Two issues here, first quote from FAQ:

"As the player who triggered the ability, you have to put a unit into play at your HQ from your hand first."

Is this some kind of exception to the general rule, that when some things happen at the same time player with initiative resolves his/hers first? Why? Or am I missing some other rule, that would take precedent here?

And more importantly, does this really FORCE a player to put a unit to HQ?

I thought of a matter more or less settled when this came out in FAQ:

"(1.3) Result of Search When resolving an effect that searches a deck or part of a deck, a player is not required to find the object of the search."

Now, this doesn't address the issue directly, sure, but it does show designers intent in a similar case.

And then, BOOM:

"As the next step, your opponent chooses a unit in their hand, if able, and puts it into play at their HQ."

I mean, really? So we have to call a judge every time someone doesn't put that unit into play? That seems...like a piece of really bad design tbh...

I'm hoping for an official ruling here, but feel free to chip in in the meantime guys (especially on the first one, might be I'm missing something really obvious here).

Is this some kind of exception to the general rule, that when some things happen at the same time player with initiative resolves his/hers first? Why? Or am I missing some other rule, that would take precedent here?

Um... you might want to check the rule again...

"Priority of Simultaneous Resolution (RRG, p. 12):

If a single effect affects both players simultaneously, but the players must individually make choices to resolve the effect, the player who initiated the effect chooses first, followed by his opponent."

So the quote from the FAQ is just restating the rule: the person who triggered/initiated the planet ability puts their card into play first. There's no exception or contradiction here.

And more importantly, does this really FORCE a player to put a unit to HQ?

I thought of a matter more or less settled when this came out in FAQ:

"(1.3) Result of Search When resolving an effect that searches a deck or part of a deck, a player is not required to find the object of the search."

If the winner of the battle chooses to trigger Y'varn's battle ability, then yes, they are FORCED to put a unit into play - because Y'varn is not worded as an optional ability (i.e., "may"). You can't trigger it, then choose to do nothing. If you don't want to put a unit into play, you shouldn't trigger the battle ability. If you don't have a unit to put into play, you can't trigger the battle ability (because of the "has to have the potential to change the game state in order to trigger" rule).

And then, BOOM:

"As the next step, your opponent chooses a unit in their hand, if able, and puts it into play at their HQ."

I mean, really? So we have to call a judge every time someone doesn't put that unit into play? That seems...like a piece of really bad design tbh...

Same as above. Y'varn is not an optional effect. If you have a unit that fits the criteria, you have to put it into play. Most of the time, you can trust your opponent to tell the truth (and that if they are not putting a unit into play when you trigger the ability, it's because they don't have a unit). Whether or not you call a judge when that happens is up to you. But there's probably a zero sum, here. Most of the time, if you trigger Y'varn and your opponent cheats by not putting a unit into play when they are required to do so, the advantage of their missed opportunity is going to you. Kind of a dumb way to cheat.

I'm hoping for an official ruling here, but feel free to chip in in the meantime guys (especially on the first one, might be I'm missing something really obvious here).

You're definitely missing something obvious on the first one (misreading the rule), so there's no need for an official ruling because the official rule addresses it. On the other stuff, by saying, "As the next step, your opponent chooses a unit in their hand, if able, and puts it into play at their HQ" -- instead of "As the next step, your opponent chooses a unit in their hand, if they want , and puts it into play at their HQ" -- the FAQ confirms that once triggered, Y'varn is not optional for either player.

Ok, as to the first one I had a feeling it was something like this. Thanks

As to the second... Neither is searching for a card an optional effect, and yet - we have (1.3).

About zero sum - I'm not interested in "most of the time". Actually most of the time when I use Y'varn it's because I want to put my opp into even worse Doom then he faces already, or I was choking him on cards, and I want to make another one of his cards useless for the next turn. Those 2 cases would be like 85% of times I use Y'Varn. The "I feel I have a bigger dude then you in my hand" use you seem to refer in "zero sum" statement doesn't even come close. So yes, I would be forced to call judge every time my opp doesnt put a unit out, and he should be reluctant to do this 85% of the time if he knows what's good for him - this is uncomfortable for everybody involved and something I have never seen in a card game. Or any good game for that matter.

As to the second... Neither is searching for a card an optional effect, and yet - we have (1.3).

But we don't have anything analogous for "put into play." FFG's reasoning seems to be that "searching" does not necessarily need to lead to "finding," but "put into play" does specifically need to lead to something entering play.

About zero sum - I'm not interested in "most of the time". Actually most of the time when I use Y'varn it's because I want to put my opp into even worse Doom then he faces already, or I was choking him on cards, and I want to make another one of his cards useless for the next turn. Those 2 cases would be like 85% of times I use Y'Varn. The "I feel I have a bigger dude then you in my hand" use you seem to refer in "zero sum" statement doesn't even come close. So yes, I would be forced to call judge every time my opp doesnt put a unit out, and he should be reluctant to do this 85% of the time if he knows what's good for him - this is uncomfortable for everybody involved and something I have never seen in a card game. Or any good game for that matter.

