I don't know if this one was ever answered by Nate. I searched the forums but I couldn't find an answer. Anyway, here's my interpretation of this rule.
Upon reading the rulebook I've found the following text regarding keyword restrictions (bold text mine):

" Kingdom/Quest/Battlefield Only
Some cards have keyword restrictions that dictate the zone into which the card can be played (or put into play). When these cards enter play, they can only do so in one of the specified zones. Note that this keyword only restricts the card when it enters play , it can then be moved (through card effects) to another zone." (rulebook, p16)

Note that "Limit one Hero per zone" is also a restriction. If we follow the same logic behind the rule above, one could say that this restriction is only valid when the card enters play . So if the Hero card is moved by "Forced Marched" or if its turned face up by "Rip Dere 'Eads Off" the restriction no longer applies.

What do you guys think ?

Hmm. I do kinda read those are different kind of restrictions. "B/K/Q only" means you can only play it into that zone. For Heroes, you can play him into any zone, but he can never exist in a zone with another Hero. I know, feels very much like a semantics argument, but that's my take anyways. Also, that the "B/K/Q only" refers to the keyword, which makes me think the exception only applies to those three keywords.

Hmmm interesting...i see what you mean...I think i'm on the side to play as 'one Hero per zone when they enter play' :

-If one Hero per zone only when they enter play, this does allow Johannes to be in zones with other heroes; forced marched heroes to co-exist in same zone.

also, "if the rules of a card contradicts the text of this rulebook, the rules on the card take precedence"

Force Marched Hero X / Johannes goes to other hero occupied zone: rules contradiction, hero rules are in rulebook so card text wins.

Artemus Maximus said:

Except there are no Hero rules in the rules, so it becomes card vs card. And Cannot beats Can, or in this case limit beats no limit.

Cards says "Limit One Hero per Zone"

Just do what the card says, you can't move a Hero into a Zone that already has a Hero, or turn over a development with Rip Der Heads Off that is a Hero because you would have 2 Hero's in a zone. And all Hero Cards clearly state that you can't have 2 Hero's in one zone.

Take my advice - don't make that game weirder and more complicated than it already is It will help us all actually.

ventura72 said:

Yes, but there are cards that say "Battlefield Only". If you do what these cards say, you can't move them from the Battlefield or turn them face up on another zone. The card clearly states "Battlefield Only".
When I started playing the game I wasn't aware of how this restriction work so I'd never moved or Rip Der Heads Off these "Zone Only" cards. I was doing exactly what the card said. I was actually surprised when I found out that the restriction was only valid when the card entered play.

Anyway, I sent the question to Nate. As soon as I get an answer I'll post it.

But the rulebook also says you can move "Battlefield only" cards via other cards after they enter play through their restricted zone.

You can also move Heroes, but you can't move them into a zone where a hero already resides, because the hero card restricts this.

I was amazed at people inventing rules to handle two heroes in a zone. A lot of people were declaring one of the heroes had top be discarded, as if there was anything in the rules that even hinted at that.

The heroes cards do not say one cannot play more than one per zone they say, "Limit one Hero per zone." We know that the limit qualifier on other cards designated how many times we can play a card or use an effect per turn. This would give us a strong indication that we may only play one Hero card into a zone. However we also know that a card which has a limit to its play or effect can be bypassed if another card would allow or force us to do so, i.e. you play a battlefield only unit as a development in the quest zone and then it is turned over, or a quest only unit is moved to your kingdom. As of right now there is nothing which implies that the limit of one Hero per zone should not be treated the same way. That is to say that if an effect does not require you to play the Hero into the zone it should be seen as a legal and valid action.

There will be continued debate on this of course, but since there are no rules that can be quoted concerning how to treat this we can best extrapolate off existing rules and precedent. Not to mention this simplifies the case for Rip, since if the rule was a firm cannot, and there is absolutely no indication that any unit revealed must immediately be discarded if its location is "illegal" the Orc player would have to retarget his card, or even be forced to take back the action which reveals too much about his hand and intent to his opponent.

This is how I'm ruling until the Dev team says otherwise.

Vegabond said:

Well, no, your interpretation of the card restricts this. Since we don't know precisely how the "Limit" is intended to be interpreted it is just as valid to say it is another play restriction (and so far I believe every other instance of a limit or restriction on the cards have all been play restrictions). So it all depends on how we choose to interpret that card text as a play restriction or constant effect. I believe there is more weight in interpreting it as a play restriction than as a constant effect.

I don't think we should compare a card that says Battlefield only to Hero cards. The rulebook clearly states that a BZ only card has to be played in the BZ and then can be moved thru card effects on pg 16.

The limit on Hero's is only on the cards, and the rulebook doesn't deal with them at all. It clearly states that you can't have more than one hero per zone. Since it doesn't state anything else, why should I interpet this rule to mean anything else. You have a limit on one hero per zone. This means you can't have 2 for any reason in one zone. So if you flip a Development and it is a Hero while there is already a Hero in a zone, you would have 2 Heros in a zone and the cards clearly reads that is a violation of the limit. I wouldn't be able to force march a hero to another zone if that zone already has a Hero, because I would be looking at 2 Heros in a zone that have on them a clearly written rule, Limit 1 Hero Per Zone.

