If you use Rip Dere Eads Off to turn Grimgor Ironhide face up you do not trigger his special ability. My question and Nate's answer below.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Rule Question:
The orc tactic Rip Dere eads off says "Action: Turn one target development faceup. If it is a unit, leave it in play and sacrifice it at the end of the turn. Otherwise, sacrifice it immediately."

The Orc unit Grimgor Ironhide says "After this unit enters play, destroy all support cards and developments in each player's corresponding zone."

If I use Rip Dere Eads Off to turn Grimgor Ironhide face up, is it considered to have entered play for purposes of triggering it's effect.

Put differently, are cards played as developments considered to be in play in the zone they were placed?

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Nate's Answer

The development is already in play, then it is flipped to a unit and you are instructed to "leave it in play." So Grimgor's effect cannot be triggered in this situation.

Word on the street is...this sounds fair and is a good ruling.

yeap... very very good ruling!

I don't think this is right or good.

A Unit is not a Development or otherwise. The "leave it in play" means, that you don't have to sacrifice it immediately, it not means that the unit was in play yet.

In my opinion the unit wasn't in play and now it enters play and so the effect has to be triggered.

Seems like Grimgor's text for "unit" could be replaced with "card" based on this ruling.

A card (no matter what state) is considered in play in any state, if it reverts state, it will not "re-enter" play. It is a fair ruling and clear.

It may be difficult for long time CCG players to think of this as a good ruling due to years of playing M:tG with Phasing effects and Exile.

Perhaps a good way to view it is that when a card is in play as a Development, it is considered to be in play with a BLANK TEXT BOX and your opponent does not know what the card is, but you do. When it is flipped for any reason, the TEXT BOX reappears.

Logic (and the developers which is what really matters) would tend to disagree with you... you can't leave something in play that never entered play. You can't exit a room without having been in the room. Any counter example you can come up with to this that is not an abstraction?

This is how I interpret this ruling - The card was already in play as a development, the card is a unit, therefore the unit was in play, in this case AS a development. So Unit, support, tactic, quest, are card types, development is apparently a game state and independent of card type. This seems to make sense with Nate's ruling and does not cause any strange reprecussions or further effect any cards. I'm not saying this is precisely what Nate/Eric were thinking, just me tryin gto wrap my own mind around the ruling.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that this seems like a bad ruling for those who come from a magic background. W:I cards shouldn't try so hard to copy m:tg grammar and phrasing if they don't want players to associate the way the effect works to how it would in m:tg. the card really should have said "After this unit enters play from your hand, destroy all support and development cards in in each player's corresponding zone" if thats how the intended the effect to work. The unit was clearly not in play before you play 'Rip Dere Eads Off' so why wouldn't the effect trigger when the creature comes into play?

Sure I am leaving the creature in play but assumed that was just a poor way for them to phrase "Turn over target Development card If the development revealed this way is a unit put that creature into play and sacrifice it at the end of this turn, otherwise put the revealed card into your discard pile.". As it is you need to stick what is printed on the card but it still seems a little wonky to me since I have played ccgs that rule in a different way than this on the same issue. I guess the reason they don't have it trigger is because if it wasn't a unit that was revealed it would still trigger any comes into play effect before you would sacrifice the non-unit card with the way the card is written. I still don't think one poorly worded card should shape the way that all others will be treated by the rules for the rest of the game's life-cycle though.

The card isn't necessarily poorly worded, though if you view them words as FFG uses them rather than how M:tG uses them.

1. All cards have a card type ( page 6 , in the rulebook names them all which does not include developments).
2. Development is not a card type it is a card state or a game state enacted upon a card if you prefer ( page 11 , "During the capital phase, the active player also has the option of playing a card face down as a development in any one of his zones.").

That you are trying and expecting the rules to work the way they do in Magic is not a fault of FFG, nor is it really your own, since we all base our expectations on our previous experiences but you said yourself that you, "assumed that was just a poor way for them to phrase 'Turn over target Development card If the development revealed this way is a unit put that creature into play and sacrifice it at the end of this turn, otherwise put the revealed card into your discard pile'". Turns out it wasn't that was precisely what they meant.

I do think there may have been a better way to phrase this, but that the logic behind this statement, in order for a unit to be left in play it must have already been entered into play, is hard to argue with. It does not devalue either card and is a simple ruling to remember and explain, so it was a good ruling in my eyes (which btw has no bearing on whether I think it is the right one).

It is poorly worded in the sense, that they dont use the space the have. An extra "from your hand" is not slowing down gamehandling but rules clarity.

But FFG seems to be unreasonable about text in all their games. They use tiny 6p or so text on every card and then they are not using space fully to clear things. The should either use symbol languages (BSG, Chaos etc. would look far better with symbols) or use the space.

Sorry Jogo, but saying they did not use the space does not equate to a poorly worded card. From your hand, may have improved the clarity of the card, but it also vastly affects the power of the card, since the way it is worded now will work when he enters play from your hand, as well as both the discard pile or from your deck.

Good point, have not thougt about it because I have not seen cards to do so yet.

But then you are able to edit Rip Dere Eads Off with a "unit does not enter play".

True but then you are going to have to make extra word text on every card about what it does not do otherwise people will point to the card as an anomaly and say that it does not clarify that it doesn't do this thing so it must. This is akin to the Rulebook being full of the things you don't do. That is simply not how FFG does any of its LCG's.

The default in this game is the cards tell you what to do, that is what you do. The card says leave the unit in play, which while not stating outright, does certainly strongly imply that it had already entered play, since the tactic says "turn over" but does not say, "this card enters play face up" which would have been the more clear, consistent, and logical wording if that was their intention.

I'm curious why people seem to be arguing about whether a card, any card is poorly worded, or mildly confusing after we have received clarification on it. We know how it is played, what is the point of continuing the "it is hard to decipher" argument when it is evident by its very need of clarification it is arguably that. There seems to be a segment of players that would rather continue that debate or continue to criticize FFG and there wording choices, rather than try to understand the reasoning behind the decision and therefor gain greater insight into the game. This may be criticism, but it isn't really personal in nature, or directed towards anyone individual, so much as me processing this phenomena and hoping someone can give me some insight into it.

I am not used to LCGs/CCGs much, only played a bit the Microprose Magic, I am more based on boardgames and their rules. There I learned that a good rule mentions each thing at least twice times, long on card text is forbidden and at best removed (e.g. Race for the Galaxy did an awesome job at their cards).

Warhammer Invasion ships with an rule without structure that is inconsistent to itself (decleare zone/attackers), does mention important things in hidden sentences in big paragraphs (a unit is killed...). I have the feeling that they wrote their rule for someone who is used to LCGs/CCGs. If I had not the bit Magic experience I would be totally confused. But mist important we got incomplete rules as we can see with the official answers. A printed rulebook + game material in a box should stand for themselves, so that I just pick the box and play a round without searching the internet for answers.

You should not do it on every card and about complex timing things because the people arguing about complex timing will look in the internet anyway. But a casual player is helped by clarifications.

Doormouse, people have their opinions and sometimes want to complain about the rules.

Remember you don't have to reply to every poster and try to defend the game, ruling, card, developer, whatever. Sometimes it's just best to let people b*$&(.

But, but... what do you mean!? I thought that was why I was on this Earth!

I like reading game forums and I as a teacher I do tend to want to answer questions and as a counselor I want to pose questions of my own in an effort to better understand what a person is thinking. They both tend to be character flaws almost as much as they are boons. Perhaps there is a new years resolution in there somewhere.