Yeah, rereading my post, I did come across as I didn't want to. I don't mean to ask a question, then blast someone for answering. I am basically asking if there are references in the FAQ, Rules, or other publication from FFG explaining how this works and why? I need to be able to show someone where in the rules this is or how the interpretation of the rules creates this scenario (I play with a couple of rules lawyers, including myself), so they are not going to take "I was told by someone on the forums that it works" as an answer.

One of the people in my play group, in Star Wars, refuses to put damage on the Death Star dial with Trench Run when you attack it, because Trench Run only says "can be engaged like an Objective (but is not an objective)" and the rules say to put damage on the objective after winning. He will spend an hour arguing semantics just to be right. I will too, so not much game playing will get done if there isn't an actual clear answer that can be had through the FAQ/Rules. I'll probably just avoid playing the combo, but if there is a reference out there that clearly outlines this, I would appreciate seeing it.

tjstyles said:

So, for the "search your deck for a location" portion of the search effect, they meet the criteria of "a location," right? We can agree on that? The point is that for the "and put that location in to play" portion of the search effect, they still meet the criteria of "location." 

Your comparison of Riders and Gallbart in relation to Maester Luwin is not a good one. 

Gallbart says that you search your deck, you can search your discard pile instead. The ruling for how that works with Luwin is dicta, saying that if you are only searching a subset of your deck, Gallbart doesn't apply. "Search your deck" therefore does not count when searching anything less than your deck. However, the Riders say that while they are in your deck, they meet all search criteria. Well, if the Riders are in the top 5 cards of your deck, they are still "in your deck." Being part of the subset does not stop it from also being part of the general set. So the text/ability of the Riders is still in full force whether using Luwin's ability because the Riders themselves are still part of your (entire) deck, even though Luwin is only searching through part of the deck.

ktom said:

Thanks for the clarification on that ktom. I guess I should have worded my response better when answering that question.

tjstyles said:

So, by his interpretation, how does it ever take any damage at all? Even if you were able to do all 10 damage in a single challenge (which doesn't pass the 'duh..' test in my book), how could you ever put that damage on it?

ktom said:

It wouldn't. He doesn't care about the card working, he cares about being right. See what I have to deal with? That is why I am going to ask my next question: Is there any official publication of that ruling for Riders of the Red Fork? My playgroup remembers you from old-school days, so I can probably get away with "ktom said so" and people will listen, but it would save a lot of time if I can just point at a bit of publication that states this.

On a side note, I am actually a bit disappointed with the ruling they decided to use. Since they have already errattaed several cards, I don't see why they don't just change Rhaegal's text to ready "…search your deck for a copy of Rhaegal and attach it to him as a duplicate." That clears up any lingering rules holes with their ruling and clearly establishes the Riders of the Red Fork as a duplicate. They would still be a legal target and all other uses for Rhaegal's ability would remain untouched. As is, I still don't see anything on the card that would cause Riders of the Red Fork to be a duplicate after the effect resolves. And, if it were to stay a duplicate after the effect, I would still argue that this scenario would create a presidence that the Riders would remain to be a Location after Bran the Builder's Legacy puts it into play. 

Lastly, this is semantics, but I think my example of Galbart and Luwin was a "good example". Based on the actual documentation that FFG has published, I don't see anything that would address my scenario, so that is a legitimate question for a new player. How the heck am I supposed to know every ruling that an FFG judge has made at a tournament or in an email reply over the course of the last 3 years that I haven't played? When these rulings are made, they should be added to the FAQ. It shouldn't be "common knowlege" that players just have to trust from other players that they have never met or have any idea what their actual qualifications are for giving rulings. With you, ktom, I just trust the rulings because I know you, and I know that you have a very strong understanding of the game and keep up with all of the current rules. But, even then, without the official, published, ruling from FFG, there is chance for mistake. Take the email example earlier in this thread, where FFG ruled one way, then published a reversal in the FAQ. Or there is simple misinterpretation on occassion. In WOW, I was playing against the state champion in a sealed event, and corrected him on the use of a quest. Seems his entire play group had read the quest wrong and were using it incorrectly for several months before I pointed out a word they had missed when they were reading it. That sort of thing happens all the time to me, as well, and I have been a judge of several different CCGs. Games like this are hard enough to keep up with when there actually is good official documentation of rulings and errata. When there is a bunch of rulings being circulated by word of mouth, it makes it a nightmare to try and keep up. 

