This is a question for all players around the world :

What text (in any language) do you have on your version of Abandoned Fort ?

Because in France, the card text is like:

Challenges: Kneel Abandoned Fort to return an attacking or defending House Bolton character to its owner's hand.

I have to say that this corresponds exactly to the card that has been sent to Edge, the French editor of the game, for translation.

And this is the text that can be found on Dabbler's site : agot.dbler.com/index.php

However, the text of the English version of this card that we have here reads:

Challenges: Kneel Abandoned Fort to return an attacking House Bolton character to its owner's hand.

It seems the card text has been changed after being sent for translation, which is a pity in my opinion.

I'd like to know what you have in Spanish, for example.

The Spanish text is the following:

Reto: Arrodilla el Fuerte Abandonado para devolver un Personaje atacante o defensor de la Casa Bolton a la mano de su propietario.

Which means:

Challenges: Kneel Abandoned Fort to return an attacking or defending House Bolton character to its owner's hand.

This is going to make Bolton vs Bolton very interesting

And what the text for american card?

I don't have the actual card in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it says "attacking character"
If no one else has responded by the time I get home from work, I will check the text of the card itself.

your right it is just attack here state side but it would be so much better if your can use it both way

So now the question is....... What is the correct version?

Seems to be a difference in English and non-English versions of the card, implying that the English printer either screwed up or FFG changed the text after sending the set out for translation.

Since the cards were released at the same time, the "most recent version" rule does not apply. That makes both legal cards. So until an official errata is released, I'd say you play the version of the card you have, kind of like having multiple legal versions of Robb Stark, Danaerys Targaryen, etc. You don't get to pretend one version of Robb Stark has the text of another. Until further notice, I'd say you treat them as two separate cards that happen to have the same name (remember, three copies of a card per deck by title).

ktom said:

That's nice ruling for any nearest tournament, but it is generally silly. Did anybody sent it to Nate?

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

Yes, but usually we wait some time until new FAQ. I just wanted to say that the simplest solution is to ask Nate. (If he won't respond, then your solution is nice as I said). And comparing this situation to Winter/Summer is silly . I got better comparison: what would be your ruling as TO during tournament about Dragonstone Port before official errata has come out? Would you say "it is legal until official document is in my hands"?

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

No more questions Your Honour...

In fact, there is a similar problem with the Rakharo's Arakh in spanish.

In English the text says:

"House Targaryen only. Ambush.
Dothraki character only.
Attached character gets +1 STR for each character in each opponent's DEAD pile. If attached character is Rakharo, he also gains Deadly. "

In Spanish(translated) is:

"House Targaryen only. Ambush.
Dothraki character only.
Attached character gets +1 STR for each character in each opponent's DISCARD pile. If attached character is Rakharo, he also gains Deadly. "

OK, thanks for your answers guys.

I've sent the question to Nate (or at least, to the "Rules Questions" link).

I will let you know any answer I get.

NB: I asked also for the text for Rakharo's Arakh

ktom said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who would have ruled Dragonstone Port (or any other "misprinted" card) this way.

FATMOUSE said:

I presume you would be also glad if you lose against Dragonstone Port trick in second turn during some big tournament, after you spent money and time to travel there, right?

Rogue30 said:

Then how about if, between the community discussion and the official errata, my local TO had ruled one way, I had built a deck, spent my time and money to travel somewhere else, only to find that the local TO there had rules another way that made my deck not work properly anymore?

So in answer to your question, if I had known of the Dragonstone Port trick beforehand, that it would be played as written at the event, and then got plastered by it, I don't see that I would have much room for complaint. If I had NOT known of the Dragonstone Port trick beforehand, it was played as written at the event, and then got plastered by it, I would at least know that I could have discovered the trick on my own before the event, so that one is still on me. But whether I had known about the trick or not and got to the event only to find that the local TO had added rules - for one card or for many issues - then I would start to feel cheated because all the information I needed to deal with the situation were not available to me. You can't prepare a strategy if you don't have all the information. That's why the two options - as written or banned outright - seem like the best ones to work with.

As for Abandoned Fort, I don't see why "play with the version you've got as written" is all that silly. I don't think it would even be all that bad if FFG just went with this. After all, at a Legacy event, both the LCG Version and the Iron Throne/CCG Version of Gilded Plate are legal and no one seems to think a "play the version you have as written" rule is silly since there is no rule about how to handle modified reprints in the Legacy environment.

