Hello Forum,

from reading previous posts i understand, that revealing a hero with Rip while there is already a hero in play, results in flipping the development back down, essentially discarding Rip.

But what happens the other way round?

Say my opponent plays a hero to his Quest Zone. In response i use Rip to reveal a hero in my Quest Zone, thus my hero is the first to be active. What happens to his hero, that now illegally would enter play?

Thanks

you and your opponent can have a unit in the same zone,the restriction is per player, so you may not have 2 heroes in the same zone, but your opponent and yourself could each have a hero inthe quest zone.

With this in mind there very limited use of ripping one of your own developments in the quest zone or kingdom. (though you could conceivably do it in your beggining turn phase to draw more cards or get more resources)

You do raise an interesting question over wether you can rip a hero in a zone that you already have a hero in, unfortunately I do not know the answer, it gets even more confusing with the in play ruling for cards like grimgor.

I guess it could be argued either way.

As David says, each player may have a hero in each zone. If a hero is already in play, then a Rip cannot be played on any development in the same zone that is a hero card. In the unlikely event that you Rip an opponent's development that turns out to be a hero IN RESPONSE to an opponent playing a hero to the same zone, then the Ripped hero stays in play and the hero played from your opponent's hand is discarded when it resolves.

I am sorry to say, but you both are wrong...

Taken from the FAQ:

"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 onto that zone. His opponent also cannot play, take control of, move, or put into play (via a card effect) another Hero into that zone.

And the FAQ already answers the question if the ripped Hero comes second. He gets flipped back down immediately.

Actually the error is in how people are processing the OP's question. His question asked about opponent having a hero in opponent's quest zone and OP having a hero in OP's quest zone. I believe OP is under the mistaken belief that each zone is "shared" by both players. In fact EACH PLAYER has a separate Kingdom, Quest and Battlefield Zone.

The rule restriction cited above prevents me from using effects such as rip or forced march to move a second hero into a zone (mine or opponents) that already has a hero in play in the zone.

Well,

i see what you are saying and the FAQ can be interpreted this way, referring to only one players zone. But it still seems to me, that it can be interpreted either way, referring to the appropriate players corresponding zone. The way the FAQ is worded it says, that my opponent cannot play a hero into "that zone", but how can my opponent ever play a hero into MY zone? Do you understand, what i am trying to say or where my confusion lies?

Thanks

Here's your answer, bruthah:

In the scenario put forth here, the development being "Ripped" into a face-up Hero stays in play until the end of the turn, as the Tactic states, and the Hero being brought into play is returned to the owner's hand, with all costs remaining paid, per p. 15 of the rulebook, which states, "All costs must be payed and any targets must be chosen when the action is triggered, regardless of whether or not the effect resolves immediately. Once an effect has been paid for, that effect is a part of the action chain..."

Because every action in the game is a potential first link of an ensuing action chain, effects played in response to a game action will resolve before said game action. The rules declare that each person's zone is their own, and that the word 'corresponding' is used to refer to the opponent's zone of the same name. The rules also state that only one Hero may be in play in a zone at a time, not that any future Heroes are discarded if an attempt is made to bring a second Hero into a zone currently occupied by a Hero.

Nevertheless, I completely understand where everyone was at with their responses to this question. There are card games out there that discard a second copy of something or a second card type when an attempt is made to bring them into play outside the rules of legality (e.g. Star Wars, Doomtown). But because this game doesn't expressly direct us to do so, we do not discard a second Hero trying to come into a zone.

Overseer Lazarus said:

Again, just to be clear, we are talking about playing a Rip on an opponent's development in response to an opponent playing a hero to the same zone. I sent this question to James several months ago, and got the following ruling:

If Rip Dere 'eads Off is played in response to a Hero being played normally, then what would happen is that the Hero revealed by Rip Dere 'eads Off would be in play before the Hero played normally would enter play. In this situation, the Hero played normally would be immediately sacrificed, as it is the reason the Limit one Hero Per Zone is being violated (it came into play after the rip dere 'eads off hero came into play).