And, to be clear, I am not saying that FFG should post every question that anyone asks about a card. I am talking about sweeping rules clarifications like Luwin's ability representing a "subset of your deck" versus simply "searching your deck", or things like Riders of the Red Fork "qualifying as the searched card type(s) for the entire effect". A simple "yes it work with Rhaegal" is far to vague to be used as precident in the future. It's great that someone from FFG cleared that up at some point along the road; now they need to take the next step and add that verbage to the FAQ.

The FAQ does contain the ruling about Maester Luwin and Galbart Glover, as well as the one with Rhaegal and Riders of the Red Fork.

Khudzlin said:

It does contain a vague explaination of Rhaegal and The Riders of the Red Fork which actually makes the waters muddier than they started in my opinion. They have created the precident that the Riders' card type changes while in play based on being able to be searched to begin with. Nothing in Rhaegal's ability actually states that Riders of the Red Forks becomes a duplicate of Rhaegal, which implies that meeting the criteria of being searched by Rhaegal made a change to The Riders that persisted after he was put into play. To me, there are much more questions now than there were before.

As for Luwin and Glover, yes you are right; it does address that scenario and explain that searching the top 5 of your deck is not searching your "entire deck". But, it does not address how Glover is magically "searching your entire deck" when his game text clearly states "search your deck". That is the part that needs to be cleared up. That is my point. Why address two single cards out of the game and how they react with eachother when you can address the situation as a whole and clean up the mess once and for all. Put a global rule in the FAQ that says that referencing searching your deck/discard/dead pile without a limitation on the number of cards is considered to be "searching your entire" deck/discard/dead pile, and you're done. Otherwise, people need to know that there is another scenario with other cards that create a similar scenario to the one they are looking at to find the correct ruling. I mean, if I search the FAQ for Maege Mormont, am I going to find the ruling on this? Nope. I have to search for Rhaegal or Riders of the Red Fork to find this ruling. Then, I have to understand both of those cards well enough to know that the situation applies to Maege as well. And then, once I look into it, I find that the wording between the two is actually different, and the reason Maege still works is because a judge said so once upon a time.

I may sound like I am being unreasonable in my expectations here, but I am just trying to make things easier. If you have never had a 4 hour discussion about a ruling before, than I am happy for you. But there are people out there that use the rules to create unfair advantages and negative play experiences. I know that FFG tries to address this by giving the judges the ability to penalize players for trying to "abuse" the rules, but all that actually does is create inconsistant rulings across their tournaments. Judge A may think that someone building a deck around a particular loop-hole in the rules is abusive while Judge B thinks its perfectly reasonable (i.e. that FFG designed intended for that scenario to exist, which is perfectly reasonable without explicit confirmation from FFG themselves). That means I could be playtesting a deck for months within my local meta, then show up to worlds and get thrown out because of the OPINION of a judge, not an actual ruling from FFG. That is, in my opinion, absolute garbage. 

Fix the loop-holes when you find them and publish the stuff you put out there. It gets frustrating for the rest of us when we post a question about a ruling, and the response is "I got an email from so-and-so that says this…". That is great that FFG responds to people like that; now take the next step and put that information into the FAQ. The FAQ has not been updated in 4 months, and I am sure there are plenty of rules clarifications that have happened since then. They don't even have to update the official FAQ; just publish an adendum with the question/answer stuff that they send to people in emails so that everybody has the same access to the ruling would be nice.