Rogue30 said:

*I wrote this while ktom made his post (which I have not read), and I have not edited mine to avoid repetition, etc.*

Well is the Dragonstone Port trick public knowledge and been brought to the attention of FFG or is only an individual (i.e. ktom) aware of it and decides to use that information to his or her advantage? If it's the former, I'd say it's the player's responsibility to speak with the tournament organizer prior to the common one (or two) week rule courtesy nearly every tournament has. The organizer can then make his or her own ruling on what the card can and cannot do, but should aim to make the ruling he or she believes FFG will make. People can object/applaud this decision, but the tournament organizer should have the final say. If the tournament is less than one (or two weeks) away the organizer should stick by whatever the current rules/FAQ for the game call for; however, if all the players in the tournament agree that they should not go by the current rules/FAQ regarding a specific card/rule, then the organizer should allow for that change. In the middle of the tournament errata should not be made because the rules/card pool for a tournament should be consistent throughout the entire tournament.

So to answer your question, I don't know if I'd be "glad," but I wouldn't mind losing to a Dragonstone Port trick just as I wouldn't mind losing to any other deck/trick because I either had 1) plenty of time to have the issue clarified (tournament is more than 1-2 weeks away), 2) I agreed to participate in the tournament allowing it (tournament less than 1-2 weeks away), or 3) I wasn't clever enough to realize the trick myself (I'm in the middle of the tournament). In all 3 situations the only person I could reasonably be mad at is myself. I don't consider myself (or anyone else) important enough to suddenly change the rules because something is considered "broken" or "unfair."

ktom said:

And why no one had found it? Because intent of this card is so obvious, that only crazy person would let you use it zilion times and instantly win.

You shouldn't mix obvious mistakes with tough card/rules interpretations. I see you telling someone playing Maester Aemon or Hollow Hill as any phase action, yeah, right: "of course it's not silly! it's printed on the card, so it's legal!". That's totally different thing than e.g. Doran Martell ability. But common sense is required to understand this and FFG know this since it has something about such situations in official document.

Rogue30 said:

And that obvious way is... um... ?

ktom said:

I already said what I think about Abandon Fort case. Common sense is required to differentiate these cases. Dragonstone Port didn't required asking Nate, just like Hollow Hill. Fear of Winter and Dragon Skull for example, although some people said they are fine, the other people needed to ask Nate, because they didn't know what to do.

As for Dragonstone Port if that's your opinion about TO responsibility, then it's sad and disappointing for me. You tought people for months how to play CS Mel, because you felt it's right and now you say that if someone wins with Dragonport trick (without actually playing a game) then it is perfectly fine. And in both cases explanation is "I don't have official document in my hands". I just don't understand it. You are inconsistent. During discussion about dead unique characters coming from dead pile, you didn't say "until I got FAQ update Many Powers Long Asleep don't work with Mel". I can give many more examples and arguments but it seems that nobody cares.

And I still think Knights of the Hollow Hill is an "obvious mistake", say whatever you want

Because the rules allowed dragonstone port. The same way the rules allow for stealth and deadly and all those other great things. If I dont understand how something works in a tournament you can hardly expect a TO to change the rules for me. I didn't know Rorge worked for whoever is first player, not only for me. So can we change it so it only works for me? But I build my deck around that?

Rogue30 said:

I'm not being inconsistent. I think you are overgeneralizing.

If there is a clear application of the rules, that's what you follow. You don't get to make up rules, change card text or "play it the way that makes sense" just because you don't like the outcome of applying the rules. Dragonstone Port had a clear rules application, so that's what you would have had to follow. A TO, during an event, does not get to say, "Yeah, that's exactly how it works under the rules; no question. But it just seems wrong, so I'm not going to allow it." The opportunity to do that is before the event even starts because you are, for all intents and purposes, applying a House Rule. As a TO, I would have banned Dragonstone Port or forbidden naming the same plot multiple times in the same phase, but I would have made sure everyone knew how I was going to rule on the situation before the event started rather than blindside a player during a game with a ruling that could not be supported by any rules text. (When you asked if I'd allow it, I was assuming you were asking in a context of "no general decision being made or communicated locally before the event.)

