Rogue30 said:

So, you're saying that because a TO is the final authority on all card interpretations and can overrule the FAQ, that in the middle of an event if someone tried the Dragonstone Port trick now, the TO would be well within his rights to say "I think the FAQ is wrong and I'm going to allow it."? Your argument of complete TO discretion works both ways.

Or how about this: The FAQ is very clear about the word "choose" being necessary before a card has a target. Eddard Stark is the only character in play and the opponent plays Westeros Bleeds. The Stark player argues that since Eddard is the only character affected by the card, he is the only target and therefore should be able to cancel the event. Can the TO act as the final authority on what a target is and "overrule" the FAQ and allow this? Of course. But should he? In my opinion, no. In that case, he is not interpreting the rules, he is changing them.

Note that I am not saying a TO could not rule, in the middle of a tournament without ever encountering the situation before, that something was ridiculous and cheesy and that they were not going to allow it, or that even though something is ridiculous, cheesy and clearly against the available rules that they are going to allow it. They are the TO and they can obviously do that. I am saying, however, that I think they'd be wrong to do it. If a player does not do something illegal, the TO shouldn't be modifying the rules after the fact and applying them retroactively. If there are ambiguous situations, or situations that are not ambiguous but seem unfair, the TO should know about them and issue his "final authority for all card interpretations" before the event - so that all the players know what to expect going in.

My argument isn't against this part of the tournament rules. What I'm saying is that the TO is supposed to be interpreting the rules, not making them up. "That's not the correct interpretation, this is" is much different from "That is the correct interpretation, but I don't like it." A TO is allowed to do either one; I just think that the "I don't like it" variety needs to be avoided, or communicated before the event.

Rogue30 said:

Find the actual thing I said and I will tell you. What is the "special case"? Keep in mind that there are rules interpretations that lead to "special cases." Anyway, I don't remember any "mistaken text" on Fear of Winter. I remember that the "until you reveal a new plot card" text caused some problems with the old ambiguity of when plot cards were moved to the used pile because there was no rule for whether that plot that was moved to the used pile became inactive at the same time, or stayed active until a new plot was revealed. But that's not a "mistake" in the text, it is two valid ways to interpret the rules that were available (or unavailable, as the case my be). So it's not "making up rules;" it is an interpretation of the rules as they are written.

I don't like talking about "designer intent" as the final authority on a card interaction because it is too subjective. Since no one knows for sure what the designer's intent is, it becomes your feelings about it against mine, which will create inconsistency in the way the game is played. Rules are there so that everyone is playing the game the same way. A person's feelings about design intent are obviously going to inform their analysis, but "that was the designer's intent" is not an answer to a rules question. You don't discount it in an analysis, but you also do not start and end the discussion with it.

Rogue30 said:

Funnier thing: if I "simply must attach it because of the Shadows rules" instead of using the Response, does that still leave me the option to play the Response? It should, because the "after Dragon Skull comes out of Shadows" Response opportunity is still open and I haven't used the Response. So can't I get 2 characters with 1 Dragon Skull? Once on the Shadows rules (which, incidentally, does not limit me to opponent's characters the way the Response does) and one more on the Response? The only thing preventing me from doing this is the interpretation of the rules that either the card attaches by the Shadow rules or the Response, but not both. The interpretation that both methods of attachment are viable leads to a very different situation. So yeah, there are multiple possible ways to apply the rules. The community generally came to the conclusion that the "attach" instructions on the individual cards and the "attach" rules from the Shadows document were redundant, but that general agreement does not eliminate the other possible interpretation, even if it gives us a clear way to play.

Of course, we know from an email Nate sent that they are redundant and that the Response should be used instead of the Shadow rules. Which leads to your next question.

Rogue30 said:

When the "interpretation" is based on a board ruling or email from FFG, you are correct that "it's not in the FAQ." It's still a "category #1" if you know about the rule, though. You can either choose to believe the person who knows and treat it that way, or you can treat it as a "category #3" based on your own knowledge. I tell everyone that my knowledge of the rules is not official and that while based on very long experience, it is still based on experience and that I can be wrong. But if you want something official, don't bring it to these boards. Send it directly to FFG because they seldom, if every, post here. Other than that, you have to rely on persuasive authority, which is something that all three categories have in common: they are unofficial responses to real situations. We discuss it, and the community agrees on it. TOs are free to follow any general agreement or not. They are also free to create and substitute their own interpretations, although I personally think they should not be doing this when there is either a clear interpretation or general community agreement.

ktom said:

"until you reveal a new plot card" is a mistake since the effect is constant. That leads to confusion what is constant or lasting effect etc.

here's old discussion: The Minstrel's Muse and Den of the Wolf

ktom said:

Completely agree with you here. However it really comes down to a philosophy. "Since no one knows for sure" - In Dragonstone Port case everyone knows for sure! That's the common sense here. That's all.

