meant them to work the same clearly they would have been worded the same. "as a member of the required sect and or clan" would be simple enough to do so the only logical conclusion we can reach is that these effects are meant to be different.

step 1 decide what scope mata hari etc is to be considered fulfilling requirements step 2 errata mata hari et al to reduce ambiguity i think that also as a non-nativr speaker, i have been very confused by these vamps

> Mewcat wrote: > If the designers meant them to work the same clearly they would have been worded the same. "as a member of the required sect and or clan" would be simple enough to do so the only logical conclusion we can reach is that these effects are meant to be different. > This is incorrect. For instance "A and B" is the same as "B and A". But by following your "logic", they would be different things because they are not "worded the same way" and it would be "simple enough to do so". "as a vampire", "as if X were a vampire" mean the same thing. "as if she were of the required sect and or clan" and "as a member of the required sect and or clan" mean the same thing. I'm curious to know how, in your logic, "as a vampire" and "as if X were a vampire" could have different meanings. What would be the difference? My opinion is that you are simply splitting hairs (for fun?). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > It means they follow any instructions given to the "vampire" playing the > > card as best they are able. In this case, it means that Talaq does lose > > 1 life when playing Rutor's Hand, Cryptic Mission will give him 1 life, > > and so on. > > > ... Follow any instructions given to the "vampire". The instruction is to check the capacity of the Assasmites and to provide the controllers of the assamites with pool. How does that explanation fit the Hakim's law situation? > The rulings given by WotC had a tendency to be phrased somewhat casually, and not to account for every logical possibility. (Or, during the brief Spike era, to be really very weird indeed.) But note that the point that LivesByProxy was making - to which I was responding - was that the resolution of the action card was not covered by the "play as a" wording, when it clearly is, as per the TOM ruling. However, if you want to slice up that some text will treat the card "as a" whatever during resolution but some other text won't at the same point, then why are you arguing for something that would require an even larger wall of text to explain to people, and which is inconsistent with itself?

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > If the designers meant them to work the same clearly they would have been worded the same. "as a member of the required sect and or clan" would be simple enough to do so the only logical conclusion we can reach is that these effects are meant to be different. > > > This is incorrect. For instance "A and B" is the same as "B and A". But by following your "logic", they would be different things. > > "as a vampire", "as if X were a vampire" mean the same thing. > "as if she were of the required sect and or clan" and "as a member of the required sect and or clan" mean the same thing. > > I'm curious to know how, in your logic, "as a vampire" and "as if X were a vampire" could have different meanings. What would be the difference? > > My opinion is that you are simply splitting hairs (for fun?). > You are incorrect. First off, templating is very serious. We are using "as a vampire" as an equivalence for something else, with a lot of text and concepts tied to it. when we change one word we have disrupted the entire equivalency. "as if X were a vampire" cannot logically have the same equivalence. Furthermore, "as if" carries with it implicitly that that the thing acting as a vampire is not a vampire. This is a distinct connotational difference from saying it acts "as a vampire" which has no such complexity of meaning. Thing acts as a vampire. Thing acts like a vampire but is specifically restated to not be a vampire. Why are we making this clear? Mata plays cards that an assamite can play, but is still clearly NOT an assimite. Might one conclude that this means you cant gain pool? The words matter.

> Mewcat wrote: > This is not the same wording. "as a vampire" and "as if she were of the required sect and or clan" do not mean the same thing. > They work the same way - see the many, many, many, many, many rulings on the issue. > Mewcat wrote: > "as a member of the required sect and or clan" would be simple enough to do so > Doesn't work in English. "You and she may play cards as a member of the required sect and/or clan." You (the player) don't play master cards "as a Salubri". You want to play the card with Mata Hari counting as a Salubri. > Mewcat wrote: > the only logical conclusion we can reach is that these effects are meant to be different. > I'm not sure how ignoring the many, many, many, many consistent rulings on the issue counts as logical.

