Here's what you're missing. A duplicate has no card name nor text. It is only a duplicate. Ergo, Riders of Redfork, when being used to duplicate Rhaegal, is never, not even for an instant, riders of redfork. It is simply a duplicate of Rhaegal. However, once they hit play as they do with Maege's ability, they have their name, text, etc. The game then recognizes them as a character and not a location. 

Shadowcatx said:

I am not missing that. I get WHY the ruling is what it is (at least the rational behind it). I get that the ruling is that Riders of the Red Fork "actually becomes" what is being searched for the entire effect. I get that. He "becomes" a duplicate, and comes into play as a duplicate. So why does that same ruling not apply to Maege? Why is he magically not a location when he comes into play? He comes into play during the effect, where you just told me verbatim that he is a location based on Rhaegal's ruling. The game should recognize him as a location the exact same way that it recognizes him as a duplicate when a duplicate is what is being searched.

There is nothing in Rhaegal's actual wording that suggests that Riders stays a dupe after his ability resolves. It does so because the FAQ says that is how Rhaegal's works with the Riders. Other cards that do the same thing explicitly change the card to a dupe permanently. Rhaegal's is implied, and it should also be implied for any other effect like Rhaegal's, too.

For example, how does Abandoned Forge work with Riders? Riders gets attached, then discarded because it isn't a weapon attachment anymore, right? Well, the cards attached to Abandoned Forge do not have active game text, either; if they did, the card would have no effect since basically every weapon in the game attaches explicitly to characters. But, it "is known" that weapon attachments can stick on the Abandoned Forge after the search effect. Why then would the two work differently? Why would Riders attach to Rhaegal's as a dupe and remain that way simply because it "could be searched" and because dupes have no active game text, but the same would not be true with the identical scenario with Abandoned Forge?

The fact is that Rhaegal works differently than every other effect with Riders, and it's all based on this entry in the FAQ. The idea that Riders is a dupe when hitting play for Rhaegal but is not the card type being searched for any other effect upon hitting play is exactly why Rhaegal should be errataed to be more clear. Otherwise Riders enters play as a location and a character when fetched with Bran the Builders Legacy or Maege Mormont. And the tourney mounts and locations that become characters from old-school ccg days have already made it possible for a single card to be multiple types at once. Consistancy matters; and in this case Rhaegal's ruling muddies the water for every other search effect out there. One single errata entry would completly and utterly solve this and make Rhaegal's effect consistent with all the other similar effects, but people's reactions are as if I suggested waterboarding people for playing Rhaegal. It's one freaking sentence in the FAQ, and the could take the current entry out of the FAQ. Why is it such a big deal that I suggested errata?

tjstyles said:

Oh to be the bearer of bad news… Haha.

I'll be honest, I was giving an empty argument with conviction in hopes you could turn it around and use it (although I stand by the Trench Run bit… The card says it. Do it)

With regards to official rulings, I'm just gonna say your SOL again, at the risk of being obnoxious. This game gets official rulings every so often, but during the ruling dry season, it's pretty much defer to the players on these boards, make up your own house ruling, or don't try to play Thrones.

Also, did you ever send an e-mail? That's the only way to get an official ruling.

I doubt Ktom or anyone will be able to sway you from your stance. I am never swayed from mine (I agree with you that this game is horribly managed rules-wise), but I ultimately adhere to what Ktom says because it's good for the community to have consistent competitive expectations. Don't get heartburn over this game, it's not worth it.

Also keep in mind that Ktom has judged Gencon a few times I believe. His word isn't straight from the designer's mouth, but he's probably the most official answer you're likely to get without getting an actual official one.

mdc273 said:

To be clear, I am not, nor ever have been, suggesting that the ruling given here for Rhaegal is not correct. All I am saying is that it would be clearer if he errataed him. That's it. As it stands, the ruling affects more than just how Rhaegal works with Riders. Errata on Rhaegal would make it completely clear, and this silly concept of Riders "changing its type" would go away. It's only needed to make Riders "become" a duplicate for Rhaegal.

if ktom tells me how a card works, I take that to the bank. As far as I am concerned, ktom is as official as the FAQ. But, I feel I have a right to have the opinion that AGOT is not handling this particular rules situation as well as it could/should. I feel I have a right to have the opinion that they errata Rhaegal. And, you are right, nobody is going to be able to convince me that I don't have a right to my opinion on that.

1) The last thing the majority of people want is to add to the ever growing ranks of errata. 

 

2) The current wording makes perfect sense to the majority of people. 

 

3) Abandoned Forge only allows weapon attachments. I suspect searching for a riders is perfectly legal with it. And I do believe that it would attach. However, once you attach riders to it, the search effect being over and resolved, the riders are not a weapon attachment and that creates an illegal game state. (Show me anywhere in the game that says attachments attached to a location don't have text. Or anywhere that says the weapons attached to the abandoned forge loose their game text.) That is why riders fall off. That is not the case with duplicates however. 

Shadowcatx said:

1) Rhaegal and Riders already have a ruling in the FAQ. Errata would be much clearer than their hokey explaination that they have in there and it would take up less space. It would also be easier to find, because the first place I look for ruling on a particular card is under the errata/clarifications section where it lists the cards.