Not saying that it necessarily makes sense, but that's the official word.

As RexGator says, the last line of the FAQ entry is there because of Forced March and future cards that might allow you to put two of your opponent's heroes into the same zone. The rules will use (or at least should use) the phrase "corresponding zone(s)" when that's what they're addressing.

cyberfunk said:

Unfortunately, nowhere in the rules or Errata Sheet that we all have access to does it state that you have to discard a second Hero trying to enter a zone. I'm not even insinuating that you've done this, but LOTS of folks "talk to James" and hand us down his "edicts". But, sadly, they're not always his. Besides which, even when they are his, can any hobby game sustain itself on spot rulings made only to individuals on an internet message board? Not hardly. By all means, for those who have very controlled playgroups who are well-connected to the online scene, go with the email rulings for your games. But until an updated and OFFICIAL Errata Sheet comes out, I gotta play the ball as it lies. And it says this:

<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.>

That means that it can't come into play, not that it's discarded.

I am certainly not a fan of the way FFG has chosen to disseminate rules updates. I would be much happier if James just posted his rulings to some kind of interim rules document that was updated weekly.

That said, I'm not really sure that the FAQ addresses what to do in this situation. It says you can't ever initiate an action that will put two heroes in the same zone. But, it doesn't tell us what to do if you've already played a card and it then becomes illegal as a result of a response to playing the card. I don't really see any reason to favor returning the card to hand over discarding it. We know that Tactics whose targets become illegal as a result of responses are discarded without effect. Is there some other case addressed in the rules in which a card is returned to hand?

Again, this situation has probably never come up in a real game, so...

Good point about the tactics. The thing about the tactic ruling is that it is an issue of legal or illegal targeting. The rules do stipulate that the sudden absence of the tactic's target results in a "fizzled" tactic. In the case of a Hero being played to a zone that already contains a Hero, sudden or not, the entire action is disallowed from the beginning, per game rules. Thus, if the play itself is illegal, then the whole attempt is prevented, including the playing of the Hero from hand in the first place. For example, a new player using a High Elf deck (MUST be a new player ) wants to prep for his Epic Spell and attempts to just discard a Dragonmage from his hand for free. As he goes to discard, you politely inform him that it's against the rules to just discard a card because you want to. If the result of an illegal play is to discard the card in question, he would then be able to still discard the card that he wanted to in the first place. And I'm pretty sure we would agree that this wouldn't be the result. He would simply return the card to his hand.

The only reason that you don't get a refund on the resource cost is because the rules also stipulate that costs must be paid at the outset of the action, even if it doesn't resolve immediately. Only after the cost is paid does the action become a part of the chain. Once the action begins the chain, the game checks the game state for legality, and in the proposed scenario would find a Hero already in the desired zone. As this is an illegal play, the action would be prevented. You see where I'm comin' from?

Overseer Lazarus said:

I find this statement interesting considering you force a searching player using Blessings to reveal his searched cards even though the game doesn't expressly direct us to do so.

Apparently there is no edit button for posts.

The game also doesn't expressly tell us what to do in the event that a played card waiting to resolve becomes ineligible to be placed into the chosen zone.

My vote would be for it being sacrificed but none of our opinions carry any official weight so it's up to each playgroup on how they are going to deal with this situation for the time being.

Overseer Lazarus said:

That doesn't really make sense.

On one hand you say the play itself was illegal and the act of playing the hero from your hand is prevented and on the other you say you still have to pay the costs for an illegal action which is prevented from ever being played.

FellintoOblivion said:

It makes perfect sense: at the time the card was payed for, it was legal; at the time the card's effect resolved, it was not. See what I'm saying?

Overseer Lazarus said:

No.

You said "the play itself is illegal, then the whole attempt is prevented..."

