Ananasi Vampirephile and Pack Alpha
Jozxyqk
Relevant text:
"Once each turn, she may play a card that requires basic Animalism [ani]
+as a vampire."
So, if the Ananasi plays Pack Alpha, does that "use up" my animalism for the
turn, therefore no longer meeting the requirements for Raven Spy?
LSJ
It does use up the ability to play Animalism cards as a vampire, but
since the resolution of Pack Alpha sees the Ananasi Vampirephile as a
vampire with ani and recruits the retainer as part of that resolution,
the ani can still be used to meet the requirements (and the AV's life
can still be used to pay blood costs).
Like using Charming Lobby to call a referendum (the latter requiring a
vampire).
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
Doesn't Pack Alpha at inferior also relates somewhat to Concealed
Weapon in this case? I mean, the Raven Spy is not being "played in the
normal fashion", so it doesn't count for Ananasi's limit of one
animalism card per turn. Then the whole "as a vampire" thing kicks in.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
LSJ
That's another way of saying that Pack Alpha's effect is what "plays"
the retainer, yes.
Mathias
regarding the 'play card as' ruling.
So since Ananasi Vampirephile can put Animalism requiring retainer into
play with Pack Alpha, then I'm assuming Ian Forestal could as well
correct? Just want to make sure because he doesn't actually have
Animalism, he just 'plays' cards as if he did.
It just seems a bit confusing since this seems counter to previous
ruling that abilities allowing minion to 'play' cards only counted when
cards are played regularly from hand.
This second ruling applies to clan requirements rather than
disciplines, but since the rule on requirements (sect, clan,
discipline, etc.) lists them all together in same section of rule book,
I figured the ruling seems to be applicable.
So I'm wondering about the Summoning at superior, with bringing allies
into play. Ruling on Tatiana Stepanova from the link above is that she
could not use Summoning to put Brujah or Gangrel Allies into play.
Assuming this extends to Mata Hari, and Kementiri [Merged] as well,
yes? So is it correct that Ian Forestal with superior presence could
not put a Re-animated Corpse or similar discipline-requiring ally into
play either? Similarly, Ian could not use Vast Wealth to equip with a
Baleful Doll or Canopic Jar, correct?
Can anyone else think of similar circumstances where a minion might be
putting a card into play, without actually playing it from hand, and
where they might otherwise not meet the requirements for that card?
Did that sentence even make sense?
So I guess the only reason Vampirephile (and probably Ian) could put an
Animalism retainer into play using Pack Alpha is because both the card
(Pack Alpha) and the card it puts into play (Ani Retainer) have the
same requirement? So theoretically if there were ever a Necromancy
card similar to the Summoning or Pack Alpha, then Ian, Akhenaton, and
any other Nec-playing minion who did not actually have Nec would still
be able to play both the card and any Necromancy Ally or Retainer that
card would then bring into play, correct? Because they are only
considered to fulfill the necessary requirement for the resolution of
the card which was played normally from hand, then they are only
recognized as meeting the requirements for the second card being put
into play by the first card IF the requirement is the same for both
cards.
I know this may just seem obvious to some, but I'm just trying to make
sure I understand the ruling and its applications, as well as the
rationale behind it, correctly. Also want to make it clear that I'm
not trying to be argumentative, so I hope it doesn't come across that
way. Just seeking understanding to make sure I avoid future mistakes
in both deck-building and game play. Thanks.
LSJ
> Growing from this thread I've got some further questions, situations,
> regarding the 'play card as' ruling.
>
> So since Ananasi Vampirephile can put Animalism requiring retainer into
> play with Pack Alpha, then I'm assuming Ian Forestal could as well
> correct? Just want to make sure because he doesn't actually have
> Animalism, he just 'plays' cards as if he did.
Correct. Just as allies play cards "as if" they had certain
Disciplines.
For the play of such cards, the minion is considered to have the
Discipline in question (but only for the play of the card).
> It just seems a bit confusing since this seems counter to previous
> ruling that abilities allowing minion to 'play' cards only counted when
> cards are played regularly from hand.