Even funnier thing: I know from Nate that "The responses on these cards (Dragon Skull and Malleon's Tome) does not affect the mandatory attachment rules that they must attach to an eligible character when they come out of Shadows. So technically you can attach Tome to anyone, but you only get the plot filtering effect if you attach it to a unique character."

How can you use response instead of official, legal shadow rule?! You can't do it with Dragonstone Port, but you can with Dragon Skull? Isn't that wrong by your definition? You must obey printed rules as you said, until you got errata in your hands.

BTW bold text was by accident and now it's broken even more.

Ignore this.

Rogue30 said:

Are you sure everyone knows for sure? Before the errata, could you be certain that, for example, the designer's intent wasn't to be able to name one plot card for each opponent? It was printed in the very Melee-centric Core Set. And even if 99 out of 100 people agreed, how do you explain that something like that wasn't the designer's intent to that last person? That's why "designer's intent" and "everyone knows for sure" is such a weak argument overall - you cannot disprove the opinion of that 1-in-100 person who sees it differently. The remedy is to play it exactly as written, not at all, or in some manner agreed upon and, if that agreed upon manner is not (or might not be) common practice in the community-at-large, announced before any event so that everyone starts the event on equal footing. It is not uncommon, when we've been waiting for an FAQ for awhile, to see "pre-rulings" announced with an event's details.

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

I'm not sure where you're going with this. My understanding is that you must use the Response to attach Dragon Skull or Maester Malleon's Tome to a character when you bring the card out of Shadows. I have not heard from Nate that you are allowed to ignore the Response effects, nor seen that particular ruling posted on the boards. In fact, I have heard the opposite and seen the opposite posted. It is true the attachment restrictions in the Responses do not affect the character's eligible to have the attachment on it (for example, if the attachments are moved), and it is true that you would only get the plot filtering effect if you attached the Tome to a unique character, but the rulings people have gotten and shared fro Nate are that you can only attach the Tome coming out of Shadows with the Response, which requires a unique character.

Rogue30 said:

And we come full circle. As I have said before, they are different situations. So let's try this again:

- Before its errata, Dragonstone port had only one valid way to be interpreted under the rules. You could have pulled absolutely nothing out of the rules to say that it was illegal or not allowed to be triggered multiple times. So my opinion is that you should have played it as written. A TO could have chosen to do something different, or banned it outright (and it probably would have been wise to do so), but my opinion is that in order to do this, they should have made an announcement at the beginning of the event on how they would rule so that people would have time to plan accordingly.

- Dragon Skull has more than one valid way to be interpreted under the rules. Which interpretation was more valid to you depends on whether you say "the Response, as card text, preempts the rules document," or "the Response is redundant and unnecessary and should be ignored in favor of the rules document's instructions on attaching," or "both the Response and the rules document's instructions on attaching are applicable." No one can say for sure which is the correct or "design intended" interpretation. So the community had to come up with a consistent way to play it. In general (and as was later confirmed by ruling from Nate), people decided that "the Response, as card text, preempts the rules document." So that's the way it has been played.

I am not obeying the rules in one situation and inconsistently ignoring them in another. The two situations are not comparable because there was no ambiguity in the way that the rules applied to pre-errata Dragonstone Port, but there was ambiguity in the way that the rules applied to pre-ruling Shadows attachments.

ktom said:

Everyone knows for sure that such idea would lead to endless power and designers surely didn't want it. The only logical explanation: it should be once per turn. Just like Hollow hill, really.

ktom said:

Responses are always optional. Until those two cards will have errata, how can you explain someone that it's an exception? Designers intent? Print mistake?

ktom said:

Only because we feel that it was a mistake. If you go by rules you must attach it per Shadow rules. Responses are always optional. Where is ambiguity? Could you please show me? Two burn characters? Even if yes, why not? Becuase you don't like it?

This thread is a clash of the titans.

