Mata Hari and Hakim's Law: Leadership

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
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.
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.

@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.