> Mewcat wrote: > Furthermore, "as if" carries with it implicitly that that the thing acting as a vampire is not a vampire. This is a distinct connotational difference from saying it acts "as a vampire" which has no such complexity of meaning. > Both have the same meaning on that point. The thing is treated as a whatever - vampire, clan, sect - but does not become the real thing. > Mewcat wrote: > Thing acts like a vampire but is specifically restated to not be a vampire. Why are we making this clear? > Because the intention is that the ally doesn't become a vampire. (This is stated elsewhere in the same TOM ruling I cited earlier.) If Talaq the Immortal is in combat and plays Theft of Vitae, his opponent cannot send him to torpor with a Rowan Ring strike or any other vampire targeting effect. One card pretends he is a vampire, but the rest of the game still sees him as an ally. As a TOM ruling, that's pretty much as close to designer intent as we get.

If you don't understand the import of word choice and connotation I guess we are done.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > I'm not sure how ignoring the many, many, many, many consistent rulings on the issue counts as logical. > Because it has nothing to do with the rulings and everything to do with looking at the card and understanding what it does. I shouldn't have to reference 50 pages of rulings stored in multiple locations made by different people to understand something that should be easy to say in English. The words matter. The order of the words matter. The fact that a ruling exists only goes to prove the point that the card doesn't stand alone to say what it does.

> Mewcat wrote: > Furthermore, "as if" carries with it implicitly that that the thing acting as a vampire is not a vampire. This is a distinct connotational difference from saying it acts "as a vampire" which has no such complexity of meaning. Thing acts as a vampire. Thing acts like a vampire but is specifically restated to not be a vampire. Why are we making this clear? > You are overthinking it. Let's say I want to open my front door "as if" I didn't have the key. Now, I may or may not have the keys in my pocket. How does it have an influence on the way I open my front door? None. For instance, I take a stone, and break my window to get in. Mata Hari can play a card as if she were an Assamite. Maybe she's an Assamite if she played a Clan Impersonation earlier. Or not. It doesn't matter. The card sees her as an Assamite. > Mewcat wrote: > Mata plays cards that an assamite can play, but is still clearly NOT an assimite. > From which point of view? From the point of view of the card that she plays as an Assamite, she is cleary an Assamite: the card behaves exactly as if an Assamite were playing it. Of course, this applies to the resolution of the card: for cards that resolve immediately, such as Bloodstorm of Chorazin, it is easy to understand. For action cards such as Haqim's Law: Leadership, since actions have a delayed resolution, this applies until the card resolves, that is the duration of the action (but only from that card's point of view). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > I'm not sure how ignoring the many, many, many, many consistent rulings on the issue counts as logical. > > > Because it has nothing to do with the rulings and everything to do with looking at the card and understanding what it does. I shouldn't have to reference 50 pages of rulings stored in multiple locations made by different people to understand something that should be easy to say in English. > Except the interpretation you've most recently put forward - that it would follow the instructions given to the vampire, but not other effects - would be impossible to divine without a similar set of rulings. This is V:TES. Some things in it are complicated. Some card interactions are complicated. The myriad interactions cannot all fit on card text, so rulings are a necessary evil. There is no reconstruction of V:TES that looks even remotely like the current game where this is not true. As far as I can tell, your position is essentially an absolutist, fundamentalist position that no rulings should ever be necessary, because every card text interaction should only work in absolutely one way that everyone can see. This isn't possible.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Except the interpretation you've most recently put forward - that it would follow the instructions given to the vampire, but not other effects - would be impossible to divine without a similar set of rulings. > > This is V:TES. Some things in it are complicated. Some card interactions are complicated. The myriad interactions cannot all fit on card text, so rulings are a necessary evil. There is no reconstruction of V:TES that looks even remotely like the current game where this is not true. > > As far as I can tell, your position is essentially an absolutist, fundamentalist position that no rulings should ever be necessary, because every card text interaction should only work in absolutely one way that everyone can see. This isn't possible. > That's just not true. She plays the card as if she met the requirements. If it stopped right there, rulings would be unnecessary. Nothing about the card phrasing or text would say "for the purposes of the entire action she becomes an Assamite". She plays the card breaking the normal rules, but she never becomes something else or stops being what she is.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > Furthermore, "as if" carries with it implicitly that that the thing acting as a vampire is not a vampire. This is a distinct connotational difference from saying it acts "as a vampire" which has no such complexity of meaning. Thing acts as a vampire. Thing acts like a vampire but is specifically restated to not be a vampire. Why are we making this clear? > > > You are overthinking it. > > Let's say I want to open my front door "as if" I didn't have the key. Now, I may or may not have the keys in my pocket. How does it have an influence on the way I open my front door? None. For instance, I take a stone, and break my window to get in. > > Mata Hari can play a card as if she were an Assamite. Maybe she's an Assamite if she played a Clan Impersonation earlier. Or not. It doesn't matter. The card sees her as an Assamite. > > > Mewcat wrote: > > Mata plays cards that an assamite can play, but is still clearly NOT an assimite. > > > From which point of view? From the point of view of the card that she plays as an Assamite, she is cleary an Assamite: the card behaves exactly as if an Assamite were playing it. > > Of course, this applies to the resolution of the card: for cards that resolve immediately, such as Bloodstorm of Chorazin, it is easy to understand. > > For action cards such as Haqim's Law: Leadership, since actions have a delayed resolution, this applies until the card resolves, that is the duration of the action (but only from that card's point of view). > You are underthinking it. No 2 words or phrases in English have the exact same meaning. to think otherwise is to have a childs understanding of the language. When we pick one over the other (assuming we actually thought about it) there are reasons and effects.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > That's just not true. She plays the card as if she met the requirements. If it stopped right there, rulings would be unnecessary. > Except then it wouldn't work for resolving all sorts of cards, and lots of people would shout and scream "But it says I can play them as Laibon Nosferatu, so I should bloody well get the benefit of that." That was - for example - one of the reasons that Raking Talons works as it does (now), because a bunch of people read her text as allowing that to work. If you think that there is One True Interpretation that all players will agree on when looking at her card text, you are emphatically, empirically wrong. People have always had to ask questions about "as a...", because they and their friends sat down, looked at the card text, and had different interpretations of how it worked. Because totally reasonable people sat down playing the game together can have reasonable differences of opinion of how the card works, rulings are necessary.