2) The current ruling makes perfect sense for Rhaegal and the Riders; its the other cards that it messes up for. I don't know how to state this any clearer than that.

3) Can Abandoned Forge grab a Burning Sword? How about a Lightbringer? What happens to those attachments after Abandoned Forge searches them out? Do they stay on the Abandoned Forge until you use the Forge's ability to return them to your hand? Or do they get discarded as the effect ends because Abandoned Forge is not a valid target for either attachement? Burning Sword says "Unique Character Only" and Abandoned Forge is certainly not a unique character. Lightbringer says "[Baratheon] Character Only" and Abandoned Forge is certainly not a Baratheon character. So, they either drop off immediately because their game text is active and Abandoned Forge is not a valid card for them to attach to, or their game text does not apply, and they are attached to Abandoned Forge because of Abandoned Forge's ability; not because they are attachments. Even the other two Baratheon weapon attachments, Hunting Spear and Warhammer, which don't explicitly say that they must be attached to a character refer to the "attached character" in their game text. Would anyone here just ignore me playing a Hunting Spear on my King Robert's Hammer at Worlds? Or would someone go, "that can only be attached to a character". And, assuming that the cards do actually stay put on the Forge and that the Forge actually has game text that can have an effect in the game, then if we assume that the game text is active on these attachments, then I can kneel Burning Sword to make Abandoned Forge Immune to card effects, right? We have already established that the "give attached character" does not really apply in the same way "put that location into play" does not apply on Maege. Once it is a legal target, it no longer matters that the effect refers to a particular card type, as we have established earlier in this thread.

Now, let's pretend that Abandoned Forge sought out Kingdom Locations instead of Weapon Attachments; would those locations' game text be active when they were attached to the Forge? Would they fall off because they aren't "really attachments"? 

tjstyles said:

Where did this come from? The only thing I recall was saying recently is that The Great Host was never, ever, for any moment in time able to trigger its "save" response when blank. But yes, "save" responses have always interrupted the initiation and resolution of a kill effect, preventing the saved character from ever going to the dead pile in the first place. Not a lot of question that never, ever, for any moment in time could a save response be triggered after the card hit the dead pile. You can't save something that is dead from being killed. Never could. 

tjstyles said:

Try again. We're looking at the Ice & Fire Rhaegal here and the rule wasn't changed until the Valyrian block. I know this for a fact because there was a time when Emissary of the Red Keep would not make duped characters count as having an attachment, which messed up the Emissary/City of Bones combination. (It's worth noting that City of Bones and it's "non-duplicate attachment" wording came out after the original printing of the Rhaegal in question, too.)

tjstyles said:

I didn't say it was exclusive to the LCG. I said that this version of Rhaegal was printed at a time before the types of effects you describe were widely used. The Hatchlings you are talking about are from the Valyrian set - printed a full year after the Rhaegal we're looking at.

tjstyles said:

Again, look at what I said. I'm not disagreeing with you that the wording could be fixed to be made clearer. What I am saying is that even without the fixed/updated wording, it's not like there is serious doubt about the meaning. Yes, for consistency sake and to make it understandable as applicable to all "search your deck and do X with what you find" effect in one reading instead of three, the wording could be changed.

But if the fact that it is worded the way it is results in 4+ hour-long arguments that the semantics make a practical difference? Let me just say you have more patience than I would with such people.

tjstyles said:

Ah, I see. I don't agree with that interpretation of the consequences. For one thing, since we know a duplicate is created by the effect, not by the card, the fact that Riders stays a textless, titleless, traitless, crestless card once it is attached as a dupe is not inconsistent with any other "attach as a dupe" effect. So, when you look at Rhaegal as "attach this card as a dupe," there is nothing inconsistent about it.

On the other hand, while we do have rules that say "once something is transformed into an attachment or a character through a card effect, it stays an attachment or a character until that effect ends of the card leaves play," we don't have anything that says "if something is treated as something else for the duration of an effect, it stays what it is being treated as once that effect is over."

So, you see, it is not the Rider's effect letting it be found that transforms it into the dupe, it is Rhaegal's ability. But Maege's ability doesn't transform the card it puts into play into a location, so the idea that the Rider's "treat as what is searched for during the entire search effect" interpretation does not lead to an interpretation that if it is put into play by a "location" effect that it would not revert - and stop being treated as the search target - after the search effect, unless there is an actual transformation (like attaching it to something as an attachment).

tjstyles said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't. In fact, it would be nice for consistency sake. What I am saying is that even without the errata, we have all the information we need, and that the conflicts you seem to see are not ones I see. I don't think the answer being given here (at least by me) is "it is understood to work that way." I'm saying that there is a logical progression to it if you're willing to think the whole thing through. I agree that FFG could make it easier to think the whole thing through; I just think it's possible to do so, even without errata.

Shadowcatx said:

This is not quite how Abandoned Forge and Riders would work. Abandoned Forge's search effect creates a lasting effect that allows the cards it finds to be attached to the location, even without text on either the attachment or the location saying "this location can have Weapon attachments on it." So since the lasting effect from the "search" effect is what allows the attachments to stay on the location, Riders will not become illegal (and thus be discarded) when the search effect is over. 

