Mata Hari and Hakim's Law: Leadership

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

DJHedgehog wrote:

Thomas R Wylie 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.