Rogue30 said:

"Everyone knows for sure that such an idea would lead to endless power and designers surely didn't want it" only works until you get to someone who is equally sure that some different modification (or the original text) is "what they wanted." Suppose someone did not agree with you that "once per phase" was the "obvious" intent? How do you convince them? So far, the only answer to someone saying "I don't think that's right" I have heard you come up with is "yes it is." And that just proves my point; there is no pre-errata answer within the rules for why it "must" be played as "one per phase."

Rogue30 said:

There is no exception. It would be perfectly legal to bring the card out of Shadows and not trigger the Response. Your Response is still optional, even though it would be a complete waste not to take the option. You can explain the "designer's intent" that the attachment of these cards is a Response instead of passive (or rules generated) because the designers wanted people to be able to cancel their attachment when coming out of Shadows.

Rogue30 said:

So, if the rules can cause the attachment independent of the Response, how do you explain this thread where Nate rules that you could not bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows and attach it "by the rules" instead of by the Response in order to avoid canceling? Seems to be a pretty clear cut ruling from Nate that the card text replaces the Shadows rules when it comes to attachments coming out of Shadows? As well as clarify the designer's intent that the "Response" status is to allow canceling.

So there is your original ambiguity: does the card have one opportunity to attach from the rules, one opportunity to attach from the card text, or two total opportunities to attach (once from rules, once from text)? That ambiguity also has an answer in Nate's ruling that the rules cannot be used to "sidestep" the Response on Dragon Skull. There is one opportunity to attach from the card text. This does not create any sort of exception or conflict with "Responses are always optional" because it is perfectly legal to bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows, choose not to trigger the Response, and discard the attachment.

So if you do have an email from Nate that rules you can attach Dragon Skull by the rules text and not use the "optional Response," we have conflicting rulings on the subject.

Note that I'm not saying "burn two characters" is wrong or that I don't like it. I'm saying it is a logical extension of "you get two total opportunities to attach - once from the rules and once from the text" in an attempt to make sure people understand the implications of their various choices.

ktom said:

ktom said:

I thought that designer's intent doesn't matter.

ktom said:

It's possible that Nate made house rule as you name it, I don't know. Maybe he changed his mind. That thread was in May, my email is from 1st of October. It is still not in FAQ, right? (ever wondered why?) So you should go by rules.

Nevertheless, I thought we discuss your consistency and going by rules not Nate's rulings. Your answer in that threat before Dobbler said anything about Nate, proves that you didn't see any problems. You said that "If that Response is unsuccessful (for example, by being canceled), it would be discarded as an attachment that is not legally attached to anything.", so you just ignored Shadow rules. How come? Rules say that attachment is discarded only "if there are no eligible cards to attach to".

I don't see any ambiguity here. You know it's a mistake just like Dragonstone Port, but you should do it by rules just like Dragonstone Port. The only argument I see it here is that Dragon Skull is more complicated case. But for new player Dragonstone Port can be also complicated.

Mathias Fricot said:

No, this thread is an example of how different TO's can do things differently. It's just important that they try to clarify as much as possible before hand how they are going to rule on issues that are in question before an event starts (if possible). At the end of the day, respect your TO for their efforts in running events, be a good sport, and accept any rulings they make.

This thread is also:

1) ~an example of Rogue30's boredom

2) ~proof that ktom is actually a machine that must respond to all rules questions

3) ~further proof that I'm insane and bored, having actually read this entire thing

Deathjester26 said:

~Actually it's my secret Turing test.

Deathjester26 said:

Rogue30 said:

Seriously, point out one rule in the rulebook, FAQ, or Nate's pre-eratta rulings that limits Dragonstone Port to one trigger and we're done. All I've been hearing so far is "common sense." Common sense is a reason for choosing one interpretation over another. It does not create the interpretation.

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

Wait a minute. Your argument was that "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, if you know Nate's opinion that's ok? If some player don't know Nate's ruling, then it's ok, because you know it? So basically you don't care about this player's deck as long as you know Nate's opinion. But if you don't know Nate's opinion you go by rules doesn't matter how stupid the mistake is (and is category #1). Did I get it right?

ktom said:

Don't you always teach that golden rule is used only if there is conflict? No conflict here. Attachment is attached by the Shadow rules if you don't use response.

Rogue30 said:

You are really missing my point on this.

The point with all of this about Dragonstone Port, or any card, is that there has to be a consistent way to play with the card that is known to all players at an event. That's what rules are for - to make sure we are all playing the same game. A consistent way to play is established in one of three ways:

1. The text on the card.
2. Official errata in the FAQ or - in practice - a widely acknowledged/accepted (though unpublished) ruling
3. Specific ruling by the local TO in advance of the event

Your original question of "what would you do with Dragonstone Port pre-errata" was posed in the absence of #2 and #3. That only left #1. In my opinion, the unknown, undiscussed, undiscovered "error" on the card that comes up for the first time in the middle of the event needs to be played "as is," if it can. That was how I understood your original question.