BUT: The Riders will never meet the play restrictions for the "put the Weapon attachment into your hand" effect. So they would effectively be locked on the location until either a "discard an attachment" effect hit them (remember, once a card is attached to another card, it is only considered to be an attachment) or a "discard a location" effect hit the Forge.

Sorry, I read the phrase "reprint from the CCG days" a bit differently than you meant it. It seemed to me that you were saying 1) that the CCG did not have any concept of dupes being anything other than other copies of unique cards (meaning there would be no reason for a change of verbiage when they printed core); and 2) that errata for Rhaegal would be a bad thing because it was a reprint from a previous set. That is why I posted my response. I was trying to point out that there were duplicates that were not copies of unique cards when Rhaegal was reprinted, and that he is not a straight reprint, so errata would not affect the earlier version (I thought you were against errata, and suggesting that errataing the current version would affect the previous version). 

 

But, really, I am just glad that I got my point across. I don't really think that is how it should work. I am not going to go into a tournament and argue that I can take control of a Riders played by Maege when I play Direct Assault. I am just pointing out that when the rules are not 100% clear, they create loopholes that can be exploited, and while this particular incident (and the one I mentioned with Trench Run) seem quite obvious to be "malicious", that is not always the case. There is also a debate that we are having in our local meta about the effects of Heroic Sacrifice with X-Wing Escort. My buddy argues that when you play Heroic Sacrifice you must choose the target that would be destroyed, and then your opponent can simply sacrifice that unit to X-Wing Escort's ability. My arguement is that the rules do not state anywhere that the target must be selected before the resolution of an effect (simply that there must be an eligible target to play a card), so there is nothing ot suggest that targets are selected prior to X-Wing Escort's effect resolving. Because many other TCGs make targets be selected before the ability, my buddy assumes that Star Wars will be the same, and he could very well be right when everything is said and done. But, I think AGOT has shown that FFG doesn't necessarily cater to what everyone else does. Here, I think it is easy to argue either way for the intent of the developers. (Note, I have not read Star Wars' new FAQ yet, so this could already be resolved, but that is an example of rules "holes" that create confusion without malicious intent.)

I should also mention that we don't get into 4 hour debates where we just sit there and argue over a rule. We typically "resolve" the issue in a few minutes and continue with the game, continuing to discuss the situation and make points for hours or days later. Not a constant back and forth, but it does come up over and over and over again until someone finds a ruling in a FAQ or on a message board.

 

Yeah, I get what you are saying about being able to get to the right conclusion without any errata. I just think that FFG's goal should be to be able to get to the right ruling without having to talk to a judge. To get to this ruling, you have to combine so many elements from different documents. A lot of times, this stuff can come up in the middle of a timed match in a tournament. If you are having to break out all of the documentation to try and figure out what the resolution is, that can be quite a problem for the event. And, while we have hashed this out a lot here online, not every Night's Watch is going to read this particular thread, and could be faced with the same question in a tournament.

I get when people want to reduce the numbers of entries in the FAQ, but I am one of the people who would rather have a 400 page FAQ (with searching capabilities, mind you), and easy to read/understand rulings and errata, than having to hope that every Night's Watch representitive are going to read and interpret a complicated ruling the same across the country. There is nothing quite as demoralizing as playtesting your favorite deck for months, showing up to a major tournament and finding out that your deck doesn't actually work the way you thought it did because your judge made the wrong ruling. My buddy has had to break it to someone in a Lord of the Rings tournament that the 15 otherwise worthless allies in his "Unbound Hobbit" deck, weren't actually considered "Unbound Hobbits" in a regional tournament. His deck went from top-tier level deck to the level of a randomized starter with one misinterpreted ruling. That is someone that liked the game enough to pay some $200+ to travel to an event in Vegas or San Diego (can't remember which of those events it was), who may never play the game again after an experience like that. If one entry in the FAQ can prevent someone else from going through that some day, that seems like a very small price to pay.

That comparison is ridiculous, Rhaegal being poorly worded (as many of us are well aware that he is) is nowhere near being a game breaking issue. Just imagine that his attach as a duplicate effect is worded the way that every other one is and there is no issue or apparent precedent setting problem. Duplicates do not exist in your deck, so it should say to search for a copy of Rhaegal and attach it as a duplicate, so, yes they should erata it, but until they do, the intent is easy enough to figure out.

I am someone who maybe wouldn't play this game if the FAQ was 400 pages.  I know that was an exagerration, but maybe they do not have as many entries in the FAQ because many of your concerns are statistically not a FAQ. 

I now understand what you were saying before even though I don't agree with the strictness of your interpretation of cards.  I don't think a game should be designed for only players that have the ability to perfectly interpret the English language and the ability to pull apart the structure of sentences in such a way that there is only a single interpretation that is possible for everyone who reads the sentence. 

If you are entering a tournament, it is your responsibility to know how the cards will work.  You should never assume that everyone uses the same exact interpretation as you(even if you think you are 100% correct).  This is why we have the online community and the rules question submission.  This is also why we have the FAQ.