Actually Parasite Cage's text says that the card loses everything but it's name. Since you can't play another card of the same name, you retain the name and nothing more while it's trapped. The reason the zone is voided is because that friend has to go somewhere when Parasite Cage is defeated (i.e. the original zone), so it's occupied with a voided spot until the friend returns to that zone.

The zone is voided... and I'm not trying to be mean with this - I know what you are trying to indicate with your word choice, void as in taken up? cannot be used by something else. void for use. Sorry for being a partial jackass, it just isn't the issue, the issue is the friend zone being limited to the cards in front of you and not those on your world. The zone that Monstro would appear to be referencing to with his text. If it said, you may not control more than 3 friends = fine. Let me know there was a translation error, maybe even make a functional errata, but the way it stands it is not sitting well with my playgroup.

When Parasite Cage is defeated the friend will attempt to fill a spot in the friend zone that it once fileed before it was placed elsewhere. If Monstro is still out and 3 friends are filling the 3 friend zones then 1 of the 4 attempting to, or now occupying, 3 friend zones must be discarded.

Monstro says 3 friends in the friend zone, it does not say 3 friends or friend equivalents or voids in the friend zone (where friends used to be before the were placed into a different zone)?

The naming rule is not up for interpretation, but unless someone tells me why : name in play = friend in friend zone : I still have an issue. Not a big one, I will just email Jaffer if no one who previously contacted him steps up to explain this to me. Granted Parasite clearly removes (places elsewhere) a friend that was in the friend zone and the friend zone is what is referred to by monstro not names in play, not friends that used to be in the friend zone that were recently removed but still have their names in play for whatever reason.

- dut

I was actually meaning unusable. To some extent you do control the friend, enough to control the name at the very least because you can not play any cards of the same name while the card is trapped in Parasite Cage

However, becasue the friend is attached to Parasite Cage and it loses everything but the name, you really can't discard it for Monstro's effect. So to the same extreme because you can't play a card of the same name, something is there and the zone is blocking you from playing another card so therefore the zone is uninhabitable.

But the point is that there ISN'T something there, the card itself has left your field, the only thing you have bar the name is the fact that it is still in existance.

Monstro designates that cards in YOUR Friend Area are limited, but there isn't a card there any more, but you do control a card which should be there. The fact that you control it is not the issue, if you controlled the Friend and it remained in your area then I'd agree with you, Roxas, but there is nothing in your Friend area to be controlled. Monstro only deals with cards in your Friend area, Monstro does not deal with cards you merely control elsewhere on the board.

Yeah I was lost there until I though about the friend returning part. That friend has to go somewhere so it's original zone has to still be there.

That's basically the reasoning I came up with for justifying Jafar's ruling. By any other logic, it doesn't make sence and I would agree that the third zone could be reoccupied.

Roxas said:

But as it no longer occupies that zone, it's no longer keeps said zone.

Then I honestly don't what to tell you except email Jafar, because he told us that ruling, i think, so you might as well ask him why so we can make an update to the Comprehensive Rules and Rulings thread.

Then I honestly don't what to tell you except email Jafar, because he told us that ruling, i think, so you might as well ask him why so we can make an update to the Comprehensive Rules and Rulings thread.

I already know the ruling...I'm just confuddled as it doesn't make any sense...

Emailing Jaffer won't amount to anything unless he decides to change the ruling specificly because I have a problem with it, which I don't think will happen anytime soon.

Clarification, or he may change the ruling.

I'm dont sure I understand the reasoning behind it either and at this point I kinda want to know exactly what ties this ruling together the way it was so we can end this mass confusion of whys. lol.

Parasite Cage:

[comes into play effect] choose a friend or magic/friend card your opponent controls and place on it this card. The target card's level, Support Value, Magic Value and card text are lost but it retains it's card name. The target card can not return to play until this card is defeated.

Monstro level 1:

[dark 1] Each player can only have up to friend and magic/friend cards in his/her friend area. When a player has more than three cards in his/her friend area, they must discard cards until there are less than four.

after reading the text of both cards carefully we realize that Parasite cage places the friend card on itself but never actually says it leaves the friend zone, it is implied by the last sentence "the target card can not return to play until this card is defeated". Although partial control sounds silly at first that's what exactly what you have over the friend card, though the card is on top of Parasite Cage physically, it's presence on the friend zone is still there and still consumes a space on the board by retaining it's name and still being somewhere on the board. If you didn't have partial control of it then you would be free to play another copy of the friend card that was captured (unique friend rule). The only logical interaction between Monstro lvl 1 and this ruling would be that the space is consumed by the friend that parasite cage captured and thus the space can not be occupied by another friend because, in the event of parasite cage's defeat, the friend needs to return to it's respectful place in the friend zone (which is occupied with it retainment of its name).

This I believe is the justification of the ruling.

