Gandalf doesnt run with Good-Harvest

Yeah, that stupid ruling of Neutral "not being a sphere".

If neutral was a sphere, then it would require you to have a neutral hero to play neutral cards.

Nope.

If neutral was a sphere, then it would require you to have a neutral hero to play neutral cards.

This is not true, and if it where, this is a statement the other way around. The designers decided one way, but they could easily fix it and decide the other way around. Neutral cards require no resource match, so neutral can easily be judged a sphere, but just that it still doesn't need a resource match.

Are there any cards affected by the ruling besides Stand and Fight? It technically affects Good Harvest, but you would never need to name neutral as a sphere anyway.

Page 12 of the rulebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paying for Neutral Cards

Neutral cards, which belong to no sphere of influence,

require no resource match to play. This means that they

can be payed for with resources from any hero’s pool.

Also, when paying for a neutral card, a player may

combine resources from heroes with different resource

icons

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spelled out pretty straight-forward.

Neutral cards can only be payed with any hero´s resources specifically because they have no sphere.

You miss the point entirely. It was not a rule arguement.

Are there any cards affected by the ruling besides Stand and Fight? It technically affects Good Harvest, but you would never need to name neutral as a sphere anyway.

A Good Harvest is affected when trying to use the new Gandalf hero's resources to pay for a card in your hand.

Anyone who is truly upset that Neutral isn't technically a sphere is only upset because it creates odd exceptions to some cards like A Good Harvest and Stand and Fight. We don't like exceptions that aren't explicitly stated on the card, so we get upset. It makes way more sense for neutral to be considered the absence of a sphere than to be a separate sphere with alternate rules. Neutral cards have no sphere symbol on them for this reason.

Page 12 of the rulebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paying for Neutral Cards

Neutral cards, which belong to no sphere of influence,

require no resource match to play. This means that they

can be payed for with resources from any hero’s pool.

Also, when paying for a neutral card, a player may

combine resources from heroes with different resource

icons

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spelled out pretty straight-forward.

Neutral cards can only be payed with any hero´s resources specifically because they have no sphere.

You miss the point entirely. It was not a rule arguement.

Well you did call it a ruling earlier. But a ruling is an extrapolation upon existing material. As neutral is clearly defined as "not a sphere" in the rulebook it cannot be a ruling as it is a defined point.

And again, you miss the point. For what purpose?

If neutral was a sphere, then it would require you to have a neutral hero to play neutral cards.

As good a purpose as anyone.

What is the purpose forcing all undefended attacks to damage only heroes?

What is the purpose of putting a shadow card on all engaged enemies at the start of the combat phase instead of the moment they attack?

What is the purpose of not letting encounter keywords trigger when they are merely added to the staging area?

I could go on. I won´t.

The rules are as they are and they work just fine.

If Stand and Fight had the text "is not limited to any sphere" or something to that effect would this even be an issue?

Would rather that the card(s?) in question be discussed than the purpose of a core rule.

The purpose I asked about is purpose of you misinterpeting my words rather that purpose of the rules, but whatever floats your boat.

So pray tell o´ wise one: what is the purpose of your words?

Preferably condensed into something longer than a one-sentence response.

That was not a challenge to make it a two- or three-sentence response but rather a coherent explanation, which conveys a semblance (if not the whole) purpose of your original input.

Feel free to re-post the parts you deem necessary.

You thought that I argued about neutral not being a sphere (therefore, providing rulebook texts and stuff), while I didn't. I just despised the design decision.

Are there any cards affected by the ruling besides Stand and Fight? It technically affects Good Harvest, but you would never need to name neutral as a sphere anyway.

A Good Harvest is affected when trying to use the new Gandalf hero's resources to pay for a card in your hand.

Anyone who is truly upset that Neutral isn't technically a sphere is only upset because it creates odd exceptions to some cards like A Good Harvest and Stand and Fight. We don't like exceptions that aren't explicitly stated on the card, so we get upset. It makes way more sense for neutral to be considered the absence of a sphere than to be a separate sphere with alternate rules. Neutral cards have no sphere symbol on them for this reason.

Anyone who is truly upset about people who are apparently upset about neutral not being a sphere like odd exceptions that are not explicitly stated on the cards.

See what I did there? I just don't like the decision, because that's what it is. They could have easily decided otherwise.

(and I just want Gandalf to have his own sphere, that's my secret reason)