Shadow Court Satyr, RTR

Pascal wrote:

Should we have a 7/7/7 #2, where all cardtexts are updated to remove most of the rulings?

Yeah, so we could call them " The Tintin Rulings"

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.

Most rulings are clarifications or context descriptions, not overwriting of card texts.
Since we don't have any way to reprint cards, I think that an online repository of "true" card texts is very, very counter intuitive.

Well, the thing is, whatever the most recent printing is, if there's a ruling on a card that is not visible on that print, you'll need to check the online data at some point.

Pascal wrote:

Well, the thing is, whatever the most recent printing is, if there's a ruling on a card that is not visible on that print, you'll need to check the online data at some point.

Having an easy, obvious way to spot "This card text is different from the real cards" (and preferably how) is helpful, though.

Question from Random Punter: How do I use Floppy's Top Hat when facing a Lasombra Antitribu pirate deck?
*check text*
Answer: It works like follows. [blah blah blah] Do be careful, because the card text got changed so it only works if the Lasombra Antiribu pirate has a peg leg OR an eye patch, but not both.


The last point is easy to overlook - and is sometimes the most useful part of an answer.



The card text migrations resource used to be useful for exactly this reason - but was hopelessly out of date for numerous years.

I'll add a short philological analysis of the problem.

Satyr is first printed with the Sabbat Expansion. I can verify this because I own a copy.

Satyr is reprinted with the Sabbat War expansion. Again I can verify this with a copy I own.

I cannot verify if official card text was changed between these prints or not.

For the purposes of the problem discussed in this thread the changes in texts were comparatively minor. The Sabat War print introduces the concept of using the ability as a vampire with a capacity of 1.

Notably both prints lack the current card text construction with blood and discipline being used as examples of what it means to 'require a vampire'. Both old texts only specify that costs are paid in life and that if the ability requires a discipline, then only the basic lvel effect may be used.

Then the Bloodlines expansion is released, introducing cards with more than one discipline. As a result LSJ makes a ruling 2002. This ruling is applied to a card text created when a card only used one, single discipline for specifying effects. If I recall correctly, similar rulings were made to, for example, Ian Forestal.

With Third Satyr is once again reprinted. Verified from owned copy. Eventual changes to official card texts between those prints are once again unknown to me.

It is this last reprint that introduces a radical change in card text. Radical because the new text holds a very different semantic value. Satyr may use the effect from a combat card, just as before. For the first time the satyr's ability to 'break the rules' is keyed to 'requires a vampire'. Also for the first time cost and discipline are relegated to a role as examples of the meaning of 'requires a vampire'. Notably cost becomes equal to blood cost.

The problematic wording of this last print has been thoroughly analysed earlier in this thread.

LSJ makes a ruling during 2006 with zero bearing on the problem described in this thread.

Lastly there is an undated RTR. Hence, the only ruling which could possibly be applied to Satyr, for the purposes of the problem in this thread, is the RTR. The LSJ ruling is invalid due to radical changes in card text.

End of philology.

I'll make a wild assumption. RTR is based on LSJ 2002 without any closer look at the card text which changed since that ruling. Hence we arrive at the problem I have presented in this thread.

I suggest that all rulings made prior to known changes to card text be looked over, since those rulings were applied to card texts which for one reason or another were deemed unsatysfying to the degree that they were changed. The new ruling could of course end up being exactly the old one, but should still be given a new time stamp.

I concede that it is not clear to all players, how SCS functions with the combat card on it. For the most part it appears the confusion leis with the "discipline" and its lack of definition within the rules(i.e.whether it is a collective noun or not).

After some research I have found that there are some 89 cards with discipline in the text. 44 of those cards pertain to master discipline cards. 12 cards have to do with Striga and Maleficia, "not a discipline". 23 cards use "disciplines" its meaning is clear.

The remaining 20 are...

Botched Move, Camarilla Vitae Slave, Cloak of Blood, Compel the Spirit, Grandest Trick, The, Hell-for-Leather, Inceptor, Infernal Familiar, Infernal Pact, Mundane, Reality Mirror, Reliquary: Akunanse Remains, Reliquary: Biague, Resurrection, Sanguine Instruction, Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling), Spontaneous Power, Supernatural Resistance, Trophy: Discipline, Vial of Elder Vitae

Of these cards the following use the text "choose a discipline"
Camarilla Vitae Slave, Infernal Pact, Reliquary: Akunanse Remains, Sanguine Instruction, Spontaneous Power, Trophy: Discipline, Vial of Elder Vitae

I do not who believes "a discipline" could be plural in these cases.

Both Hell for Leather and Cloak of Blood seem self explanatory.

The remaining 11 have some form of "requires a discipline" like SCS.
Their card text will be included as spoilers.

Botched Move
.

Mundane


Reliquary: Biague


Supernatural Resistance


Grandest Trick


These first five are reactionary, limited use or a limitation.
I have looked but found no ruling regarding their interaction with dual discipline cards.

The remaining six allow a minion to play cards that they do not meet the requirements for.

Compel the Spirit


Resurrection


I have seen no ruling with either of the above and Hatch the Viper

Inceptor


Reality Mirror


Infernal Familiar


Shadow Court Satyr


The first 5 "requires a discipline", I can see applying to dual discipline cards. e.g. you must have one too get to two

The last 6 are emulation(i.e. as if) effects. Rulings on such have been contestant "one emulation per card"

www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3d4aa6e913ee7940&usg=AFQjCNF-dS1t7nbsTHplSVOYxrLxEyblIA

My only problem with SCS is the use of "e.g." exemplī grātiā (“for example”)
instead of i.e. id est (“that is”). I could be getting this wrong, but it seems like it does not preclude clan sect or sun-sect, though I know it has been ruled so.