On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 6:17 AM, Khudzlin said:

Nope. A character with a dash cannot enter play in the relevant conflict type.

The rulebook does not say "can't enter play", it says "cannot participate" - In this case, it is not a chosen participation, it is forced via card effect.

From RR:

If a character has a dash (–) for a skill value, that character cannot participate in conflicts of that type.

◊ Should a character with a dash skill value somehow end up participating in a conflict of the corresponding type, that character is immediately removed from the conflict, and placed in its controller’s home area in a bowed state

This card checks to see if the flipped up card is a character - then forces it into play - then the "-" rule takes effect and sends character home bowed.

Since this is a random effect you can't accidently make it illegal, it still goes into play - just sent home bowed after it comes into play.

ADDENDUM - looking through the rulebook at "cannot participate" makes me question this card even more. I have a feeling this will need a ruling to determine if the card activates THE JADE RULE or not. The card itself does not specify "eligibility" as other cards do. This card could reasonably circumvent the "cannot participate" based on its wording.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37547-charge-vs-dash-cannot-participate/

14 hours ago, mplain said:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37547-charge-vs-dash-cannot-participate/

@mplain

I agree that the ruling on charge could apply here, but the wording of the two cards is very different.

CHARGE- has you "choose" a character in the dynasty - You would have to knowingly choose an illegal character

RAISE THE ALARM - flips a card and checks if it's a character. If it is, it moves it into the conflict. - IMHO this is a JADE RULE effect since there is no illegal "targeting" or "choosing"

I know this is a fight against wording, and I'm not trying to be petty. But why have a "JADE RULE" stating card effects via the text of the card that seem to go against rules trump the RR, but never use it???? They covered themselves with the "-" rule that states they go home bowed, if by chance they find themselves in the conflict

I know this is fighting against a Dev (although to be fair - his ruling only applies to CHARGE), but it seems like, if this ruling applies here that it just makes things more convoluted than necessary and that the JADE RULE only applies when they say it does.

It's more like the JADE CHOICE - If they feel like it applies

You know the person to bring up the Jade Rule as a rules argument automatically loses, right?

The Jade Rule applies when card text explicitly contradicts the rulebook. If the rules say "You cannot put characters with dash into a conflict", then "Put a character into a conflict, even if it has a dash for a skill" would be a case when the Jade Rule applies. "Put a character into play" would not. In general, cards allow you to do something, and rules restrict what you can do, and forget the Jade Rule, it will never do you any good.

The dev ruling about Charge can safely be generalized to all "make participate" effects. Nate said that if a character cannot participate, you cannot attempt to bring it into the conflict.

3 hours ago, mplain said:

You know the person to bring up the Jade Rule as a rules argument automatically loses, right?

Seems like a legitimate statement.

I guess my gripe is that the ruling makes things more complex then necessary (especially with the other rules about dashes going home bowed if they find themselves in the conflict).

I shouldn't be surprised, as this seems to be par for the course in card games. I just wish I wouldn't have to carry around a multi-page updated FAQ and gathered rulings packet to every tournament match, but such is the life.

1 hour ago, kraken78 said:

the ruling makes things more complex then necessary

I don't see it this way. The ruling restores the integrity of the rules, which are currently somewhat inconsistent. Look at the entry for Cannot Participate:

• If a character "cannot participate" in a conflict, that character cannot be declared as an attacker or defender for, move into, or be played into that conflict. If an already participating character gains "cannot participate" status during a conflict, move it home bowed.

This entry should 1) also cover "put into play" effects, and 2) apply to dash skills. So basically, both dash and "cannot participate" should work the same way - a character with either cannot enter the conflict for which it is ineligible by any means. The entries for Dash and Cannot Participate are loosely worded and don't cover all edge cases, it was brought to Nate's attention, he made a ruling to assert consistency, and hopefully he'll update the RRG accordingly.

A dash implies "cannot participate", so it's already covered. That leaves your #1 ("put into play" effects).

21 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

A dash implies "cannot participate", so it's already covered. That leaves your #1 ("put into play" effects).

Kinda. Problem is, the RRG itself is not written in the same strict mechanical language as cards, so it's never apparent whether a certain word is used in the rulebook in its general English meanins, or as an established game term. So i'd really appreciate it is the entry for Dash either copied the wording of the entry for Cannot Participate, or at least referred to that entry in the Related: field.

... oh wait, it does.