Inceptor & Mal/Str cards

Ankha wrote:

Legendre wrote:

This vampire may play other copies of these cards as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior.

Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause. It's a perfectly reasonable (although, as it happens, incorrect) reading of Inceptor to say that the Vampire can play other copies of these cards, with that ability taking precedence under Rule 1.4 over rule 1.6.1.3.

The important part is the "can play ... as if..." so you skipped half of the syntax. This syntax allows the vampire to emulate some part of the requirements, not all the requirements.

The syntax that would match your interpretaion is well-known and would be "This vampire may play other copies of these cards ignoring its requirements."

Yes, it is well-known. You're totally right. Almost everyone who plays VTES knows that "ignoring its requirements" is required language for ignoring requirements.

Just like almost everyone knows that "as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior" means not that if a question arises about whether a card that can be played is played at superior or inferior, it can be either, but rather that the minion can ignore discipline requirements only, but no other requirements.

But that's my point: it's well-known. It's not listed out in the rules, or in the card text.

And the answer to someone who doesn't know these well-known things should just be an explanation of what's going on in the conventions and the language of the game, not a demand that they RTFC -- which doesn't help if you don't already know what's "well-known".

Legendre wrote:

Just like almost everyone knows that "as if he or she had the Discipline required (if any) at superior" means not that if a question arises about whether a card that can be played is played at superior or inferior, it can be either, but rather that the minion can ignore discipline requirements only, but no other requirements.

But that's my point: it's well-known. It's not listed out in the rules, or in the card text.

Your point is that because the card text says you can play it as if you met the discipline requirements, it also means you can jettison every other rule in the game?

It doesn't say the card has to be in your hand. Quick, play cards from the ash heap. Play them from your library! Play them from your box of cards over there! It doesn't list, anywhere, that you have to play them from your hand.

It doesn't say you have to play them during you turn. You can take an action right in the middle of your prey's influence phase. It says you can play them, so you can play them anytime, right?

You are reading the card as saying "YOU CAN PLAY THEM, REGARDLESS OF THE REST OF THE GAME. Oh, and, by the way, you meet the discipline requirement." The card text actually tells you in one whole sentence that you can play them as if you met the discipline requirement. You still have to meet the timing requirements. You still have to have a copy. You still have to pay costs. Other restrictions may in fact prevent the card being played.

The only thing the card tells you to disregard is the discipline requirement. It doesn't then go on to list all the things you have to continue to obey, because you have to continue to obey them. The Golden Rule of Cards is that to the extent necessary to facilitate the play, cards contradict the rules. The Golden Rule of Cards does not mean that a card poking a small hole in the rules is suddenly dropping a nuclear bomb on them. You get out of meeting discipline requirements. That's it. That's the Golden Rule of Cards in operation. Nothing else is overturned by card text.

Karsh-Adv may play Blood Hunt as a prince. ("Karsh may play a Blood Hunt card from your hand or ash heap as a prince.") He still has to be untapped. He still has to be able to act. You still have to have the impulse. Everything else still applies.

The bit on the card that contradicts the rules is the only bit of the rules that is contradicted.

Ankha wrote:

Here's another approach: according to you, "Since Striga cards don't require a discipline, we can ignore the whole second "as if" clause."
So basically,
1) you're saying that any card without a discipline can be played by the minion with Inceptor since the Inceptor clause can be read as "This vampire may play other copies of these cards". Which means that you ignore any requirements (clan, sect, capacity etc.) for this card.
2) Now, if the card requires a Discipline, Inceptor allows you to consider you have the required discipline.

In the end, if we follow your logic, we could play any card put on Inceptor, whether it has a discipline (case 2) or not (case 1).

Question is: why was the "as if" clause added since it doesn't change anything according to your interpretation?

That's an excellent question.

First off, let's dispense with the notion that I'm presenting anything as a matter of "logic". I'm presenting a possible interpretation of the card text (and one that I happen to know is wrong).

All I'm trying to do is explain that the ruling as presented is not the only reasonable ruling from the card text and the rulebook.

So now to address your question, which is a good one: if the first clause gives you carte blanche to play the cards, what's the second ("as if") clause even doing there? Surely I shouldn't read the first clause so as to render the second clause superfluous.

And I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable to read that clause as a clarification not *that* you can play the cards, but rather *how* you can play the cards.... as letting you know whether or not you can play a card at Superior or not. It's wrong -- but it's reasonable.

Of course, were you to read it like that -- or even if you were to just see that this is a possible reading of the text -- and if you were to know in addition that Striga and Maleficia were not disciplines, you might wonder whether or not you could play Striga and Maleficia cards at Superior, only at inferior, or not at all. And you might ask such a perfectly legitimate question on a forum dedicated (in part) to explaining and clarifying the language of the game.

And it wouldn't help to have someone who is so deeply familiar with the language of the game that they don't even realize that there are other interpretations to tell you to read the f***ing card. Because you would have done that already, and that wouldn't have answered your question.

Merci bien de votre temps. Vous avez mis pression excellente sur mon argument, en bon maniere. (And my apologies for my dreadful French.)

At some time common sense has to step in and leave philosophy behind. Otherwise you might use "carte blanche" reasoning whenever you use cards with keywords "burn", "destroy". Your playgroup might not like someone literally burning their cards

Legendre wrote:

So now to address your question, which is a good one: if the first clause gives you carte blanche to play the cards,

It doesn't. That's the point. Your bizarre, continued assertion that you can read half a sentence and divine the meaning of card from that means that Eyes of the Serpent makes me unblockable, because I can read half a sentence too.

See also:

Autonomic Mastery: "Combat ends immediately after this strike resolves, unless it is dodged." We only read the first half of the sentence because we are functionally illiterate, and combat ends even if we dodge.

Life Boon: "The first victory point that the Methuselah wins is given to you (unless you are ousted by then)." We only read the first half of the sentence, because reading a whole sentence is too hard, and we get the VP anyway.

Game of Malkav: "Each Methuselah gains the amount of pool he or she chose unless another Methuselah chose exactly one less than he or she did, in which case, he or she burns that amount of pool." Yay! Free pool for everyone! No need to read whole sentences! Reading is for boring squares! More pool for me!

Aabbt Kindred: "Aabbt Kindred cannot perform actions unless Nefertiti is ready." What the hell was LSJ thinking? These vampires can never act, because I decided to stop halfway through the sentence.

Vasily: "Contesting a title costs Vasily an additional blood unless you control the Edge." Man, it sucks that it costs him more blood even if I control the Edge!