But, the last sentence on Parasite Cage: "May not return to play until". This suggests it's not in play, if it's not in play then how...can...arrghh...this is playing havoc with my brain and my logic.

I understand completely where you're coming from, RoxaL (Woah, that started out as a mistake, but it's easier than differentiating between two Roxas'), but it doesn't seem right.

Trothael said:

But it's still in play on your opponents field and needs to be able to return when Parastie Cage is defeated. The reason that it makes a difference is because of the unlimited zones without Monstro lvl 1 to the three restricted zone with it. It's still connected to the zone but it's just not physically there.

Like I said Truffs, it is implied that it leaves play by the last sentence but the ruling implies that the player has partial control of the card since one can not play another friend with the same name. I don't understand what there isn't to get about the ruling but I guess that is just me I s'pose.

Roxas_Lawliet said:

I think this also shoot down the question of if you can Monstro the friend in Cage because you don't have complete control over the friend.

Roxas said:

Do you mean abuse monstro's ability in order to discard the friend card under Parasite Cage? then yes I would agree with you. This ruling both coincides with the current Parasite Cage ruling and the other rulings made with it. It seems to be the only that makes sense.

Thank you for your response Roxas L. And obviously that is the only way to justify the ruling, simply put the 'friend area' is 'anything not in your hand, discard pile, or deck...' It is unfortunate that the way to justify the ruling depends on stretching the common understanding of the friend area to equal the instruction book's clear defiination of in play .

We know that the rulebook reads: Page 5.

During the game, the players will play a variety of cards drawn from their decks. Cards that are played onto a play mat (i.e. not in the a player's hand, deck or discard pile) are considered in play .

In this sense, Parasite Cage is implied to break this rule, becuase per the text of the Cage the friend is out of play - to be returned to play upon defeat of the Cage, yet still on the play mat (on top of the Cage).

We are all familiar with the first problem the Cage presented becuase of this. Recall Parasite Cage reads: The target card can not return to play until this card is defeated.

Recall also that the rulebook reads: Page 9.

The "Unique Card" Rule

A player cannot play a Friend Card or Magic/Friend Card with the same name as a card he/she already has i n play . If a players wants to play a Friend Card or Magic/Friend Card which has the same name as a card already in his/her control, he must first discard the card witht he same name under hsi control (which can be done immediately before the new card is played).

This would lead us all to look at Parasite Cage and say, who cares if the card placed on the Cage retains it's name? It is out of play and it would appear I don't control it... So it would be obvious that I can play another friend with the same name per the official rulebook.

Sadly, we all know Parasite Cage was intended to stop the play of a clone card, and the wording implies it but does not go far enough to make it gel with the official rulebook.

Regarding Monstro:

I still don't think it makes much sense, nor do I think anyone reading the cards would see it the way it has been ruled becuase there is a distinct difference between the friend area and where dark cards reside on your world and the difference is clearly identified when Parasite Cage apparantly takes your card 'out of play' and moves it to a new area of the playing field, and one that is not referred to by Monstro lvl 1.

Practically speaking this is a serious problem for new players, who are being forced into a extreme disadvantage (lose a friend and the ability to play one in replacement of) if they don't keep up on ambiguous rulings on the forums. There should be an errata or a clear explanation that ends up making sense to everyone within the context of the rules of the game.

Ultimately, I suggest an errata to Parasite Cage that would see it consistent with the naming ruling (and apparant design intention) and yet still make conceptual sense with respect to Monstro lvl 1's text.

[comes into play effect] choose a friend or magic/friend card your opponent controls and place it on this card. Your opponent no longer controls the chosen friend or magic/friend card. The target card's level, Support Value, Magic Value and card text are lost but it retains it's card name. The target card can not return back to your opponent's friend area and back to under his/her control until this card is defeated.

I also suggest that an errata like this would be good for the game, and that we as a player base should push for it. Becuase Parasite Cage is a frequently played card, and believe you me it turns players off having to explain that 'this doesn't make any sense at all but... when I steal your friend it is still in your friend area, and you still have it in play for the sake of determining whether or not you can play a same name card; all this, despite the fact that the card clearly says your friend is returned to play once the Cage is defeated'

It is much easier to say to them, Parasite Cage, being a very long-winded card, suffered a misprint and has been errata'd to read such and such so that it does not conflict with it's own intention. i.e. retains name (why give out this information) and yet out of play?

- dut

Dut, while your errata makes the card simple but it doesn't explain the previous ruling of not being able to play a clone of what is in parasite cage. if anything the errata should take out the last sentence and replace it with. "the friend is considered to be in play" and errata the ruling for pot spider and clayton interactions. your errata completely dismisses the whole nature of the card, it's supposed to steal your friend and prevent you from playing another one of the same name. The other option would be to add more text to your previous errata stating you couldn't play another friend of the same name as the one captured by this card. your errata doesn't cover this aspect.