Actually, you don't need to convince me (or any regular reader of this forum, I bet) that FFG needs to be clearer with its card text and rules. If I was in charge, I'd make a pass on all cards to standardize wording, rewrite the whole FAQ and rule bool into a web site called "Comprehensive Rules" or some such thing and appoint a team of high-level judges from all over the world, supervised by someone from FFG to help make rulings (with said team answering on this forum and updating the aforementioned website).

tjstyles said:

If you're looking for an official, from someone at FFG, reply on these forums you're, unfortunately, SOL. Did you e-mail them yet? As far as the "that location" issue, remember that the card is searching for a location. The writer is not going to say "that card" as they "know" you are getting a location. This means that "that location" is referential card text referring to the card you just searched for. Hence, the kneeling effect will apply to the card you just searched for even if it is not a location. The same is true of the Rhaegal example. Rhaegal referring to itself is simply because there is no reason to write the card text in a way that assumes you are not getting a copy of Rhaegal. This is poor editing, but the fact remains that further instances of the referential text refer to the card searched for. When you get the card you searched for, it becomes the thing that all referential text referring to the card you searched for now refers to.

I can't believe them on the Trench Run example…

If you are engaging something "as if it is an objective" that means that until the end of the duration of the effect (in this case the end of the engagement) the thing is treated as an objective. What do burst icons do damage to? Objectives. Is the Death Star currently being treated as if it is an objective? Yes. Put damage counters on Death Star.

It is absurd that he is unwilling to abide by the card text. It says to engage the Death Star as if it were an objective and he refuses to allow the engagement to proceed as if the Death Star was an objective. That's asinine. The (it is not an objective) is to avoid confusing interactions with cards that specifically can deal damage to the objective card type (i. e. Rebel Assault). I would even make the argument that Target of Opportunity and Rebel Assault could do damage while the Death Star is engaged as an objective because for the duration of the engagement, the game treats it as an objective. At least he would have a leg to stand on if he disagreed with that assessment.

Also, the Luwin search top of deck vs. search whole deck is pretty straightforward. New players will play it wrong as it is an unintuitive ruling, but that does not mean that it is a logical fallacy to make the distinctions that FFG has made. It does suck that FFG doesn't really do a good job of communicating this information out to new players, but it's been the status quo for a while.

tjstyles said:

I don't think I could play a game with anyone that would try and pick apart a game so badly that they would make it unplayable.  Being right is only in the eyes of perspective.  If being right is the only way to enjoy a game, then I recommend they stick to playing simple games like Candy Land or Chutes and Ladders.  This way there are less rules to semantically pick apart to ruin the game for others that you play with.

They won't present official publications for every single card and rule that has been disputed before because many players come to agreements or compromises as to how cards and rules work.  If they did, then the FAQ would be 400 pages long and impossible to get through.  Your friend does not seem to want to compromise as to how things actually work in the game and won't take the word of several players over his own belief.  I'd hate to ask your friend to tell me where to get green when he is only given yellow and blue.

tjstyles said:

Firstly, Riders of the Red Fork is not in play when it is searched for.

Secondly, a duplicate is a titleless, textless, iconless, blank card.  It does not matter what card it is before it becomes the duplicate.  If something attaches as a duplicate, it loses its original identity as soon as it attaches.  This is why Riders can attach to Rhaegal as a duplicate.

Other cards that attach as duplicates:

Loyal Guard - Loyal Guard can be played from your hand as a duplicate on a character.

Return of the Kraken - Save 1 location from being discarded from play. Then,if that location is unique,attach Return of the Kraken to it as a duplicate.

White Hatchling - If you control Viserion, attach White Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Viserion as duplicates.

Black Hatchling - If you control Drogon, attach Black Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Drogon as duplicate.

Green Hatchling - If you control Rhaegal, attach Green Hatchling and all of its duplicates to Rhaegal as duplicates.

Ser Davos Seaworth - Response: After Ser Davos Seaworth enters play, attach the top card of your deck to him, face down, as a duplicate.

