1). When Mata Hari plays Blooding, will it work for her or not? The
text is "Requires a ready Sabbat vampire. Put this card on the acting
vampire and move one blood from the blood bank to this vampire. This
Sabbat vampire is Black Hand. A vampire can have only one Blooding." As
long as Blooding stops seeing her as a Sabbat vampire, it shouldn't
work, right?
2). When you play Powerbase: Barranquilla, can you select Mata Hari?
Card states: "Put X blood counters on this card when it is played,
where X is the capacity of a ready Sabbat vampire you control."
Thanks in advance,
Ector
[ quoted text not captured ]
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
Mata Hari's text states that you/she can PLAY cards that require any
clan/sect.
It does not state that you can pretend she is of a certain sect at any
time.
So she can play Blooding (as if she were Sabbat), but the text on the
card states that "this Sabbat vampire is Black Hand". So after she's
played the card she is no longer Sabbat and thus the card text doesn't
recognise her and thus it doesn't work.
As to the PB: Baranquilla, it does not require any special kind of
vampire to play it, you just need to select a vampire for its effects.
Unfortunately Mata Hari's ability requires that you use her to play the
card.
In message <1154157396....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> writes:
>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
>
[...]
>Unfortunately Mata Hari's ability requires that you use her to play the
>card.
Separate to the point with the powerbase (which doesn't require anything
to play), but...
No, Mata Hari's special ability requires that the card requires a sect
and/or clan. It does NOT require you to be using Mata Hari to play it.
See, for example, Ventrue Investment with Mata Hari in torpor (but you
control another !Ventrue). Mata Hari is not allowing you to play the
card, since she's in torpor (not ready), but her card text allows you to
play cards as if she were a member of the relevant clan - whether it's
her enabling the card to be played or not.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/098199
156e068b3d>
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
[ quoted text not captured ]
And just to think about it a bit, suppose there were a card like this:
Sabbat Specialty Bleed
Action
1 blood
Requires a Sabbat vampire
Bleed at +2 bleed. If this vampire is Black Hand, this action is at +1
stealth.
So suppose Mata Hari had a Blooding on her, and played this
hypothetical action. She'd get the +1 stealth bonus right because she's
considered Sabbat (and therefore the Blooding kicks in) for the
duration of the action, right?
Jeff
In message <1154199483....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
jeff...@pacbell.net writes:
>Sabbat Specialty Bleed
>Action
>1 blood
>Requires a Sabbat vampire
>Bleed at +2 bleed. If this vampire is Black Hand, this action is at +1
>stealth.
>
>So suppose Mata Hari had a Blooding on her, and played this
>hypothetical action. She'd get the +1 stealth bonus right because she's
>considered Sabbat (and therefore the Blooding kicks in) for the
>duration of the action, right?
She is not considered Sabbat for the duration of the action.
Cards played using a "pretend to be a sect" and a "pretend to be a clan"
special treat the relevant minion as the clan or sect. OTHER CARDS DO
NOT.
Since your SSB was being played with her special, SSB would treat her as
Sabbat. Other cards wouldn't. This includes Blooding and every other
card in play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1154199483....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> jeff...@pacbell.net writes:
> >Sabbat Specialty Bleed
> >Action
> >1 blood
> >Requires a Sabbat vampire
> >Bleed at +2 bleed. If this vampire is Black Hand, this action is at +1
> >stealth.
> >
> >So suppose Mata Hari had a Blooding on her, and played this
> >hypothetical action. She'd get the +1 stealth bonus right because she's
> >considered Sabbat (and therefore the Blooding kicks in) for the
> >duration of the action, right?
>
> She is not considered Sabbat for the duration of the action.
>
> Cards played using a "pretend to be a sect" and a "pretend to be a clan"
> special treat the relevant minion as the clan or sect. OTHER CARDS DO
> NOT.
>
> Since your SSB was being played with her special, SSB would treat her as
> Sabbat. Other cards wouldn't. This includes Blooding and every other
> card in play.
I guess I'm confused why there is a difference between "pretend" cards
and, for example, allies who take actions as vampires, who can then
play cards as vampires for the course of the action, or Kiasyd who use
the Grandest Trick, and can then play cards like mortals for the rest
of the action.
I mean, in some ways, I think of this also like inert titles. If you
are a Prince and somehow become non-Camarilla, you lose your title.
However, if you were became Camarilla, you would have your title
restored. Suppose Kemintiri somehow became a Prince, then went back to
being Independent. If she tried to call a Justicar Retribution, would
she have 2 votes from her Prince title for the duration of the action?
I'm guessing not because she just "pretends."
Ok, suppose some Prince went Into the Fire. Suppose there existed a
card like this:
Camarilla Impersonation
Action Modifier
Only usable as the action is announced. For the duration of the action,
the acting vampire acts as if they were a Camarilla vampire.
So our Sabbat "Prince" wants to call a Justicar Retribution and plays
Camarilla Impersonation. Do they get their Prince votes? And for the
purposes of my hypothetical card being wrongly worded, just suppose
there were some way the Sabbat "Prince" could call the JR. Would they
get their votes?
What is the difference between
"...may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were..."
and
"...may play cards requiring basic Necromancy as a vampire..."?
Jeff, a bit slow on the uptake for some things...
