Now, you're free to continue your arguments here and on other threads, but I (and many others) would like to see you discuss in a more relaxed, concise and civil manner.

Here, here. well said indeed Warlock.

Oh and hello by the way .

"Have" is not the issue. I think that should have been pretty clear by all of the times that I emphasized the words "for as long as you are on the Path."

Except that "for as long as you are on the Path" is not a forbidding effect thus cannot stop the Destiny from being targeted or discarded. I refer to the before mentioned "any instance where a card’s effect indicates " in the Golden Rule "Can or Cannot" text.

But also "Have" explained by Warlock is a very good reasoning in itself.

Now, you're free to continue your arguments here and on other threads, but I (and many others) would like to see you discuss in a more relaxed, concise and civil manner.

Here, here. well said indeed Warlock.

Oh and hello by the way .

"Have" is not the issue. I think that should have been pretty clear by all of the times that I emphasized the words "for as long as you are on the Path."

Except that "for as long as you are on the Path" is not a forbidding effect thus cannot stop the Destiny from being targeted or discarded. I refer to the before mentioned "any instance where a card’s effect indicates " in the Golden Rule "Can or Cannot" text.

But also "Have" explained by Warlock is a very good reasoning in itself.

You're right. It's not a forbidding effect. It's a permitting effect. It grants you the Destiny "for as long as you are on the Path." If you are on the Path but you do not have the Destiny, then the Path is being violated.

You're right. It's not a forbidding effect. It's a permitting effect. It grants you the Destiny "for as long as you are on the Path." If you are on the Path but you do not have the Destiny, then the Path is being violated.

To me its just a effect that says for as long as you are on the Path you count as having the Destiny placed on the Path but if indeed it is a "Permitting Effect" and that does indeed stop other effects then I'm happy "at last" to concede and admit my error.

But I'm glad you admit its not a forbidding effect, that clears a lot of the posts up (and endless debate).

You're right. It's not a forbidding effect. It's a permitting effect. It grants you the Destiny "for as long as you are on the Path." If you are on the Path but you do not have the Destiny, then the Path is being violated.

A "permitting" effect, I missed that one where are the rules on "permitting effects" do they stop other effects like forbidding ones. Please quote the rule section on Permitting Effects.

To me its just a effect that says for as long as you are on the Path you count as having the Destiny placed on the Path but if indeed it is a "Permitting Effect" and that does indeed stop other effects then I'm happy "at last" to concede and admit my error.

But I'm glad you admit its not a forbidding effect, that clears a lot of the posts up (and endless debate).

This is not a "Can vs. Cannot" scenario. No forbidding effects are in play. Your incessant citing of this section of the rules is irrelevant.

What IS in play is a statement that grants something with no circumstances or effects listed that can take it away.

Unless, of course, you went to the Bill Clinton school of grammar and linguistics, where the word "is" no longer means "is."

If this is not the intended effect of the card, then the card is worded wrong. The only way to interpret the card the way that you have is to ignore grammar and word meaning.

I'm right. You're wrong. This is the last I'll say on it. The fact that I now have to explain intermediate English grammatical concepts in order to prove my point shows that you obviously are never going to get it.

You're right. It's not a forbidding effect. It's a permitting effect. It grants you the Destiny "for as long as you are on the Path." If you are on the Path but you do not have the Destiny, then the Path is being violated.

A "permitting" effect, I missed that one where are the rules on "permitting effects" do they stop other effects like forbidding ones. Please quote the rule section on Permitting Effects.

To me its just a effect that says for as long as you are on the Path you count as having the Destiny placed on the Path but if indeed it is a "Permitting Effect" and that does indeed stop other effects then I'm happy "at last" to concede and admit my error.

But I'm glad you admit its not a forbidding effect, that clears a lot of the posts up (and endless debate).

This is not a "Can vs. Cannot" scenario. No forbidding effects are in play. Your incessant citing of this section of the rules is irrelevant.

What IS in play is a statement that grants something with no circumstances or effects listed that can take it away.

Unless, of course, you went to the Bill Clinton school of grammar and linguistics, where the word "is" no longer means "is."

If this is not the intended effect of the card, then the card is worded wrong. The only way to interpret the card the way that you have is to ignore grammar and word meaning.

I'm right. You're wrong. This is the last I'll say on it. The fact that I now have to explain intermediate English grammatical concepts in order to prove my point shows that you obviously are never going to get it.

