50 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:

And if it’s Way of the Dragon, you (the dragon player) will be able to trigger attached character’s ability even if it is under your opponent’s control.

I don't think so... since you (the dragon player) would not normally be able to take the action on the now-Blackmailed character, so you wouldn't be able to do it a second time either. But I'm also pretty sure the Blackmail-player wouldn't be able to perform the ability twice, just the normal once.

On 11/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, Yogo Gohei said:

Someone much smarter than me pointed out a few weeks ago that this card will fall off the attached character at the end of combat, given current attachment rules,

Someone else got word from Nate(?) that they would have this situation cleared up shortly either through errata or a change in the rule book.

Has that happened yet? I ask because it's been a while and I wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten and I didn't miss it.

Thanks!

so is there an official "Nate" ruling on this card yet?

On 11/27/2017 at 9:20 AM, Zesu Shadaban said:

Well, we'll see. It sure looks like not everyone was on the same page though regarding the constant check for attachment restriction, at least not with a card like this being printed.

so is there an official "Nate" ruling on this card yet?

Nothing I'm aware of beyond the "we'll have out fixed shortly" response previously mentioned.

Can we all just agree to play this particular card as intended , instead of as awkwardly worded? Pretty please?

Yeah, I agree. This is just nonsense. Just because the card doesn't have good text, the intent is very obvious. Someone arguing for that is not something worth playing with.

13 minutes ago, Bronze said:

Yeah, I agree. This is just nonsense. Just because the card doesn't have good text, the intent is very obvious. Someone arguing for that is not something worth playing with.

I'd tend to agree, except...

We just did this locally with Hotaru and Toturi, assuming that there would be errata forthcoming so they'd work on the defense. Seemed a natural enough call, but at this point I'd switch that and bet against errata on them - just because enough time and tournaments have passed without it. That experience would make me hesitate to do the same with Pit Trap.

Still, if I'm playing casually (which I usually am) and was against a Crab player who asked to play it that way before the match, I'd easily go along. If it came up in the middle of the match, I'd probably explain how the rules work, the whole bit with Toturi and Hotaru - and then play it as my opponent expects it to work anyway

10 minutes ago, agarrett said:

I'd tend to agree, except...

We just did this locally with Hotaru and Toturi, assuming that there would be errata forthcoming so they'd work on the defense. Seemed a natural enough call, but at this point I'd switch that and bet against errata on them - just because enough time and tournaments have passed without it. That experience would make me hesitate to do the same with Pit Trap.

Still, if I'm playing casually (which I usually am) and was against a Crab player who asked to play it that way before the match, I'd easily go along. If it came up in the middle of the match, I'd probably explain how the rules work, the whole bit with Toturi and Hotaru - and then play it as my opponent expects it to work anyway

This is different from Hotaru/Toturi. Those abilities still work, albeit differently from initially thought (and probably intended). As printed, Pit Trap's last constant ability has no chance to actually impact the game in any way. By the way, cardgamedb and fiveringsdb have an image with errated text (written hastily, since "Attach to a character" is redundant with the rules).

5 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

This is different from Hotaru/Toturi. Those abilities still work, albeit differently from initially thought (and probably intended). As printed, Pit Trap's last constant ability has no chance to actually impact the game in any way. By the way, cardgamedb and fiveringsdb have an image with errated text (written hastily, since "Attach to a character" is redundant with the rules).

That is a weird errata, no need for "attach to a character".

4 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

That is a weird errata, no need for "attach to a character".

That's why I said "written hastily"

Nevermind I should read cards before commenting

32 minutes ago, AradonTemplar said:

To be fair, it does have an effect without errata, in preventing the character from readying from various effects mid-combat.

Nope, it says "during the regroup phase". So, absolutely no possible effect as published.

38 minutes ago, AradonTemplar said:

To be fair, it does have an effect without errata, in preventing the character from readying from various effects mid-combat. It's super-expensive bad tech for backup Mirumoto's Fury and For Shame

Pit Trap does not prevent readying during conflicts. It only restricts readying during the regroup phase. The text on the card is "Attached character does not ready during the regroup phase".

