Mata Hari and Edge of the World

Can Mata Hari play Edge of the World to full effect? I assume she can play it to gain 4 pool (whether acting or not) if her controller just got a VP. But I don't know about the untapping and gaining blood to full capacity. I can't find a ruling on this anywhere. Please help. Thank you.

Mata Hari
[aus]
[for]
[qui]
[CHI]
[OBF]
[Ravnos] Ravnos

Capacity: 7
Group: 4

Independent. Red List: Mata Hari has 2 votes (titled). You and she may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan.


Edge of the World
Action Modifier

Guruhi

Usable by a ready Guruhi you control, acting or not. Only usable if you have gained a victory point during this action. You gain 4 pool. If this Guruhi is acting, he or she untaps and gains enough blood from the bank to reach full capacity. Only one Edge of the World can be played each action.

mjvtes521 wrote:

Can Mata Hari play Edge of the World to full effect? I assume she can play it to gain 4 pool (whether acting or not) if her controller just got a VP. But I don't know about the untapping and gaining blood to full capacity.

She can, yes, and it will work for all three effects.

It follows the same basic principles explained to some guy called mjvtes521 over here: www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/rules-questions/74111-mata-hari-and-kholo-cards

Edge of the World treats Mata as a Guruhi:

- for the purpose of playing it (e.g. "Requires a Sabbat vampire.")
- for the purpose of resolving it (e.g. "Put this card on this Toreador" - but see below about effects from the card being in play)
- for lingering effects not conditional on the card being in play (e.g. "Play before range is determined. For the rest of combat, this Salubri may...")

If the card goes in play, then effects that work based on the card being in play (e.g. "Put this card on this Caitiff. This Caitiff gets...") see her as whatever her proper clan is - usually Ravnos, unless she's used Clan Impersonation or similar.

For Edge of the World, everything is in the categories of playing the card and resolving the card - she's seen by Edge of the World as a Guruhi for play purposes, so you can play it. It resolves, and you gain 4 pool, and she's seen as a Guruhi for the rest of the effect which takes effect at resolution. There are no lingering effects, and no "card in play" effects.

Of course, she also needs to be acting to benefit from the refill and the untap - her card text won't fake that.

Is there a general ruling somewhere that outlines in detail how to handle minions meeting requirements to play cards only via a special ability? If not, there should be. The whole playing the card/resolving the card/lingering effects concept is a difficult concept to grasp. It is hard to understand which effects fall under these categories and which don't.

Thank you, James. Though you can leave out the snarky reference to being similar to my previous question. It is not so clear that it follows the same guidelines. English is a language that is far from being clear and semantics can often lead to different interpretations. If it annoys you to answer a question I post, feel free to decline to answer it.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

The whole playing the card/resolving the card/lingering effects concept is a difficult concept to grasp. It is hard to understand which effects fall under these categories and which don't.

It's really not actually very difficult.

Can you identify an effect on a card which is conditional on the card being in play, and which will therefore stop working if the card leaves play (or moves from that vampire)? Those are the effects for which Mata (or any pseudo-clan / pseudo-sect / pseudo-vampire type ability) doesn't work. Other effects see Mata as the pretend-clan or pretend-sect. And you need to be able to identify those effects anyway, so that you know they go away when the card is burned / stolen / lost etc.

They're usually very easy to spot. The card goes in play (e.g. "Put this card on this Toreador") , and an effect then goes either on "The Toreador with this card" or sometimes "This Toreador".

mjvtes521 wrote:

Thank you, James. Though you can leave out the snarky reference to being similar to my previous question. It is not so clear that it follows the same guidelines. English is a language that is far from being clear and semantics can often lead to different interpretations. If it annoys you to answer a question I post, feel free to decline to answer it.

It obviously wasn't clear to you that it follows the same guidelines, so I pointed this out, explicitly, so that you could understand that it follows the same guidelines. If having it clearly pointed out to you that it works the same way as the other situation is somehow problematic for you, I can answer questions solely by shouting "YES", "NO" and "REPHRASE - YES NO ONLY." Better?