Whatever works, my read of my wording indicates that it is still in play becuase there is no reference to it coming back or ever leaving play. If it is still in play, and it still has a name, then per the rule book you can't play another one of the same name unless you discard one your control first. Since you have lost control you cannot discard captaured friend, and you cannot play one of the same name becuase one with the name is still in play.

- dut

dutpotd said:

That made no sense. If you dont have any control over it the unquie friend rule wouldn't apply. The way it's worded now leaves you partial control as to block another friend from coming into play.

dutpotd said:

Ya, I understand the reading and see that it addresses the issue with Monstro. basically your errata states, it's in play (so the unique friend rule applies to it), out of your control(so pot spider and Clayton go off), out of your friend area(so it coincides with what you think to be the appropriate ruling for the aforementioned series of interactions with parasite cage and Monstro lvl 1) and cannot return to your friend area and be under your control until you defeat this card, basically.

The justification is silly and I don't really agree with it. I was going to state that the rule book does not state where worlds are placed but it actually does give it a name, if you say that the friend leaves the friend area and moves to the world area, then I believe it makes more sense.

Roxas, the unique friend rule does not state you have to control the friend in order for it take place.

Roxas_Lawliet said:

Huh? Oh wait, I know what I was thinking. I was going to say that if you dont control the friend, how does the unquie friend rule apply but since Parasite Cage has to be on the world the friend is still on their mat. nevermind.

I'm glad that the 2 Roxas' see the solution within the proposed errata.

To update this thread, I have emailed Jaffer as of last Friday and have yet to receive a response.

Further playtesting using the following cards - monstro lvl 1, parasite cage, and clayton... has led to 2 potential lockdown situations in the game.

1) Parsite cages played as friends (dark deck) and monstro lvl 1 is up. You and your opponent are limited to no friends... (well you have 3 parasite cages out)... This situation can happen before the opponent plays any worlds becuase the parasites are played as friends.

The dark deck can do this pretty quickly based on current rulings. First turn lvl 1, 2 and 3 friends and/or monstro. Second turn, dragon maleficient at lvl 4 from the the hand OR a 4, 5, 6... 3rd turn possible parasite cages as friends and/or monstro = severe lock down or disadvantage to the opponent with respect to ability to play friends.

2) If the light player (or dark player) saves 3 parasite cages in his or her hand and manages to get 3 of them out on any world with no dark limit (or a lvl 3 world and the cat), 3 parasite cages and a clayton (4 dark cards) is a lock if monstro is out.

i.e. under the current ruling, the opponent can't play a friend and can't run away.

The player is limited to playing attack cards only (and low lvl magic if magic value is on the player card).

I really feel this should be looked at more closely, as play testing has seen this situation occur more and more often as we refine the technique for acquiring and placing 3 parasite cages into play (getting the monstro out is easy) and we have run into the + clayton issue once already and it wasn't taken very well...

I think that anything this limiting is degenerate to the game, considering almost every single deck relies on friends. We all need to face the fact that monstro itself is a very powerful card becuase it limits the degree to which players can build any sort of foundation in the game (and it stays out), combined with a silly ruling (I'm pretty sure parasite cage and hence the placed card is not in my friend area!!!) that further limits the friend base is deadly...

Comments?

- dut

First, I remember someone saying that Cage's effect only takes affect when it's played on a world.

Second, it's actually balancing out the power of Light Decks because If you can drop that on them Pan, Cloud, Dumbo, and the other WR cards are screwed or, if you get them low enough to drop on the Aggro, stop Beast, Septhiroth and Hercules.

First:

11.) Does Parasite Cage's effect work when played as a Dark/Friend?
a.)If Yes, Does it keep your opponent from playing a friend with the same name as the one captured? In other words, does your opponent still "control" the captured friend?
A)Yes.
a.) Yes, your opponent still controls that card and thus cannot play a Friend of the same name until the Parasite Cage is defeated. The only compensation is that Parasite Cage is a Level 7 Dark Friend and is thus difficult to play. If you know you're going up against a Dark Player deck, pull out all Jack Skellingtons.

Second: The point is that this is a lock and degenerate to the game... Yes, even agro decks rely on friends. But yes, decks that would apply the lock strategy would be decks that have more player attack and would not be required to play Beast/Herc/Sephorith (2 or 3 of which not all agros would even consider running anyways)...

If 3 parasite cages are played on the world, there is a significant advantage granted becuase the one player can play 3 friends and the other none, nor can they escape getting rid of the 3 parasite cages and allowing themselves to play 3 friends again if clayton is out...

Finally, the power of light decks is not in question here, it is the fundamental problem with the ruling. Both light and dark decks can and will employ this strategy to deeply limit the number of cards their opponent can play into the friend area and it does not give one an advantage over another.

The ruling quoted for the 'first' is from

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/khforums/posts/list/3543.page