eloooooooi said:

If you want to repeat what ktom said, that's ok. I understand his arguments, I just don't understand why his way is better for the game, for the players and for the event (hypothetical of course).

eloooooooi said:

Sorry, but very poor example. I hope you have read the whole discussion. The scale of mistake is quite important here. Do you want to say that I am willing to change text of every card that I don't like? (in that case I think I have a right to feel offended )

Why don't you discuss Knights of the Hollow Hill case?

ktom said:

Ok. You are right. Just explain it to Nate and we're done.

I was making a general reflection so I hope you don't feel offended by my words

Any news on the original subject of this thread?

Ohh, I was looking at the abilities from a database and the only text shown had "Response" instead of "Any Phase." (For Hollow Hill/Aemon)

Rogue30, I think that either way it is decided (attacking only, or attacking and defending) is irrelevant - as long as everybody is using it the same way. That said, you might build a deck around it locally for attacking and defending and when you go to Regionals or GenCon or something they state (early enough before the tournament) they are using it in another way. Yes, that would suck. Your whole deck is scraped (worst case scenario). But it would be better than finding out in the middle of a game while you are there.

The benefit to using it as written is for people who don't read these forums. If there has been consensus here about it being both on the attack and defense, and I am playing against someone who doesn't read these forums (like most of my friends who play) we are in a pickel. See, he sees the card I put into play as only for attacking house bolton characters. I know it should be attacking and defending because that was the forum consensus* and I assume he does. So what happens when I use it to remove his defending character with Rhaegar's harp to go unopposed? He will say I can't, since the card doesn't let me. I will say I can, because thats what the forum consensus is. So then the TO has to rule one way or another - with what it says, what my opponent was playing around for a few turns, or what I say the forum has unofficially and unanimously decided how it works. See the problem?

I don't think one way is better than the other. Designer intent like you say may clearly be attacking and defending, and thats the way we should be playing with it. But until we can get every player who encounters it to know that before stepping into a match against it, the easier way is to go with the card as written.

I hope this helps.

*This is under the assumption that forum consensus on how should cards work, despite their actual text, holds any water. Consensus if good in explaining how a card works, but might not be when explaining how a card should work if it were worded differently.

Mathias Fricot said:

Well, this is the reason "designer intent" is never a very solid argument when the designers don't check in or provide notes on what they were thinking. There are two possible reasons why the English language card says one thing and all the non-English cards say another:

1. Printing error and/or omission on the part of the English language printer. The "designer intent" was for it to be "attacking and defending" and words were mistakenly left off the cards at one of the printers.

2. Since the cards are developed in English and then sent out for translation, FFG may have purposefully changed the text between sending the cards out for translation and sending the final proofs to the English-language printers. In this case, the final "designer intent" was for it to be "attacking" only, but the decision wasn't communicated or spread to all the various language versions because the decision came at an unusual time in their development process.

Both of the explanations are equally plausible and they're going to have to weigh in on it eventually (either by saying "all language versions should be played as X," or "all cards at a tournament need to be printed in the same language as determined by the TO." - either rules would resolve this particular issue, though one would certainly be more extreme than the other).

Until they do, people are going to need to find a way to play it locally. The rest of the discussion came because I forwarded the "play it as printed, whichever version you have" idea. Rogue30's response was essentially "that's certainly one way to do it, but why is that a better interim solution than saying all languages are 'attacking and defending' or 'attacking only' since there is obviously a printing mistake somewhere?"

Rogue30 said:

Well, that particular card is a "Champion" card, so the design process was probably a little different.

The technicalities between the "it defeats itself since the House card gains the income bonus and the agenda says other cards do not provide income bonuses" and "agendas are House card modifiers, so they function as the same card" arguments are probably more of an editing/template issue than an actual mistake in design.

(And yes, in my opinion that make it more similar to the Aemon/Hollow Hill cases than the Dragonstone Port case.)

ktom said:

This is what I was trying to convey, complete agreement achieved.

Mathias Fricot said:

ktom said:

Just to be clear: I believe arguing about rules/cards should be avoided at all cost if possible, so the sooner we ask Nate about Abandoned Fort the better. As you said "to make sure we are all playing the same game". If Abandoned Fort was changed because of balance, then it's even more important.

BTW The FFG's (no) reaction to such things is also a thing that I don't understand.

Rogue30 said:

Agreed, I think it's funny that the community corrects FFG more than FFG corrects itself once cards have been released.

Thats hard to evaluate. Everyone in the community playing with the cards is so expansive in terms of the scenarios that evolve or occur that to mimic that in terms of play testing would be impossible.

Any official word on this one yet? There's still nothing in the FAQ about it.

I'd say not being in the FAQ is an official statement, we are supposed to play with the English version till we are told otherwise.

Or, if you play competitively, go out and buy one of the other language versions?

Jef said:

ktom said:

ktom said:

Maybe because you can play online, maybe because you can buy foreign cards, maybe because FFG is so strict with reprint rule ('a' and '1' difference thus being not the same card etc.), maybe because you want to play it like everybody else?

Twn2dn said:

I'm just trying to figure out the thought process that equates "no word in the FAQ" to "English language version is the default" rather than "the ink on the card is the default" or "the Italian language version is the default" or whatever.

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

You asked why it's different.

ktom said:

I think FFG is going to have to errata this card, as restricting foreign-language copies of cards in decks doesn't sound like a fair alternative. I have some foreign-language copies of cards that I do not have doubles of, and I'd be more than a little annoyed if I were ever disqualified for playing with these very legitimate copies.

That I did.

Ultimately, I probably shouldn't have challenged the assumption that all language versions of that card "need" to be the same. That's not really what gave me pause on this one, anyway. What I really want to know is why, based upon the "silence" from FFG on the matter, the English language version is assumed to be the "correct" one, especially since it is the only one that says something different?

Twn2dn said:

If I were TO, I'd be more likely to go with the House rule that the foreign language version is assumed to have to same text as the English language version, even if you and your opponent can both read the card. I doubt many TOs (or FFG) would ban them outright. But in either event, getting non-English versions in order to take advantage of the different text would be a "defeated purpose."

(Note that if I were in another country, I'd modify "assumed to have the same text as the English version" to "assumed to have the same text as the 'native' or 'vernacular' version.")

ktom said:

My guess would be: Because the cards are designed in English.

eloooooooi said:

Well, translations are bound to be somewhere wrong, so if you had been playing foreign games for years, you would be used to check the original just in case.

We have many other examples of cards in Spanish with different rules text than the original counterpart, Rakharo's Arakh in Spain adds strength based on discard pile. I'm not going to check French version, or Polish one, or whatever. I didn't even noticed that mistake till I played the card in a tournament and the opponent told me, cause I have the English version. And I'm confident the English version is the right one, anyway, I can't expect FFG to include in the FAQ's the other languages erratas.

So I'm used to bad translations, to the point I don't bother to play except with originals. And we have Abandoned Fort, who can be right in any language. I expect the FAQ's to get the card text right, just as it did with Hollow Hill, the first errata I've seen on a unpublished card, so we have a precedent in this cycle of quick fixing.

Then I think it's not irrational to consider the FAQ's silence a statement.

Ktom, I'd like to know your opinion as a TO: we have, in March, a tournament with Italian, French and Spanish guys, shall we use "play the version you have in your hand" ruling ?