> Mewcat wrote: > You are underthinking it. No 2 words or phrases in English have the exact same meaning. to think otherwise is to have a childs understanding of the language. > Helpfully, V:TES has official rulings that two things are the same or can be treated the same way. For example, "Prevent 2 damage" and "Prevent up to 2 damage" were ruled to mean the same thing. The ruling actually said so, specifically: Effects that prevent "up to X" damage and effects that "prevent X" damage mean the same thing. > Mewcat wrote: > When we pick one over the other (assuming we actually thought about it) there are reasons and effects. > Indeed, when rulings are made that say two things work the same word, there are reasons and effects. The effect of that ruling would be to make the two things mean the same thing in V:TES.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > That's just not true. She plays the card as if she met the requirements. If it stopped right there, rulings would be unnecessary. > Quite the opposite. Mata Hari is an exception. She can play cards that were not designed with her in mind. If you start parsing card texts to figure out what applies, then you open yourself to applying only some of the effects of a card that was designed to be atomic, and that can break the game in all kinds of ways. Just look at Vlad Tepes and No Secrets for an example. It is more robust to ensure that if a card can be played, then it works as designed.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > Nothing about the card phrasing or text would say "for the purposes of the entire action she becomes an Assamite". She plays the card breaking the normal rules, but she never becomes something else or stops being what she is. > Well, playing an action card is a process of fully resolving the action card. And that is actually quite a long process, during which many different cards can be played. "Playing an action card" doesn't end when you put it down on the table from your hand. You only pay an action cards cost after it successfully resolves, after all. I think this is the main issue you have with this. Mata Hari is 'playing Hakim's law' for the entire duration of the action. This means that for the entire duration of the action the card sees her as an assamite. When the card finally resolves, the card still sees her as an assamite. I don't have an issue with this, and I have issues with MANY VTES rules as many may know xD. This just comes down to definition of what does "playing a card" mean. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

so just to get this right, playing a card is finished when the action is finished if it is an action card? does this mean i cant redraw action cards before the action is finished since i am still playing the card until after the action resolves?