Once the "error" was discovered and discussed, options 2 & 3 became possible. But there wasn't a "widely acknowledged/accepted" errata on Dragonstone Port after the loophole was brought to the community's attention, even though everyone agreed it would see errata shortly (and assumed it would be "limit 1 per phase"). Some people even said "until they fix it, I am going to abuse that like nobody's business!" And FFG did not weigh in on the subject before the errata was released. So that leaves out #2. But never in this discussion have I said that if there had been an official ruling, or if the TO announced how he was going to rule on the situation before the event started, that #3 could not, or should not, be substituted for #1.

You have largely been saying that the "correct" local ruling on Dragonstone Port that would be the basis of #3 is "so obvious" that it rises to the level of #2 despite there being no official ruling or general community agreement. In fact, you have been implying that this "correct" ruling is "so obvious" that if no one had ever considered the issue before and it came up for the first time ever during an event, it should be immediately disallowed. That's the biggest point of contention we are having. If a new card interaction that no one has considered or discussed before comes up during an event, you seem to be saying that the TO can say "it's obvious that it's supposed work this way," even if that way is not the one, and only one, valid interpretation of how the card interaction works within the framework of the rules. I'm saying that the TO is really only free to say "it's obvious it's supposed to work this way" if there are either multiple valid interpretations, or absolutely no valid interpretations.

Otherwise, when asked to make rulings at an event, the TO could say "well, the rules say X, but I think Y is better." Heck, he could even tell the next person "they just asked me about X and I said Y, but now that I'm talking to you, I think Z is better for your game." (Granted, there is nothing stopping a TO from doing this now, except that if a TO did this, I think they would find their events were pretty poorly attended.)

So yes, if you know that there has been a ruling by either FFG or the local TO, that ends the discussion. But that scenario was not the original scenario. Changing the question is usually going to change the answer.

Rogue30 said:

Considering the fact that people were saying "the card text and the rules text don't seem to match here," it seemed pretty safe to say there was a conflict.

Plus, the timing of your statement creates a rules conflict. "Attachment is attached by the Shadow rules if you don't use response" implies that your first choice is to use the Response - and if you don't, then the Shadows rules would kick in. But since the rules are not a triggered response effect, they would necessarily kick in before the opportunity to trigger the Response. The only way for "Attachment is attached by the Shadow rules if you don't use the response" to work would be for a passive game effect to happen after Responses.

ktom said:

I'm not changing the question. I just want to understand your philosophy. If mistake is discovered during tournament, how can a player know that there was some unofficial ruling? How can he know if you didn't send email to Nate? He must believe your answer, because you are TO. That's the same responsibility of TO, given to you by tournament official document. If you allow such stupid thing like using Dragonstone Port zillion times in my opinion you make tournament and this game stupid and not worth playing at all. I think many players would find your event was pretty poorly attended.

ktom said:

That was not my intention. I wanted to say that attachment is already attached by the Shadow rules even if you don't use response.

ktom said:

And if I say "Dragonstone Port card text and 15 power to winning rule don't seem to match here" is not enough for you.

Rogue30 said:

That seems to spell doom for combo decks to me. For example, take 2 of the most notorious combo decks this game has ever seen:

#1) I have a location that says to kneel a Holy character to reveal the bottom card of my deck. If that card has the Septon trait, I claim a power for my House. I also have an attachment that says to stand the attached character when I claim a power for my House. I build a deck with those 2 cards and 58 Septon characters. My plot deck allows me to get both of those cards in play by turn 2. Once I get the location in play, along with a Holy character for the attachment, I win the game by triggering the location 15 times. Consistently. If done properly, the opponent can do little more than watch you run the combo once the cards are in play. I haven't broken any rules and there is no question that this is the correct and legal interaction of these cards under the rules. But is this a "mistake"? Should the TO put a limit on the location in the middle of the tournament because the person sitting across from this deck is watching his 12-0 lead turn into a 12-15 loss in the Round 2 Marshaling phase?

