Mata Hari and Hakim's Law: Leadership

Bloodartist wrote:

DJHedgehog wrote:

Nothing about the card phrasing or text would say "for the purposes of the entire action she becomes an Assamite". She plays the card breaking the normal rules, but she never becomes something else or stops being what she is.

Well, playing an action card is a process of fully resolving the action card. And that is actually quite a long process, during which many different cards can be played. "Playing an action card" doesn't end when you put it down on the table from your hand. You only pay an action cards cost after it successfully resolves, after all.

I think this is the main issue you have with this. Mata Hari is 'playing Hakim's law' for the entire duration of the action. This means that for the entire duration of the action the card sees her as an assamite. When the card finally resolves, the card still sees her as an assamite. I don't have an issue with this, and I have issues with MANY VTES rules as many may know xD. This just comes down to definition of what does "playing a card" mean.

I'm tired of going around in circles on this because it's clear that I'm in the minority of thinking the desired effect isn't clearly stated on the card.

Let's say she plays a Renegade Garou. The card requires a gangrel to take the action. It doesn't require a gangrel to complete the action. The process of the "action", as you've stated above, has no impact on bending the rules in this case. Based on how I read the card, I would have no problem with what is going on in this example.

The card requires a gangrel, so it checks if a gangrel is playing it. She plays the card as if she was a gangrel. Nothing else needs to be said here- if the action is successful the ally is put into play because it only mattered that she was a gangrel for the purposes of playing the card. AND THAT IS ALL HER TEXT SAYS. She may play the card as if she was a gangrel.

What the ruling is saying is that she becomes a different sect/clan for the entirety of the action until it is resolved. That's not what the card says. It says "play".

Let's look at another card that allows similar rule bending: Mouthpiece. "The acting minion may play cards requiring basic dominate as a vampire until the end of this action". This phrasing is quite clear on the intended effect of the card. From the point of this card being played until the end of the action, the acting minion can utilize that benefit.

Why would I ever assume, based on the text of the card, that Mata Hari's ability would last until the end of the action?

I'm not arguing the ruling. I'm saying the card allows ambiguity that needs to be addressed through means that aren't rulings I have to dig to find in 2-4 different sites. The phrasing and templating aren't consistent and they're confusing.

Non-existant user wrote:

DJHedgehog wrote:

That's just not true. She plays the card as if she met the requirements. If it stopped right there, rulings would be unnecessary.

Quite the opposite. Mata Hari is an exception. She can play cards that were not designed with her in mind. If you start parsing card texts to figure out what applies, then you open yourself to applying only some of the effects of a card that was designed to be atomic, and that can break the game in all kinds of ways. Just look at Vlad Tepes and No Secrets for an example. It is more robust to ensure that if a card can be played, then it works as designed.

Poor phrasing, wording, templating doesn't excuse other bad phrasing, wording, templating. It's sloppy and it's confusing and it's unnecessary.

DJHedgehog wrote:

I'm tired of going around in circles on this because it's clear that I'm in the minority of thinking the desired effect isn't clearly stated on the card.

Trust me, you're not the only one thinking the effect isn't clearly stated. If one wasn't around at the time all these rulings were made, it's very, very difficult to figure out how playing things "as if" should work. It's to the point where I just avoid all cards like that. They're on my personal "banned list" because I think the effect fits so poorly into the game that having clear card text explaining the effect in a way where everybody reading it would understand exactly what to do is impossible.

I'm not arguing the ruling. I'm saying the card allows ambiguity that needs to be addressed through means that aren't rulings I have to dig to find in 2-4 different sites. The phrasing and templating aren't consistent and they're confusing.

I love how you felt the need to restate this. I run into an issue like that a lot here. I'll explain that something could be stated better and folks here think I don't understand the rules or something and explain what the rules are. And then I have to be like, "no, I totally get it, it's just that there's an issue here other than how the rules work that you're kind of dismissing because the rules work fine." Just because something can't really be fixed (in this case, card text explaining the effect fully) doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Those things probably should be the first thing to address.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I love how you felt the need to restate this. I run into an issue like that a lot here. I'll explain that something could be stated better and folks here think I don't understand the rules or something and explain what the rules are. And then I have to be like, "no, I totally get it, it's just that there's an issue here other than how the rules work that you're kind of dismissing because the rules work fine."

Welcome to the club.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I love how you felt the need to restate this. I run into an issue like that a lot here. I'll explain that something could be stated better and folks here think I don't understand the rules or something and explain what the rules are. And then I have to be like, "no, I totally get it, it's just that there's an issue here other than how the rules work that you're kind of dismissing because the rules work fine." Just because something can't really be fixed (in this case, card text explaining the effect fully) doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Those things probably should be the first thing to address.

Literally every time.

*COUGH*JAMESZEPHYRANDANKHA*COUGH*