Mata Hari and Hakim's Law: Leadership

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.

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.