Also, as noted here http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37993-ruling-pit-trap-does-not-ready/ , the effect of Pit Trap only applied to the framework step of "Ready Cards" in the regroup phase. Other card effects can still ready the character during the regroup phase.

Oh. Fun.

There are cards that when you look at them you can see what was intended.

Out trap for one

But other interactions are harder to judge what was intended.

E.g. way of the phenix with added ring effects. Do we know other than an email that was what was intended. Till a faq comes out it does make things hard to say let' use this one way and that another

17 minutes ago, starrius said:

way of the phenix with added ring effects. Do we know other than an email that was what was intended. Till a faq comes out it does make things hard to say let' use this one way and that another

This was ruled through a developer ruling. https://fiveringsdb.com/cards/search?q=way of the phoenix

Relevant text from the above link:

If you choose a ring that gained other elements during a conflict (e.g. via Seeker of Knowledge , Isawa Kaede ), the effect will prevent your opponent from initiating conflicts with any of those elements until the end of the phase.

Developers ruling ars emails of a unofficial type normally from Nate. I hinestly dont take them as gospel until its in an offical FAQ.

57 minutes ago, starrius said:

Developers ruling ars emails of a unofficial type normally from Nate. I hinestly dont take them as gospel until its in an offical FAQ.

That's the problem we all have right now. There is no official FAQ yet since the game is relatively new. So developer rulings are all we have to go on right now. I personally take the developer ruling as gospel until an official FAQ modifies or overturns those rulings.

2 hours ago, Horizonshard said:

This was ruled through a developer ruling. https://fiveringsdb.com/cards/search?q=way of the phoenix

Relevant text from the above link:

If you choose a ring that gained other elements during a conflict (e.g. via Seeker of Knowledge , Isawa Kaede ), the effect will prevent your opponent from initiating conflicts with any of those elements until the end of the phase.

Developer ruling

This is a bad ruling, and I would seriously cry foul on this one. Way of the Phoenix specifically says that conflicts of that element may not be declared . If the conflict gains those elements later, that should be perfectly legitimate. Just like characters that may not be declared as an attacker, or defender, but can be moved in as such during the bulk of the conflict.

5 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

This is a bad ruling, and I would seriously cry foul on this one. Way of the Phoenix specifically says that conflicts of that element may not be declared . If the conflict gains those elements later, that should be perfectly legitimate. Just like characters that may not be declared as an attacker, or defender, but can be moved in as such during the bulk of the conflict.

But that is exactly what the ruling says: that you can't declare elements of the ring's elements. If you WotP the Earth ring that is also Air your opponent can't declare an Earth or Air conflict for the rest of the phase, but if they can still declare Void and put in their own Seeker of Knowledge and WotP won't care.

I keep seeing these 'developer' ruling links which is nice and all but I really hope they get that moved over to or compiled on FFG's actual site. If I were running a tournament and someone pointed me toward a 'ruling' on any site other than one run by FFG I would most likely not defer to it. I may be wrong but while CardgabeDB is all FFG LCGs it does not appear to actually be an 'official' FFG site.

8 hours ago, GoblinGuide said:

But that is exactly what the ruling says: that you can't declare elements of the ring's elements. If you WotP the Earth ring that is also Air your opponent can't declare an Earth or Air conflict for the rest of the phase, but if they can still declare Void and put in their own Seeker of Knowledge and WotP won't care.

I don't agree with that and I think that as a ruling is bad for the game. WotP stats that rings element not elements . Tbh all they need to do is make WotP not playable during a conflict and then it's fine.

Don't worry, it's already not playable

On 12/1/2017 at 8:32 PM, GoblinGuide said:

But that is exactly what the ruling says: that you can't declare elements of the ring's elements. If you WotP the Earth ring that is also Air your opponent can't declare an Earth or Air conflict for the rest of the phase, but if they can still declare Void and put in their own Seeker of Knowledge and WotP won't care.

Actually it says the rings element not plural

7 hours ago, starrius said:

Actually it says the rings element not plural

And Ambush says "put those characters into play as participating characters" even though you can choose only one. Does that mean that if you choose only one character Ambush doesn't do anything?