Counter in what way? The rest of your post does an adequate job of
explaining the logic (and the lack of "counters", so I'm not sure what
counter you're seeing here.
That's a thread, not a post, so hard to figure out which post you're
refering to.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9feb95542e7afeeb
refers to which cards are cancelable "as played" -- cards put into play
by another card (like The Summoning or Pack Alpha) are not "played" in
the normal sense -- they aren't cancelable by Direct Intervention
(although the first card -- Summoning or Pack Alpha -- can be canceled
as normal, since they're played as normal).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/782f7be69bb661a5
refers to playing the first card (in this case, the Summoning) "as a
Ravnos", since Tatiana is a Ravnos. Summoning doesn't require Gangrel,
so Tatiana cannot play it as if she were a Gangrel. Since she's playing
it as a Ravnos, the ally she recruits cannot be one that requires a
Gangrel.
> This second ruling applies to clan requirements rather than
> disciplines, but since the rule on requirements (sect, clan,
> discipline, etc.) lists them all together in same section of rule book,
> I figured the ruling seems to be applicable.
In as far as the first card is played, yes.
For Pack Alpha, a minion "faking" Animalism in order to play Pack Alpha
will play it "as if" he has Animalism. So he can use that Animalism to
meet the requirements of retainer.
Note that if Tatiana plays Pack Alpha, she cannot employ a Dog Pack
with it, since she didn't play Pack Alpha "as a Gangrel".
> So I'm wondering about the Summoning at superior, with bringing allies
> into play. Ruling on Tatiana Stepanova from the link above is that she
> could not use Summoning to put Brujah or Gangrel Allies into play.
... since she didn't play Summoning as a Brujah or Gangrel.
> Assuming this extends to Mata Hari, and Kementiri [Merged] as well,
> yes?
It applies to all minions, yes.
> So is it correct that Ian Forestal with superior presence could
> not put a Re-animated Corpse or similar discipline-requiring ally into
> play either?
Right. He could employ the Reanimated Corpse directly. But since he
doesn't play Summoning "as if" he has Thanatosis, he cannot use the
Summoning to employ the Corpse.
> Similarly, Ian could not use Vast Wealth to equip with a
> Baleful Doll or Canopic Jar, correct?
Correct.
> Can anyone else think of similar circumstances where a minion might be
> putting a card into play, without actually playing it from hand, and
> where they might otherwise not meet the requirements for that card?
> Did that sentence even make sense?
>
> So I guess the only reason Vampirephile (and probably Ian) could put an
> Animalism retainer into play using Pack Alpha is because both the card
> (Pack Alpha) and the card it puts into play (Ani Retainer) have the
> same requirement?
Yes.
> So theoretically if there were ever a Necromancy
> card similar to the Summoning or Pack Alpha, then Ian, Akhenaton, and
> any other Nec-playing minion who did not actually have Nec would still
> be able to play both the card and any Necromancy Ally or Retainer that
> card would then bring into play, correct?
The card the minion plays "as if" he or she has some trait is played as
if he has that trait. If the play of the card put some other card in
play and looks at the playing minion to verify requirements, then it
sees the minion for what he played tha card as, just like all other
effects of the play of the card see the minion for what he played the
card as.
> Because they are only
> considered to fulfill the necessary requirement for the resolution of
> the card which was played normally from hand, then they are only
> recognized as meeting the requirements for the second card being put
> into play by the first card IF the requirement is the same for both
> cards.
Right.
Mathias
seem to have guessed, I was in fact attempting to refer to the post
regarding Tatiana playing cards "as if".
As for what seems counter or contradictory, I guess I just agree with
one of the other posters in that thread who referred to the ruling as
feeling counter-intuitive. That minions playing "as if" only do so
when when they 'play' directly from hand and not through other means
just feels wrong. I understand that it's not (wrong that is), and your
post seems to confirm why it's not, it just seems like it would be
easier and more natural to rule it the other way. Besides, it's so
relatively obscure, it's not like it's really disruptive either way,
right. Of course it does prevent the Mata Hari Summoning up Rock Cats,
Heralds and War Ghouls deck I was imagining from actually working. But
that's probably not a bad thing really.