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > Nothing about the card phrasing or text would say "for the purposes of the entire action she becomes an Assamite". She plays the card breaking the normal rules, but she never becomes something else or stops being what she is. > > > Well, playing an action card is a process of fully resolving the action card. And that is actually quite a long process, during which many different cards can be played. "Playing an action card" doesn't end when you put it down on the table from your hand. You only pay an action cards cost after it successfully resolves, after all. > > I think this is the main issue you have with this. Mata Hari is 'playing Hakim's law' for the entire duration of the action. This means that for the entire duration of the action the card sees her as an assamite. When the card finally resolves, the card still sees her as an assamite. I don't have an issue with this, and I have issues with MANY VTES rules as many may know xD. This just comes down to definition of what does "playing a card" mean. > I'm tired of going around in circles on this because it's clear that I'm in the minority of thinking the desired effect isn't clearly stated on the card. Let's say she plays a Renegade Garou. The card requires a gangrel to take the action. It doesn't require a gangrel to complete the action. The process of the "action", as you've stated above, has no impact on bending the rules in this case. Based on how I read the card, I would have no problem with what is going on in this example. The card requires a gangrel, so it checks if a gangrel is playing it. She plays the card as if she was a gangrel. Nothing else needs to be said here- if the action is successful the ally is put into play because it only mattered that she was a gangrel for the purposes of playing the card. AND THAT IS ALL HER TEXT SAYS. She may play the card as if she was a gangrel. What the ruling is saying is that she becomes a different sect/clan for the entirety of the action until it is resolved. That's not what the card says. It says "play". Let's look at another card that allows similar rule bending: Mouthpiece. "The acting minion may play cards requiring basic dominate as a vampire until the end of this action". This phrasing is quite clear on the intended effect of the card. From the point of this card being played until the end of the action, the acting minion can utilize that benefit. Why would I ever assume, based on the text of the card, that Mata Hari's ability would last until the end of the action? I'm not arguing the ruling. I'm saying the card allows ambiguity that needs to be addressed through means that aren't rulings I have to dig to find in 2-4 different sites. The phrasing and templating aren't consistent and they're confusing.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > That's just not true. She plays the card as if she met the requirements. If it stopped right there, rulings would be unnecessary. > > > Quite the opposite. Mata Hari is an exception. She can play cards that were not designed with her in mind. If you start parsing card texts to figure out what applies, then you open yourself to applying only some of the effects of a card that was designed to be atomic, and that can break the game in all kinds of ways. Just look at Vlad Tepes and No Secrets for an example. It is more robust to ensure that if a card can be played, then it works as designed. > Poor phrasing, wording, templating doesn't excuse other bad phrasing, wording, templating. It's sloppy and it's confusing and it's unnecessary.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > I'm tired of going around in circles on this because it's clear that I'm in the minority of thinking the desired effect isn't clearly stated on the card. > Trust me, you're not the only one thinking the effect isn't clearly stated. If one wasn't around at the time all these rulings were made, it's very, very difficult to figure out how playing things "as if" should work. It's to the point where I just avoid all cards like that. They're on my personal "banned list" because I think the effect fits so poorly into the game that having clear card text explaining the effect in a way where everybody reading it would understand exactly what to do is impossible. > I'm not arguing the ruling. I'm saying the card allows ambiguity that needs to be addressed through means that aren't rulings I have to dig to find in 2-4 different sites. The phrasing and templating aren't consistent and they're confusing. > I love how you felt the need to restate this. I run into an issue like that a lot here. I'll explain that something could be stated better and folks here think I don't understand the rules or something and explain what the rules are. And then I have to be like, "no, I totally get it, it's just that there's an issue here other than how the rules work that you're kind of dismissing because the rules work fine." Just because something can't really be fixed (in this case, card text explaining the effect fully) doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Those things probably should be the first thing to address.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I love how you felt the need to restate this. I run into an issue like that a lot here. I'll explain that something could be stated better and folks here think I don't understand the rules or something and explain what the rules are. And then I have to be like, "no, I totally get it, it's just that there's an issue here other than how the rules work that you're kind of dismissing because the rules work fine." > Welcome to the club. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I love how you felt the need to restate this. I run into an issue like that a lot here. I'll explain that something could be stated better and folks here think I don't understand the rules or something and explain what the rules are. And then I have to be like, "no, I totally get it, it's just that there's an issue here other than how the rules work that you're kind of dismissing because the rules work fine." Just because something can't really be fixed (in this case, card text explaining the effect fully) doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Those things probably should be the first thing to address. > Literally every time. *COUGH*JAMESZEPHYRANDANKHA*COUGH*