Jory Cassel - Marshalling: You may attach any character from your hand to Jory Cassel as a duplicate if he has no other duplicates attached.

mdc273 said:

They should be looking for those things. Clearly, they did not "know" that Maege Mormont was looking for a Location, because in this case she isn't. And, Maege came after the Riders, so it's not a "hindsight is 20/20" scenario. They actually have an entry in the FAQ addressing this very situation (and addressing it quite poorly, in my opinion), so it baffles me that they would still produce a card with such poor wording on it. I am currently creating my own card game, and I go over every single card to get the wording right. I try to keep in mind what might be coming, what is already out there, and how people might try to interpret the text. I get it isn't easy, but they have the FAQ with a section for Errata; why don't they just fix it now?

Bomb said:

This post reminds me of the Sesame Street "One of These Things is Not Like The Other" Song. Every single example you outlined explicitly state "attach as a duplicate". Every one of them very clearly makes the given card a duplicate. Rhaegal does not. It searches for a Duplicate, then simply attaches it. The wording is completely different.

Now, I am not agruing the ruling. FFG clearly put in the FAQ that it works this way. They gave a hokey explaination as to why it works this way, and left huge loopholes in the rules, since nothing in the effect actually changes Riders of the Red Forks to a duplicate. What my frustration is, is that this could easily be solved with one paragraph in the errata section for Rhaegal that reads: "should say… 'search your deck for a copy of Rhaegal and attach it as a duplicate.'" Done. No ambiguity. No question on how this affects other cards. No question that Riders of the Red Forks works in the way they intend it to work. Its a nice, clean solution. The whole point of Errata is to fix things when you mess up the wording on cards. They messed up the wording on Rhaegal and Maege. Why the heck don't they just fix the wording? I mean, they felt it necessary to fix spelling errors and card numbering errors in the errata section; why the heck aren't they addressing the gameplay errors with these cards?

Bother….

The CS version of Rhaegal is a reprint from the CCG days. It is a reprint from a time when there were no mechanisms for duplicates to be anything other than unique cards with the same name. Heck, it's from a time when duplicates actually counted as attachments. Things have since changed and it is understood that the mechanism/effect that attaches the card - whatever the card may be - is what actually makes the card a duplicate. Rhaegal definitely could have been worded better for the modern environment, but it's not like he's the only card in the Core Set that wasn't updated when (re)printed.

It's also not like Rhaegal is ambiguous that the found card is to be attached "as a duplicate." The thing to remember is that despite using the pronoun "it" for the attaching part of Rhaegal's ability, within the context of the ability, there is no practical difference between "it" and "that duplicate of Rhaegal." So when the ability is saying "attach it to him," it very clearly means "attach that duplicate of Rhaegal to Rhaegal." Sure, if someone wants to argue semantics - and "being right" is more important than anything else, including reading comprehension - they can certainly waste a lot of time doing so.  But is anyone really confused about "attach that duplicate of Rhaegal" resulting in a duped unique character? 

As for the FAQ entry setting the precedent that Riders count as whatever the search effect looks for over the entire effect, it does do that - provided you are properly reading and interpreting the pronouns in "attach it to him." When you do so, there is no difference between "Any Phase: Pay 1 gold to search your deck for a duplicate of Rhaegal and attach it (aka, that duplicate of Rhaegal) to him (aka, Rhaegal). Then shuffle your deck." on Rhaegal and "Dominance: Pay 3 gold to search your deck for a location card with printed cost 2 or lower,and put that (location) card into play. Then shuffle your deck." on Bran the Builder's Legacy. Knowing that the Riders can be found - and attached - as "that duplicate of Rhaegal" should logically lead to the parallel conclusion theat they can be found - and put into play - as "that (location) card."

Wow, I did not realize that asking for clearer rules would strike such a nerve with people.