In message <1154283895....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
jeff...@pacbell.net writes:
>I guess I'm confused why there is a difference between "pretend" cards
>and, for example, allies who take actions as vampires, who can then
>play cards as vampires for the course of the action,
This one would confuse you because you're wrong.
The card they're playing as a vampire treats them as a vampire for play
and resolution, but not any other cards.
For example, Hypothetical Ally can play cards requiring Animalism as a
vampire. So, that ally plays Army of Rats. But that doesn't suddenly
mean that they can play a hypothetical disciplineless action modifier
that says "Requires a vampire". They could play other cards requiring
Animalism using their special.
When the card is played and when it resolves (usually the same, except
for actions and strikes), it treats them as a vampire.
And that's it. No other cards.
>or Kiasyd who use
>the Grandest Trick, and can then play cards like mortals for the rest
>of the action.
What's to be confused about with The Grandest Trick? The Grandest Trick
lets you treat the vampire as a mortal ally for the rest of the action
because, err, that's what it says to do.
"This acting vampire is treated as a mortal ally for the duration of the
action (cannot spend or burn blood, cannot use Disciplines, will burn if
reduced to 0 life, etc.)."
The other "as a vampire" or "as a clan" or "as a sect" specials say
"play card X" which means plays and resolve card X as a vampire.
It doesn't do anything about affecting them for the duration of the
action for other random cards and effects, so it doesn't do that. The
Grandest Trick says that they're treated as an ally for the duration of
the action. So you follow card text.
>I mean, in some ways, I think of this also like inert titles. If you
>are a Prince and somehow become non-Camarilla, you lose your title.
>However, if you were became Camarilla, you would have your title
>restored. Suppose Kemintiri somehow became a Prince, then went back to
>being Independent. If she tried to call a Justicar Retribution, would
>she have 2 votes from her Prince title for the duration of the action?
>I'm guessing not because she just "pretends."
She just pretends. It doesn't make her Camarilla, she just gets to call
it as if she were.
>Ok, suppose some Prince went Into the Fire. Suppose there existed a
>card like this:
>
>Camarilla Impersonation
>Action Modifier
>Only usable as the action is announced. For the duration of the action,
>the acting vampire acts as if they were a Camarilla vampire.
>
>So our Sabbat "Prince" wants to call a Justicar Retribution and plays
>Camarilla Impersonation.
The Sabbat Prince can't call the Justicar Retribution using this card
text, by the way. The card can't be played because the vampire is
Sabbat, and you have to play a card before the action is announced.
You'd need a card that can be played before the Justicar Retribution to
allow you to do this.
>Do they get their Prince votes? And for the
>purposes of my hypothetical card being wrongly worded, just suppose
>there were some way the Sabbat "Prince" could call the JR. Would they
>get their votes?
That depends what "act as" means. However, since voting isn't tied to
acting, it'd be an interesting choice either way by LSJ.
>What is the difference between
>"...may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were..."
>and
>"...may play cards requiring basic Necromancy as a vampire..."?
Not much. But you seem to have dragged in "for the duration of the
action" and a simply wrong understanding of the "requiring basic
Necromancy as a vampire" rules.
1.6.3: "Some allies have the ability to play certain cards "as a
vampire." In these cases, the ally is treated as a vampire for all
effects generated by the play of the card... The ally is treated as a
vampire only when playing the card and, for cards such as actions and
strikes that are not resolved immediately, for the resolution of the
effect. In particular, the ally is not treated as a vampire for effects
of the card once it’s in play or for lingering effects generated by the
card."
Nothing about for the duration of the action, or other effects, or
anything. Just that card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
jeff...@pacbell.net wrote:
> quetzalcoatl wrote:
> > So she can play Blooding (as if she were Sabbat), but the text on the
> > card states that "this Sabbat vampire is Black Hand". So after she's
> > played the card she is no longer Sabbat and thus the card text doesn't
> > recognise her and thus it doesn't work.
>
> Wouldn't the Blooding stay on her though, so if she went Into the Fire
> later, then the Blooding would activate?
Yes.
James Coupe wrote:
> jeff...@pacbell.net writes:
> >Ok, suppose some Prince went Into the Fire. Suppose there existed a
> >card like this:
> >
> >Camarilla Impersonation
> >Action Modifier
> >Only usable as the action is announced. For the duration of the action,
> >the acting vampire acts as if they were a Camarilla vampire.
> >
> >So our Sabbat "Prince" wants to call a Justicar Retribution and plays
> >Camarilla Impersonation.
>
> The Sabbat Prince can't call the Justicar Retribution using this card
> text, by the way. The card can't be played because the vampire is
> Sabbat, and you have to play a card before the action is announced.
>
> You'd need a card that can be played before the Justicar Retribution to
> allow you to do this.
>
>
> >Do they get their Prince votes? And for the
> >purposes of my hypothetical card being wrongly worded, just suppose
> >there were some way the Sabbat "Prince" could call the JR. Would they
> >get their votes?
>
> That depends what "act as" means. However, since voting isn't tied to
> acting, it'd be an interesting choice either way by LSJ.
The card text would be written more clearly, a la Grandest Trick.
> >What is the difference between
> >"...may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were..."
> >and
> >"...may play cards requiring basic Necromancy as a vampire..."?
>
> Not much.
Correct. They are parallel. The only difference is that one enables a
Discipline (and vampire/blood) for an ally and the other enables a
sect/clan for a vampire.