I agree on improving wordings when they can be improved. But first of all, let's say you don't start on the right foot when the first message is: > > DJHedgehog wrote: > So what you're saying is that once she plays the card she becomes an assamite until the end of the action? > > That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. > Now, they are two different ways of seeing things: 1/ Mata Hari's special only apply to requirement 2/ Mata Hari's special apply to requirement and effects of the cards. Clearly, you all three are pushing towards option 1 which is against a (large?) portion of the player's population way to understand the thing. Furthermore, option 2 was ruled as the good one by the designers. You may understanding something else when reading the template, but it's a mistake game-wise. > DJHedgehog wrote: > > Let's say she plays a Renegade Garou. The card requires a gangrel to take the action. It doesn't require a gangrel to complete the action. The process of the "action", as you've stated above, has no impact on bending the rules in this case. Based on how I read the card, I would have no problem with what is going on in this example. > > The card requires a gangrel, so it checks if a gangrel is playing it. She plays the card as if she was a gangrel. Nothing else needs to be said here- if the action is successful the ally is put into play because it only mattered that she was a gangrel for the purposes of playing the card. AND THAT IS ALL HER TEXT SAYS. She may play the card as if she was a gangrel. > Sure, there are no issues with cards that don't reference the acting minion. Now, if a card requires an Assamite and says "This Assamite gains 1 blood.", then it's logical to assume (at least for plenty of players) that if Mata Hari plays it "as an Assamite", she gains 1 blood. Said otherwise, you read "play" as "meet the requirement" where the rulings read "play" as "meet the requirements and apply the effects". Or, since you like when two things written differently mean different things, consider Vidal Jarbeaux: Vidal can meet a clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., Black Hand) requirement to play any card. Your concern would make sense with Vidal's (crappy) wording (which apparently behave the same way as Mata Hari nevertheless groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/hpFRDAmtSbA/httYmI5wpB8J) Some interesting links about "why": groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f5ba0a7b96c43ff7 groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/03936c6504510308 groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8ba90dfb7aefa979 > LSJ wrote: > CthuluKitty wrote: > > As has already come up in this thread, the biggest problem I see with > > changing the current rule is a bizarre inconsistency that comes about > > with certain vampires. If an ally can play Torn Signpost (or similar) > > and use it as a vampire, then why can't Mata Hari play Raking Talons > > and use it as a gargoyle? > She would be able to. The change would be applied to everything which > uses the base rule as a precedent. Mata, Kemintiri, etc. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

So Ankha how would you word the card so that a ruling or interpretation wouldn't be necessary and have it accomplish the intentions of the ruling made by the designer?