Well, those are disagreements about the application and practice, not the rules themselves.

The fact that Y'varn is mandatory if triggered has been confirmed by FFG a number of times. The direct quotes can be found on the "cardgamedb.com" boards. Combine that with the FAQ and what the rules are for this situation seem pretty definite. Whether or not the rules are what they should be is another question.

(I tend to agree that things like this creating the possibility that players cannot police their own game is a bad thing for competitive play.)

I've found the question on cardgamedb boards ( http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18131-planets-yvarn-if-triggered-must-both-players-do-it/ ), and indeed the answer was consistent whith what you're saying (another matter being if forum talks should be considered source of tournament rulings - I for one have no idea who Toqtamish is. Nevertheless there seems to be a consensus among players about this.

Matter for a discussion is whether this rule should stay in it's current shape.

As I said, I have long-standing issues with this planet - for the longest time we were on our own with it, and our local store owner decided to treat it like it would be treated in MtG. Which is fair, MtG with it's long design history is and should be an example for other games. This was somewhat confirmed to us with the (1.3) FAQ entry - though not directly, it is a pretty similar case - searching your deck for a card and not finding it does resemble searching your hand for a card and not finding it. Only Y'Varn case comes up, and is very relevant, much more often.

I was not up to date on FAQ for some time, and only yesterday have I found the new entry about Y'Varn. Again, not dealing with a matter directly (I mean c'mon, what's with that, really so few people find it relevant? It comes up like every 5 games for me!), but stating quite clearly designers opposite intent to what we thought was settled.

What I'm saying is that we need a separate FAQ about it for one, and maybe a reconsidaration of policy to be in tune with (1.3), or an errata for Y'varn (something like: Battle: Each player puts a unit into play from his hand at his HQ. If he can't he reveals his hand.).

(something like: Battle: Each player puts a unit into play from his hand at his HQ. If he can't he reveals his hand.).

I'd go simple and say errata Y'varn to "Battle: Each player may put a unit into play from his hand at his HQ," but yeah - I agree that the situation bears some reconsideration.

My general stance is that the players should be primarily responsible for the state of their game, and a rule/ruling that requires a third party to effectively enforce a game state should be viewed with suspicion.

If you don't have a unit to put into play, you can't trigger the battle ability (because of the "has to have the potential to change the game state in order to trigger" rule).

This is incorrect, that rule applies to all aspects of the triggering effect not just the player triggering it first. So long as either player can resolve the effect, it would occur.

If you don't have a unit to put into play, you can't trigger the battle ability (because of the "has to have the potential to change the game state in order to trigger" rule).

This is incorrect, that rule applies to all aspects of the triggering effect not just the player triggering it first. So long as either player can resolve the effect, it would occur.

There is only one ability being triggered and only one player triggering it, even if both players are affected.

The person triggering the planet's battle ability has no way of knowing, when checking play restrictions, whether his opponent will or will not have a unit in his/her hand. You cannot use information that is hidden from you when checking to see if triggering an ability will have the potential to change the game state. So if the winner of the battle has no unit in hand, they cannot trigger this battle ability.

Said another way, say that I win a battle at Y'varn and I have no units in hand. Thinking that you have a unit in hand, I trigger it. But it turns out you have no unit in hand. Neither of us could have put a unit into play, so there was no potential for the ability to change the game state. So it turns out, retroactively, that it was illegal for me to trigger the effect in the first place.

Or are you suggesting that the winner of the planet gets to ask his opponent if he has a unit in hand before deciding to trigger the ability?

Playing a Unit to your HQ is not a cost its an effect that is resolved as a result of triggering the Battle win conditions. While you may not be able to prove your opponent has no units in his hand. It would still trigger and resolve its effect for both players, unless both players had no units in hand. If both players had no units in hand then you are correct in that the triggered ability would not be changing the game state and thus would not resolve.

The card itself is poorly worded for competitive play as it essentially relies on the honor system of both players following the rules where no means of verifying it exists. Not an uncommon thing in casual games, think Go Fish. I agree that effects like this should have been worded with the option by saying each player may place a unit from their hand in their HQ to avoid this but that particular cards rules were written from a casual perspective.

If you don't have a unit to put into play, you can't trigger the battle ability (because of the "has to have the potential to change the game state in order to trigger" rule).

This is incorrect, that rule applies to all aspects of the triggering effect not just the player triggering it first. So long as either player can resolve the effect, it would occur.

The person triggering the planet's battle ability has no way of knowing, when checking play restrictions, whether his opponent will or will not have a unit in his/her hand. You cannot use information that is hidden from you when checking to see if triggering an ability will have the potential to change the game state. So if the winner of the battle has no unit in hand, they cannot trigger this battle ability.

Again the FAQ you are quoting about triggered effects does not care which player initiates the effect, only that the effect itself can be resolved in part. You cannot say because half the effect cannot be resolved it won't trigger since your opponent if he has a unit in hand is capable of resolving the effect, thus changing the game state. Nothing in the rules supports your premise that an effect would not trigger simply because you cannot "prove" your opponent can resolve their half of an effect.