Hardly irrelevant at all, if its not a "Can or Cannot" scenario (hench a effect that forbids) then what makes this effect different to any other effect in the wording of the rules? I mean isn't every effect a permitting effect as in "they all permit you to do something". You really need to back up your claim with a ruling or a rule quote otherwise its just your perception and you implying the card does something its wording says it does not do (despite you repeating the text over and over).

Also please do not judge others grasp of English grammatical concepts (because some of us do not speak English as our first language, instead if they are wrong just say why and correct the meaning or interpretation) that's just plain insulting and unfair.

Of course if you do not want to discuss it further that's fine as well, but that's your choice no one can force you to debate.

First time I've ever disagreed with warlock. He's still wrong tho lol. Count as having and having are not the same thing. You don't possess it until you complete the path.

First time I've ever disagreed with warlock. He's still wrong tho lol. Count as having and having are not the same thing. You don't possess it until you complete the path.

"Count as having and having are not the same thing" how is that possible? you have seriously lost me there.

Disagreeing with someones point, ruling and or rule opinion is of course totally fine. But I personally would like to think if you do disagree you can at very least post a plausible reason why? (with rule examples, this is a rule discussion thread after all). I do not think that is too much to ask given others "including myself" have done the same.

If you've got money in the bank, one could say you count as having it. If you've got money in your pocket, you have money. It's a pretty simple concept. You dont actually possess the destiny, but your character acts as if it does. Since you dont actually possess it, it's unaffected. I'm sure you understand this basic concept.

If you've got money in the bank, one could say you count as having it. If you've got money in your pocket, you have money. It's a pretty simple concept. You dont actually possess the destiny, but your character acts as if it does. Since you dont actually possess it, it's unaffected. I'm sure you understand this basic concept.

One "could" also say you still have the money in the bank, it's just in the bank but you still have it. But really this is just going around in circles.

You stated "You don't actually possess the destiny, but your character acts as if it does" Well there you go, thus it can be discarded as if you possessed it. Also no I do not understand the concept because your just saying the same thing all over again .

I'm swaying back and forth.

I don't like the solution of the Stone or the Wyrd path loosing their destinies but that doesn't mean it's wrong at all (just think of all the messy things created by terrain-ing spaces needed for quests...)
I recognize the argument that count as having in a way implies that you don't have it (since you only count as having it) but without that assumption it just says that.. you count as having it (please stop beating this dead horse or I'll start reporting you).

Here's a new approach however:

Stone of Lia Fal

The Stone is imbued with a single Destiny (draw a Destiny and put it faceup on this card). You count as having the Destiny on this card.

The later part is worded exactly like Wyrd path ("count as having") so they should be ruled the same way imo.

The former part however gives ownership of the destiny to the Stone (if you accept the flavor wording The Stone is imbued with a Destiny ), just like the Spell ring etc gives the ownership of the spells to the item ( The Ring has 1 Spell) .

I'm swaying back and forth.

I don't like the solution of the Stone or the Wyrd path loosing their destinies but that doesn't mean it's wrong at all (just think of all the messy things created by terrain-ing spaces needed for quests...)

I recognize the argument that count as having in a way implies that you don't have it (since you only count as having it) but without that assumption it just says that.. you count as having it (please stop beating this dead horse or I'll start reporting you).

Here's a new approach however:

Stone of Lia Fal

The Stone is imbued with a single Destiny (draw a Destiny and put it faceup on this card). You count as having the Destiny on this card.

The later part is worded exactly like Wyrd path ("count as having") so they should be ruled the same way imo.

The former part however gives ownership of the destiny to the Stone (if you accept the flavor wording The Stone is imbued with a Destiny ), just like the Spell ring etc gives the ownership of the spells to the item ( The Ring has 1 Spell) .

Sure I too recognize the argument that when a card says another card is placed the other card it is linked and then the card owns the other card. Also I recognize too that some cards also say "imbued" and "has" which further strengthens them "owning" the said card.

But just because both cards are linked together (or one owns another) does not mean the linked card (or owned card) cannot be the target of other effects. When the owning card is discarded the linked card is discarded as well but there is nothing stopping just the linked card to be discarded by a effect that targets it.

And because of the "counts as having" clearly means the character too "has" the said card then effects that target cards the character has can still target it. In other words there is nothing that is stopping such a effect from targeting the card and the affecting the card (eg forbidding effect or a effect otherwise stated on the card).

The difference between the Spell Ring and the Stone of Lia Fal is the keywords "count as having" and "treat the Spells as though you had cast them". Which is key to players using the cards correctly.