"You and Mata Hari may play and use cards requiring any clan and / or sect as though she were that clan and / or sect. (She is counted and considered that clan and / or sect for cards you and her play.)" AND / OR "You and Mata Hari may play and use cards requiring any clan and / or sect as though she were that clan and / or sect. (Cards played this way count and consider her as that clan and / or sect when resolving.)" I'm leaning toward the latter. Does this work? I used to hate reminder text (stuff in parenthesis) on Magic cards because it defeated the purpose of using keywords, and reminder text on MTG cards was only ever used for keywords. FFG demonstrated the flexibility and utility of reminder text to me by using it as... y'know... reminder text and rules clarification in anticipation of player misplays and confusion. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

I was hoping to hear from Ankha since he seems to think we are outliers in the interpretation of the card (and has thoroughly mansplained the ruling). I appreciate your attempt LivesByProxy, but I think the phrase "as if" is part of the problem. "You may play master cards ignoring clan/sect requirements, following legal targeting restrictions. Mata Hari may play cards ignoring clan/sect requirements and meet the requirements of cards she plays until the end of the action." That may need some work, but I think you'd be hard pressed to not understand how the card works. Is it lengthy? Sure. Cards should not have been created with short and unclear wording for the sake of length.

Shit I think I borked it because there's another fold: she is considered an Assamite for Hakim's law even though it's not a requirement. Sometimes I wonder how VTES is supposed to function at all.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > Shit I think I borked it because there's another fold: she is considered an Assamite for Hakim's law even though it's not a requirement. > > Sometimes I wonder how VTES is supposed to function at all. > I'm not sure what you mean, Haqim's Law: Leadership requires an Assamite Cardtext Name: Haqim's Law: Leadership [LotN:C/PA] Cardtype: Action Clan: Assamite +1 stealth action. Each Methuselah who controls any of the oldest ready Assamites gains 2 pool. Artist: Eric Lofgren Prince of Bonn, Germany

> Yomyael wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean, Haqim's Law: Leadership requires an Assamite > > Cardtext > > Name: Haqim's Law: Leadership > [LotN:C/PA] > Cardtype: Action > Clan: Assamite > +1 stealth action. > Each Methuselah who controls any of the oldest ready Assamites gains 2 pool. > Artist: Eric Lofgren > The effect doesn't require that you are an assamite. It gives pool to the player(s) with the oldest ready assamite. The text I created wouldn't accommodate that card because she is considered an assamite in the ruling but it isn't a requirement.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > "You may play master cards ignoring clan/sect requirements, following legal targeting restrictions. Mata Hari may play cards ignoring clan/sect requirements and meet the requirements of cards she plays until the end of the action." > > That may need some work, but I think you'd be hard pressed to not understand how the card works. > > Is it lengthy? Sure. Cards should not have been created with short and unclear wording for the sake of length. > Well, I have to disagree with you. I personally prefer what you call "short unclear wording" even if we need a more clear and precise ruling to clear the "uncleariness". Your proposal is very lengthy, not at all clear (what does it means that she can "meet the requirements of cards she plays until the end of the action" ?) and wrong because you can for example play an aching beauty on Mata Hari even if you have to place it on a Toreador.

> Timo wrote: > > Well, I have to disagree with you. > > I personally prefer what you call "short unclear wording" even if we need a more clear and precise ruling to clear the "uncleariness". > > Your proposal is very lengthy, not at all clear (what does it means that she can "meet the requirements of cards she plays until the end of the action" ?) and wrong because you can for example play an aching beauty on Mata Hari even if you have to place it on a Toreador. > Has anyone here heard of "constructive criticism"? It's where you provide helpful feedback to make something better. You're saying you'd rather have to search ruling websites or require a 20+ page pamphlet to play the game rather than just print on the cards what they do? Meet the requirements of cards she plays until the end of the action may not be the best way to say it. This is where your constructive criticism would help provide clarity instead of coming here for a "gotcha" moment. Thanks for coming to shit on me and provide nothing else. Also holy shit you can play aching beauty on Mata Hari? That doesn't make any sense at all. "Put this card on any toreador." When during your master phase does mata hari become a toreador?