So what happens when an opponent tries to flip a card. Why? How do you reconcile the fact that every other card that has a limit written textually is a play or trigger restriction and not a constant effect?

I'm not saying that you are wrong about absolutely under no circumstances can two heroes be in the same zone. I'm asking by what reasoning, given what we know from other cards, do you reach that conclusion (or do you ignore the other cards to do so), and how do you handle effects that would unwittingly cause it to happen?

At least in my mind the correct answer reached properly should answer all of these questions in a simple and easy to understand fashion which takes nothing away from game play. As of right now the continued statement of one Hero per Zone as a constant effect does none of that. Give us a why and a way to resolve Rip.

Sorry DM, no matter how you cut it, "Limit one Hero per zone" means just that. ONE HERO PER ZONE. Anything that would violate that is an illegal move and cannot be performed.

Dormouse,

Limited is a Keyword, and addressed in the rulebook. The Limit for Hero's is not a Keyword, nor is it an Action or a Forced Effect, and therefore it is a Constant effect. The Keyword Limited is not the same as what is written on Hero cards, nor does it even mean the same thing. Limited means you can't play more than one card per turn that has this Keyword on it. You can still play 2 Limited Cards in the same zone. If you were referring to some other meaning of Limited as a trigger please feel free to give me more detail about what you meant.

Now with regards to Rip. First of all, you can always look at your developments, therefore you would know you are turning over a Hero. The way to resolve this is if a player tried to turn over a Hero with Rip while a Hero was already in that zone, I would politely tell them they can't have 2 Hero's in a Zone and they would have to choose another Development Card to turn over. Same in regards to Forced March, you could not target a unit and move it into a zone if that unit was a Hero and was being moved into a Zone with another Hero.

I don't believe this takes anything away from game play, you would just need to respect the constant effect that has been on all Heros so far. Also, the text doesn't give any exceptions to this restriction. Therefore, I think the correct way to play Heros is to respect the limit and to never have 2 Hero's in one zone for any reason. Of course a card could come out that could give some type of exemption, but there are no cards like that so far.

ventura72 said:

What if you flip an opponent's development that happens to be a Hero in a zone with already another Hero?

Dam,

That is a very good question. For some reason, I thought Rip was for your own developments.

I would love to get an official ruling on that, but my instinct tells me that if I choose a development and it was a Hero, I would have to pick another development. I could definately be wrong about that. I still feel though that you can't deliberatley put 2 Heros in one zone for any reason.

All effects that have a limit on them are specific to play (Limit once per phase/turn). The question is how do we handle it if it is a constant effect. It is inelegant at the least to have to reveal I have a Hero as a development, or that I have Rip in my hand and am targeting the one development in the zone I need to burn to win the game, and removing it will cause the zone to burn.

It may be precisely the way you say, but this is one of those few cases where I actually hope the answer I have is right (normally I have no investment in it).

I do believe it is a constant effect because there is no keyword associated with Heros.

And I don't think you would be able to Force March a Hero to a zone that would violate the limit.

But I have to admit that the Rip card has me stumped. I just can't rationalize having 2 Heros in a zone, however, I'm not sure how I would handle Rip considering that you could turn over a Hero unintentionally.

Apparently the designers don't know how to rule it either. It's taking months to figure out.

If I had to put $$ on it, I think they may rule that you can use Rip and the Hero stays in play for one turn. I don't believe that they will allow a Forced March or Temple of Shallya to intentionally put Heros into zones that violate the limit.

I would agree with that, Old Bone Head.

ventura72 said:

I stand corrected.
Upon reading the FAQ, the rule works exactly like you first called it.

"If a player has a copy of a Hero in play, he cannot play, take control of, move, or put into play (via a card effect) another Hero into that zone. His opponent also cannot play, give control of, move, or put into play (via a card effect) another Hero into that zone."

Example:

" If a player attempted to play Rip Dere ‘Eads Off (CS 75), on a development that was a Hero while there was already a Hero in that zone, then the effect would be cancelled. "

To be completely honest I wasn't right about Rip. I was correct that if you tried to play it on your own development that you wouldn't be able to, but when it came to turning over an opponenents development card and having 2 Heros as a result, I have to admit I had no idea on how to rule on it.

In the faq it´s clear, one hero per region:

“Limit one Hero per zone”
If a player has a copy of a Hero in
play, he cannot play, take control of,
move, or put into play (via a card
effect) another Hero into that zone.
His opponent also cannot play, give
control of, move, or put into play (via
a card effect) another Hero into that
zone.

one hero per zone, you cannot avoid that restriction....

Well technically it does violate that restriction, if only momentarily. If I hit you with Rip and a hero it says you still reveal it, Rip is considered to be canceled, and then you turn the Hero face down again... of course there is no practical way to make any use of this since no effects can be triggered during this resolution, but it is important to remember that the card is turned face up, if only momentarily.