#2) I have a character that claims 1 power when a character comes into play - and is discarded when it has 4 power. I have an event that returns all characters from all dead piles to play. I build a deck that kills off 15 characters, including the "power grab" character, then play the event. When the 15 characters come into play, the "claim 1 power" character claims 15 power - even though he is moribund after the first 4. I win the game before he is removed from the table. I haven't broken any rules and there is no question that this is the correct and legal interaction of these cards under the rules. But is it a "mistake"? Should the TO change the moribund rules in the middle of the tournament so that the passive "claim 1 power" effect stops working after the first 4 characters just because the opponent didn't see it coming?

I realize that Dragonstone Port is a single card as opposed to a combo, but saying that when you haven't broken any rules and there is no question that this is the way the single card works under the rules - and it still needs to be changed immediately - opens up the door to say the same thing about combos or any card interaction that the TO simply doesn't like when he sees it.

So my philosophy is that if you come to an event with a completely unknown - and completely, unambiguously legal - card interaction that seems simply "unjust" on the fact of it, then congratulations. You got everyone, including me as the TO. I'm going to send it in to FFG after the event and wait for an official ruling, and in the meantime, here is my House rule on it for all future events that I am TO for, but as for this event, well done. Enjoy it, because you're never going to get away with that particular trick again.

Rogue30 said:

Be consistent with this, too, and consider the implications of your "the rules have already attached Dragon Skull before you can use the Response" interpretation on the Shadow attachments with passive attachment text. Plug Venomous Blade in, instead of Dragon Skull, with its passive "attach to an opponent's character, then kill..." text. So if the rules, as well as that text, has the opportunity to attach Venomous Blade, aren't the two in timing conflict now? And wouldn't that mean the First Player can avoid the whole "then kill" part of Venomous Blade by having the rules attach go first?

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

Name it a "mistake"? Dragonstone Port was a mistake and everyone knew it. You are really more stubborn than me

ktom said:

Yep.

ktom said:

You keep saying that. I don't like VB or Burnig on the sand. That's not the same thing as stupid obvious mistake which has nothing to do with liking - it's simply unplayable.

ktom said:

So what? Obvious mistake, right? But you should treat it the same way as Dragonstone Port or Hollow hill. You just seem to think this way: designers make mistakes from time to time, but sometimes I do nothing with this and sometimes I work hard to fix this making up some weird exception rules, only for the card to work as intended. For you it's consistent. For me it's not consistent.

ktom said:

That's the problem - for you is too quickly, for me is too stupid. I think we can end this discussion.

One thing left: ask Nate about Dragon skull and Abandoned fort.

Rogue30 said:

I think ktom's point is: when the mistake is first discovered only one person knows it (him or her). He may be a TO, but he cannot cancel the combo (which is legal) just because he/she thinks it's unfair. If the rules permit it and the designer's intent wasn't that, some errata must be made.

eloooooooi said:

I'm sorry but I don't know what you want to say here.

I mean, if the rules permit it it's legal and the TO has nothing to say about it. It doesn't matter if it feels unjust or unfair.

A TO could think that Taste for Blood is unfair but he can't modify the rules nor the card's text so... he has to follow the rules.

Rogue30 said:

That's the difference. To me, Dragonstone Port doesn't break any rules, so it is playable, but with a very stupid outcome. And so "stupid" stands until we can figure out just how stupid it is and a pre-event ruling (official or "house rule") can be made to remove any "game-poisoning" stupid. To you, Dragonstone Port is so stupid as to become unplayable. And "unplayable" needs something immediately to make it playable.

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Not to change the topic as I find this discussion very interesting but what is the mistake with Hollow Hill?

I think the timing does not work on Hollow Hill because by the time the response in possible, the character is already in play, and so there is a card (itself) with that house affiliation? It's not a "Stack" in the sense of MTG, so everything must completely resolve before another effect can take place (except for Save/Cancel).

don't see why Maester Aemon would not work though? Its just any other "Response: Save" effect, isn't it? I am most definitely not seeing something. Unless it has something to do with then the "if its not winter" situation happens.

I'm just going to use it was written. Unless my TO says to me 2 weeks before a tournament to use the version that says "attacking or defending."

This thread is going to get heavy with two discussions simultaneously

The mistakes on Hollow Hill and Aemon were that they originally read "Any Phase:"

Mathias Fricot said:

As FATMOUSE says, the mistakes on Hollow Hill and Maester Aemon (the one from the "Change of Seasons" CP, not the Core Set) is that the ink on the cards say "Any Phase," but the only way for the timing of their abilities to work is as a "Response." Their play restrictions can never be met when it is legal to trigger an "Any Phase" effect.