You cannot pay for an illegal play.

If you did pay for a play that becomes illegal while it's waiting to resolve the game state would simply be restored to before you paid for it (in any other CCG anyway).

But until we get an official response it doesn't make any sense to argue the same point over and over.

FellintoOblivion said:

Two things:

1. This is not a CCG, nor is it a TCG. And that's what is at the heart of your frustration and unfamiliarity with this game's rules culture. FFG has gone to great lengths to distance the LCG lines from standard trading card games. And as melodramatic as I think some folks are on that point, I have to admit that it takes quite a bit of adjustment to understand the implications of that fact, certainly more time than a new player such as yourself has been afforded.
2. He wasn't paying for an illegal play. He was paying for a legal one. The play didn't become illegal until after the payment. And I've already provided the rules that state costs can't be recovered.

Anything from here on about this is redundant. Debate for its own sake isn't my bag. Ultimately, a person sees what they want to in a card's wording. We just have to hope that folks use sound logic when they do so.

Overseer Lazarus said:

The play doesn't become illegal, the resolution of the effect on the chain does.

And even that might not be the case if when (or if) a comprehensive rules document comes out because they could easily just make the game continually check for a violation of the unique/hero rule which mean in this situation a second card COULD come into play, the game would immediately find the violation and the player would have to rectify it.

I'm not suggesting the costs would be refunded, I agree they would not. The card would not go back to your hand however.

This whole thread is redundant considering we already have an official ruling on the matter, you just choose to pretend it doesn't exist. I understand that the way James ruled on this situation contradicts the entry in the FAQ so until one is chosen as the answer it's up in the air.

My only frustration comes from people claiming things work a certain way without providing a rules based explanation as to why.

FellintoOblivion said:

The ruling is not official, and won't become official until the next printing of an Errata Sheet. Nothing personal, just business.

I've explained already that this is a fun but flawed LCG. You've got to get off of this hang-up you have about that rulebook. It's all of twenty-odd pages with roughly 70% of it artwork. You're not going to find the rules you're looking for in there. Again, being a brand new player, you haven't had the time to settle into this game or its community culture. Rules lawyering is for Magic. This is not Magic. Use some deductive reasoning and intuition and have some fun.

Holla.

Actually, rules are pretty clear on this.

You CAN'T PLAY, MOVE or PUT INTO PLAY Heroes in a zone in which you have another Hero.

PLAY, MOVE or PUT INTO PLAY are part of PLAYIN' something (tactic, a Hero itself, card effect).

When you want to trigger an effecto or play a card, YOU HAVE to pay all costs and choose all targets.

NOW, if you CAN'T play/move/put into play a Hero because you have another one in play in a given zone, it's an illegal move, thus you CAN't PAY for it.

PAY COST/CHOOSE TARGETS is something that happens at the same time when you're playin' something. When you PLAY Forced MArch, you have to PAY resources AND choose the target...You can't target a Hero if the move is impossible. That move is illegal, thus, if THAT Hero is the only available target, you CAN'T PLAY Forced March.

If, in the other example, the move becomes ILLEGAL during resolution, the effects simply "goes off" with no effect and the card is placed in the discard pile.

Loyalty is checked AT THE PAYEMENT and AT THE RESOLUTION (by FAQ),

Overseer Lazarus said:

Is this last post like your last last post?

I'm sorry if requesting that you back your position up with actual rules was too much to ask.

1 Player A play a Hero in kingdom and pay cost.

2 In response Player B play Rip Dere 'Eads Off! on a development in Player A's kingdom zone

3 First resolve Rip Dere 'Eads Off! and show a hero

4 Player A mus sacrifice the hero just playing

Is correct?

Thanks

Dani

Sorry double post by an error

Greetings

Dani

that's correct. although "sacrifice" is not the correct terminology and the hero played from hand is never in play.

I thought I read somewhere that developments were common knowledge, just like discard piles. Is this not true?