Sorry if you thought I was shitting on you. It was not at all the purpose of my comment. As for the feedback itself, what I was trying to say is that I don't think you can explain without any doubt what Mata Hari does. So my opinion (and I am only expressing an opinion) is that it is better to have a short card text which explains what Mata Hari does without going in detail about every possibilities than having to explain it in a 5 lines card text which could potentially be better but would not possibly cover every situation clearly and would still need some ruling. As for finding a better way to say it, I find the current cardtext clear enough but was (not so) kindly reminded (by you) that as a non native english speaker I could not possibly understand all the nuances of this language so I don't see the point of trying to find a better way to phrase it. And yes, you can play aching beauty on Mata Hari. The logic is that it is played "as if" Mata Hari was a Toreador so logically (at least, I find it logical) it can be placed on her. But do not forget that once it is placed on her, aching beauty see Mata Hari as a Ravnos and will have no effect what so ever.

@timo I'm not sure what the difficulty is. xXxX is considered yyy as you play master cards. XXxX may play and resolve cards as yyyyy.

> Timo wrote: > > And yes, you can play aching beauty on Mata Hari. The logic is that it is played "as if" Mata Hari was a Toreador so logically (at least, I find it logical) it can be placed on her. But do not forget that once it is placed on her, aching beauty see Mata Hari as a Ravnos and will have no effect what so ever. > I find this effect counter intuitive but even worse, sloppy design. Tying the effect of this card to the random words on other cards is ineligent at best. Side note. I hate 'sees as' to explain cards. Cards don't see anything.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > "You may play master cards ignoring clan/sect requirements, following legal targeting restrictions. Mata Hari may play cards ignoring clan/sect requirements and meet the requirements of cards she plays until the end of the action." > As Timo pointed out, this wording would actually change how Mata Hari works, and this was not the intention, right? I find the "as if" wording quite acceptable, but if one wanted to put this differently, it would need to say something like "You may play master cards ignoring clan/sect requirements. You may target Mata Hari with master cards that may only target a member of a specific clan or sect even if Mata Hari is not of that clan or sect." As for the unintuitiveness or senselessness of playing clan requiring master cards on Mata Hari, in my opinion this fits the theme and feel of the vampire very well. What I find annoying is the fact that those cards don't necessarily work after being placed on her. *Original post was edited into something more on topic.*

The tone of argumentation has been on an edge for a time now. I hope everyone has had their fair share of aggravation. From here on suggestions for the updated text for Mata Hari may be offered and commented on. Other topics have run their course. We had one flame war. Another one will not be tolerated. Stick to topic substance only, not other posters. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

The "played as if" effects fit so poorly into the game that no amount of card text is going to describe these effects adequately. Seeds of Corruption was banned because the effect fit so poorly into the game that no amount of text on the card could describe the effects adequately. If the spirit behind banning Seeds of Corruption was to remove effects that fit poorly into the game, why are some of these effects that fit poorly in the game allowed to exist while others get removed? I understand that these "played as if" effects seem to be more widely used than Seeds of Corruption, and therefore have a ton of rulings explaining the effect that Seeds of Corruption may not have had. I also get that it was easy to ban a card no one used, and it's not as easy to ban many cards that people seem to like using, despite the card text not being able to describe the effect. But (and I may be alone in thinking this), I think all effects that fit poorly into the game and can't be described by card text alone should be removed. I personally do not use "played as if" effects or Seeds of Corruption, as well as Madness Network, Enkil Cog, and the convoluted card text that is Mask of 1,000 faces. I think the game would benefit if all these things just went bye bye.

