Does No Secrets Get Nerfed?

Killiam wrote:

I think that my playgroup showed how two different wordings lead to two different interpretations, so if both wordings are to be interpreted as having the same meaning, then which of the two meanings do we take?

There is a lot of what you describe here in VTES: ambiguous wordings that are different but mean the same exact thing. If there's one thing that behooves the new owners of VTES to do, it's clean up all the inconsistent wording.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

self wrote:

so, a vampire that has a stock intercept like Jaroslav Pascek cant block unless the action is at stealth?

No. I think the difference being drawn out is that you can't play (or activate) an effect that gives you intercept unnecessarily. Permanent intercept that's just there - a vampire special, Mr Winthrop, Sport Bike etc. - isn't something you're activating, it's just there. For Magaji, the intercept is just there. For Vlad, it's not just there, it's Vlad activating his special to use it, which is more or less the same as Vlad playing an intercept reaction - which he can't voluntarily do without stealth being there (or card text allowing him to do it).

That there can be be this long of a paragraph written about this particular distinction is a huge problem. There used to be huge paragraphs written about Seeds of Corruption and its interaction with vampires' special abilities. That card was banned because it was too hard to make it all work. I see the same thing with minions acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. It's an effect that just doesn't work in a coherent way.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

That there can be be this long of a paragraph written about this particular distinction is a huge problem.

Deciding that problems exist because I can write a long paragraph is dumb. I can write lengthy paragraphs about any aspect of V:TES you want.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I see the same thing with minions acting as if they had a requirement they don't have. It's an effect that just doesn't work in a coherent way.

The ruling on sources of "play as if you met the requirements" is very precise and coherent. You meet the requirement for that card and that card only for: playing the card, resolving the card, and a lingering effect. If the card goes in play, you do not meet the requirement for any in-play effect. (I emphasis that card because some people think you turn into another clan or sect or whatever for a short while. You don't.)

For example, Sight Beyond Sight:

If I play as a Salubri on Mata Hari, she is a Salubri for playing it - so I can meet the requirement of playing it on a Salubri, and I can target her with it. She meets the requirement for resolving it, so I can put it on her - although the distinction between play/resolve is only really that useful for cards with split play/resolution, like actions. There is no lingering effect. When it goes in play, it provides "The Salubri with this card" with a bonus. No bonus for Mata, because she is not a Salubri for effects that come from it being in play - unless, of course, she actually changes clans.

Raking Talons:
Mata can play the card as a Gargoyle, so she meets the requirement. When it resolves, she's still able to meet it being a Gargoyle. It provides a lingering effect without going in play - so she is a Gargoyle for that, so for the remainder of combat, damage from Mata's hand strikes is aggravated. There is no in play effect, because the card does not go in play.

In practical terms, the only real thing that "play as a" doesn't do is work for you if that card goes in play and grants its benefits to "this Salubri antritribu" or "this Laibon", rather than "this minion" or "the vampire with this card" etc. Which is fairly simple to apply in practice, honestly.


The glitches that occur with Vlad because Vlad is not using the long-standing "play as a" template. He has invented a new template - "play and use". If a fake Magaji had a Mata-like special and put No Secrets in play, it would follow much the same process as Sight Beyond Sight - she could get it, but she wouldn't benefit from it when in play, because she wouldn't be a Magaji for "in play" effects, and it grants benefits to "the magaji with this card", much like "the Salubri with this card". Vlad has text that goes beyond that.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Deciding that problems exist because I can write a long paragraph is dumb.

Yeah, well, you're dumb.

Why not reword Vlad a little bit so that he ain't a painfully unintuitive exception (for apparently no reason)?

Lönkka wrote:

Why not reword Vlad a little bit so that he ain't a painfully unintuitive exception (for apparently no reason)?

or alternatively rule that he is always using the card and let him use the untap and gain intercept that isn't needed?