Point being, I'm not advocating blind adherence to the text (as you seem to think I am). I am saying that when the available rules and the text are not in conflict, you don't get to change either just because the "real" situation is "obvious." Similar to Mathias' example, it is "obvious" to many people that a plot like Mad King's Legacy that says "When revealed, choose and discard an attachment from play, if able." means your own attachments are safe because you revealed the plot card yourself. When the rules are explained and those people learn that this wording forces you to discard an attachment - even if all the attachments in play are under your control - they do not get to play the "obvious" way because they prefer it. That's the point with pre-errata Dragonstone Port. Since the rules apply to it in an unambiguous - though completely ridiculous - way, you don't get to change either. Doing so means that you are creating a "local rule," which is fine, provided that you tell anyone who is non-local what your local rules are.

Now, all the examples you cite where I am "inconsistent" do not actually fall into that category of "clear, though ridiculous, application of the rules." They fall into one of two other categories. And I think you will find that within the 3 categories, I am consistent - even brutally so:

Category #1 (already discussed): Clear application of the rules. This category also includes things like Fear of Winter and Abandoned Fort. The rules work in a particular way. People generally understand how the rules work, but don't like the result. You cannot pick and choose, so you play it as written until you are told otherwise, either by FFG (indicating how everyone should play) or a local TO (indicating how the situation is handled in that limited area).

Category #2: Cards where there is NO way to apply the rules. This category includes things like Maester Aemon and Hollow Hill. As written, the rules cannot be applied to the card without violating some fundamental aspect of the game. Maester Aemon can never be triggered as an "Any Phase" effect because the play restrictions will never be met and the effect will always come too late. In this situation, the simplest thing to do is use the timing that allows you to actually activate the effect (as written), but expect an official errata - and don't be surprised if it comes out as rewriting the ability to match the timing instead of the other way around.

Category #3: Cards/situations with multiple possible ways to apply the rules. This is the category that things like Dragon Skull and Knights of the Hollow Hill fall into. Whether they are created by "simple error," poor copyediting, or oversight during design ultimately does not matter. You can apply the rules to the situation and come up with two different possibilities, often based on how you interpret the rules themselves. In this case, we usually see debates on the boards where people explain their reasoning for the rules applications they use. Sometimes, one analysis or line of reasoning is clearly better than another. Sometimes, both analyses carry equal weight. In both situations, either a community consensus develops and we follow that until official word comes out, or people use "local rules" to end the discussion for their play group until official guidance is available.

It's worth noting that CS-Mel is a category #1 situation. Until Gencon, the official ruling was that immunity did extend to "peripheral entities" like power counters and abilities, though not to separate cards like attachments and duplicates. As Gencon, Nate changed the ruling, so the one clear rules application came up a different way.

So before you accuse me of inconsistency, check and see if the things I seem inconsistent about can actually be differentiated from each other.

ktom said:

Maybe. It's worth noting that I had on mind more general aspect: what's the role and responsibility of TO.

What's the purpose of this paragraph, in your opinion, then?

The Tournament Organizer (“TO”) is the final
authority for all card interpretations, and he or she
may overrule the FAQ when, in his or her opinion, a
mistake or error is discovered.

That's exactly Dragonstone Port case to prevent any impudent try to win a game without actually playing it. (Of course I know it's just theory - no one would do that, no one of AGOT players at least)

ktom said:

If I remember corectly you said during our discussion that Fear of Winter text created a special case - isn't that "make up rules" by you? You just tried to match the mistaken text to situation, suggesting that everything is fine. I got a feeling that you didn't like the outcome of applying the rules, or maybe more accurate you didn't like to admit that text is a mistake. And this is mainly the reason of my opinion above - you said many times that you don't like talking about designers intent - of course, because rules layering is much simpler then. But we all know that there are no perfect things on this world, so whether you want it or not, you cannot escape entirely from designers intent. If you categorize things so strictly, then you may loose something important. Rules are for players or players are for rules?

ktom said:

Funny thing: Dragon Skull works just as is and there is no multiple possible ways to apply the rules. I think FFG decided to leave it as is, because of very minor impact of this mistake on the game. You simply must attach it because of Shadows rules. And response is optional as always.

ktom said:

And what if someone at the tournament said "How do you know that? It's not in the FAQ. Maybe your interpretation is wrong" (BTW At Stahleck we did have such problem). So why category #1? I thought this case was TO interpretation/responsibility.