Moderation has given very clear instructions not to continue with other posts but those that discuss the original topic: text of Mata Hari. These instructions are given to be followed, and moderation is not under debate. Previous posts not on topic were removed, and continuation of non-topic posts will result in the topic being closed. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

This thread has given me a small question I'd like to clarify. Should this be deemed worthy a different thread, I'll gladly move. Mata Hari + Bay and Howl interactions: Situation 1: I have Mata Hari ready, a single vampire I have ready. I have a Gangrel Antitribu in my uncontrolled region. 1) I can play Bay and Howl, and since that card sees Mata Hari as Gangrel antitribu, a blood point is transfered from her to the !gangrel in the uncontrolled region. Is this correct? Situation 2: I have Mata Hari and a !Gangrel in my ready region. (Say, Bill Butler) I have a Gangrel Antitribu in my uncontrolled region. 2). What happens when I play Bay and Howl? 2A or 2B? 2-A: I can choose if I meet the requirements of Bay and Howl wtih Mata Hari, or with Bill Butler. If I play it via Mata Hari's special, two blood are moved to a !gangrel in the uncontrolled. If I play it via Bill Butler, one blood is moved to !gangrel in the uncontrolled region. 2-B I cannot "choose" which minion allows me to meet the requirement of Bay and Howl. Only Bill Butler moves a blood to !gangrel in the uncontrolled. Repeating relevant card text: 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 Name: Bill Butler [Third:V] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Gangrel antitribu Group: 4 Capacity: 3 Discipline: pot pro Sabbat. Artist: Glenn Osterberger Name: Bay and Howl [KMW:R/PG] Cardtype: Master Clan: Gangrel antitribu Master. Move 1 blood from each ready Gangrel antitribu you control to a Gangrel antitribu in your uncontrolled region. Artist: Steve Ellis Logic is for the weak.

> Nauro wrote: > Situation 1: > I have Mata Hari ready, a single vampire I have ready. > I have a Gangrel Antitribu in my uncontrolled region. > > 1) I can play Bay and Howl, and since that card sees Mata Hari as Gangrel antitribu, a blood point is transfered from her to the !gangrel in the uncontrolled region. Is this correct? > Correct. > Nauro wrote: > Situation 2: > I have Mata Hari and a !Gangrel in my ready region. (Say, Bill Butler) > I have a Gangrel Antitribu in my uncontrolled region. > > 2). What happens when I play Bay and Howl? 2A or 2B? > 2-A: I can choose if I meet the requirements of Bay and Howl wtih Mata Hari, or with Bill Butler. If I play it via Mata Hari's special, two blood are moved to a !gangrel in the uncontrolled. If I play it via Bill Butler, one blood is moved to !gangrel in the uncontrolled region. > 2-A, correct. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I have a more general question, when is a card actually considered "played", like when am i finished playing a card? when all effects on it have been resolved? or when it hits the table successfully? Is there a difference to be made between action cards, master cards, etc.?

> ed1234 wrote: > I have a more general question, when is a card actually considered "played", like when am i finished playing a card? when all effects on it have been resolved? or when it hits the table successfully? Is there a difference to be made between action cards, master cards, etc.? > Playing a card is a special action described in the rulebook: "A card is played by placing it face up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face up in the ash heap. The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played." The card is played when you choose to perform that special action. It then has different effects depending on the type of the card and its cardtext. Resolving those effects is a different thing from playing the card. To go back to Mata Hari, if she plays a card "as if", the effects of the cards are declared according to this, and this is carried on upon resolution. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

A little bit off topic but does Mata Hari make Burn Option impossible? Better said, Mata hari meets the requirement for any card so that no burn option card can be discarded? Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy

> thelonius wrote: > A little bit off topic but does Mata Hari make Burn Option impossible? Better said, Mata hari meets the requirement for any card so that no burn option card can be discarded? > She doesn't make the burn option impossible. > LSJ wrote: > > I believe you can ditch those cards. She can PLAY card as whatever, but > > she is NOT OF whatever. > > Correspondingly she can equip with Erebus Mask, but she'll never benefit > > from its effects. (So she'd better make use of the option to 'burn' the > > card in the first place ) > Correct. > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/OjszbddbvxM/eKkxVIJPoG4J Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director