Shadow Court Satyr, RTR

AaronC wrote:

I agree with Yappo that the text of Shadow Court Satyr is ambiguous.

Since it's ambiguous, we consult the rulings to see which interpretation we should use.

And look, there's a consistent pattern of rulings stating that Yappo's interpretation is not the correct one. Hurrah! Problem solved!

jhattara wrote:

The text of Shadow Court Satyr is in no way ambiguous

When the Satyr enters play, you may put a combat card from your hand on him. Once each combat, the Satyr may use the ability of that card as if played from your hand. If the card requires a vampire (e.g., costs blood or requires a Discipline), he may use it as a vampire with the basic level of the Discipline (if any).

It uses the word Discipline in singular, which in VTES language means ONE, and no more than ONE.

If there is a VTES language, can you please point me to a VTES/English dictionary?

It isn't just singular, you know. It's *definite* singular. I think at least one of your native languages is German, and they have definite/indefinite in that language, so you should get the concept. You can't refer to the discipline on a card in the definite singular unless you've established that you're only talking about one particular discipline; the existence of dual discipline cards means that it has to be explicitly stated. The text here does not establish that it's talking about single discipline cards. It mentions single discipline cards as an example (exempli gratia) of a card that requires a vampire, not a limiting definition of a card that requires a vampire. Therefore the use of the definite singular is semantically incorrect and thus ambiguous.

As a native English-speaker, the first thing I think of when I read the last sentence is "What if the card requires a dual discipline?"

As Jamesatzephyr just pointed out, there are rulings answering that question exactly because the card text is ambiguous.

AaronC wrote:

It mentions single discipline cards as an example (exempli gratia) of a card that requires a vampire, not a limiting definition of a card that requires a vampire. Therefore the use of the definite singular is semantically incorrect and thus ambiguous.

As a native English-speaker, the first thing I think of when I read the last sentence is "What if the card requires a dual discipline?"

As Jamesatzephyr just pointed out, there are rulings answering that question exactly because the card text is ambiguous.

Two valid arguments, well rounded. Kudos !

I wouldn't say "incorrect", because in some cases, it is correct.
I could agree that, in somes cases, it can't apply, but that's what the ruling is here for.

Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings? I don't know. This one would be in such a change.

Pascal wrote:

Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings? I don't know. This one would be in such a change.

If it meant that you could no longer tell that the most recent printing (or, indeed, every printing) differed from the online text, that would most likely prove to be unhelpful.