Bomb said:

I get what you are saying. I get what the ruling is. You are arguing something completely different than what I am arguing. Nevermind the fact that the FAQ never states that Riders of the Red Fork are duplicates for "the entire effect" as people love quoting (seriously, search the FAQ for the word "entire" and see how many times Riders of the Red Fork are mentioned in the same phrase), but I am arguing what happens AFTER the effect. Fine, the card becomes an duplicate for the "entire effect", attaches as a duplicate, and then the effect ends. Now it either CONTINUES TO BE A DUPLICATE AFTER THE ENTIRE EFFECT, or it drops off like any other attachment that is attached to an ineligible card. FFG has ruled that Riders of the Red Fork continues to be a duplicate, which creates a precident that Riders of the Red Fork continues to be what you searched for AFTER the "enitre effect" resolves. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

So, why is this not the case with Maege? Why is Riders of the Red Fork not a location after the effect resolves? That is my question. Instead of making a ruling that is counter-intuitive (and I think something that is ruled one way by FFG, then reversed, then gets an entry in the FAQ qualifies as "counter-intuitive") and creates a jumbled mess of precident for future cards, why not just errata it? 

Then comes ktom's post that I will respond to.

ktom said:

I give you the benefit of the doubt that The Great Host never, ever, for any moment in time triggered when it hit the dead pile, even before the FAQ outlined the actual framework actions, but I just have to call bull on this one. First, Duplicates were considered attachments at one point during the game, yes, but not during Rhaegal's printing. That rule was changed in the first block, and Rhaegal came out much later. Second, there were cards in the CCG that attached as duplicates that were not "unique cards with the same name". The hatchlings from the set with crossed swords as the icon (cannot remember what the icons for the sets were) did exactly that. They attached to the unique copies of the dragons without being "unique cards with the same name". It is not a "new" thing limited exclusively to the LCG as you imply it is here. I appreciate that it is "understood" that the card makes it a duplicate. I appreciate the the FAQ actually clears that up in the questions section. I don't understand why simply suggesting they fix the wording with errata causes such an uproar. Also, Rhaegal was updated when reprinted; he used to be a Marshalling ability and now he is Any Phase. That was because the game has changed since the time the first Rhaegal was printed and gold sticks around for the whole turn. Hey, that sounds like what you said about duplicates. Funny they didn't bother changing the wording for that while they were already fixing the card. I personally think, better late than never.

As for the second paragraph, you are missing the point. I am not arguing whether or not the wording can be interpreted the way FFG has interpretted it. I am arguing that the ruling they have made with no changes to the verbiage has impacts to other similar situations. If it is ruled this way for Rhaegal, then it should be ruled the same way for similar cards down the road. If Rhaegal's wording makes Riders a duplicate, and that state persists once Riders are in play and the effect ends (i.e. two turns later when you want to actually use that duplicate to save Rhaegal and Riders is still a dupe long after the entire effect resolves), than that same ruling should be true with Maege and Riders should be a location as well as a character when it comes into play. I am not arguing the ruling with Rhaegal, I am saying there are concequences to having open-ended ruling like this.

I agree. There is no difference in semantics with Rhaegal and Bran the Builders Legacy. That is why I find it funny that Rhaegal changes the type of the card perminantly and Bran the Builder does not. They have the same wording but do different things. Then you have cards like Rhaegal and Loyal Guard that have different wording, but do the same thing. It is completely inconsistant and needs a FAQ entry after two ruling reversals. I think if the lead judge for FFG can't even get it right, maybe it is time to change the wording? Maybe?

How about this, instead of explaining to me why the cards work the way the FAQ says they work (which I have already stated multiple times that I agree with), why not give me a legitimate reason why FFG absolutely should not errata Rhaegal to state "attach that card as a duplicate"? Since that is my only argument here, why not actually discuss that point directly, instead of reitterating the rule that I have already said I understand is the rule. Is there a reason other than "it's understood that it works this way" or "Rhaegal is a holdout from the TCG" that someone has for not just making it absolutely clear how Rhaegal works? Is there a reason we don't want his ability to explicitly make the change of Riders to a duplicate like all the other cards with similar functonality, and we want a weak global ruling that can have an effect on how other cards worth with Riders of the Red Fork or any future card they may print like it?