Ok so I use the ability to turn a dead unit into a development, is this considered the unit has left play so the Rangers can do there thing?

Dwarf Ranger reads:

Scout. Quest. Forced: After one of your other [Dwarf] units leaves play, deal 1 damage to one target unit or capital.

Reclaim the hold reads:

Quest. Action: After a card you control leaves play, you may discard 1 resource token from this card to place that card into its current zone as a development instead of discarding it.
Quest. Forced: Place 1 resource token on this card at the beginning of your turn if a unit is questing here.

Since the Dwarf Ranger is a FORCED effect and Reclaim the Hold is an action, the Ranger does his thing before you could even have a chance to use Reclaim the Hold's action. So, yes using Reclaim the Hold does not affect Dwarf Ranger's forced effect

Quest. Action: After a card you control leaves play, you may discard 1 resource token from this card to place that card into its current zone as a development instead of discarding it.
Quest. Forced: Place 1 resource token on this card at the beginning of your turn if a unit is questing here.

The wording of Reclaim the Hold bothers me. Since you can trigger Reclaim the Hold only after one of your unit leaves play, what exactly constitutes its current zone? I'm sure it actually mean you may place the development into the zone the card previously occupied before it left play?

My only beef with this game is the hit and miss card text. This game hasn't been out for a year and it already needs an Oracle Text database like Magic has.

Thanks, I missed that somehow. Thought it would work was just not sure why!!!

Vollick1979 said:

Even funnier, in which zone will my "support-transformed" Vigilant Elector end if I use Reclaim the Hold after it "killed" one of my opponent's units ?

I think the question is, do you control an attachment in an enemy zone? If not, then the Vigilant Elector would not be a legal target. If so, then it would become a development in your opponent's zone. Either way, I don't think that's something you would ever want to do.

RM

You do control attachments that you own if they are in your opponents capital unless they have an effect that allows them to take control of a specific attachment... so yes it would be a development in your opponents capital.

Are people complaining about the wording or is there actual confusion about how this card works? It certainly could be more precise, tightened up, but the wording seems to get the point across with little confusion. Where ever said card is leaving or has left play from is where it becomes a development. The wording seems to to unfortunately be describing how it is most likely used in RL rather than in game terms, which is to say the card is used in response to a card leaving play and so never is actually put in the discard pile but instead just flipped over. Obviously the problem comes that if the card has truly left play it is in the discard pile and you would be putting it back into play flipped as a development.

Frustrating but at least this one can be easily understood (the same can't be said for all the cards though).

dormouse said:

@Dormouse : thanks for the explanation.

What if the card left play for its owner's hand and not the discard pile (Pilgrimage, Banish). Is it still a legal target ? or is the "instead of going to the discard" a condition that must be met too (its trigger becoming "after a card your control left play to the discard pile") ?

Very good question it is obvious it only effects cards leaving play but when you read the first effect all the way through it happens instead of discarding it. Until there is further clarification from James I would say that the effect/rule forcing the card leaving play must be directing it to the discard pile. You may wish to send an email to James to confirm this or get a clarification if there is another ruling.