Riders of the Red Fork says that while it is "in your deck, it meet the criteria to be found by any search effect".

Can I use Family, Duty, Honor to search for it even if it is not within the top 5 cards of my deck?

What about opponents' search effects? Can they (for whatever strange reason) search for your copy of RotRF (I assume here that if they can, it would still go into your hand, not theirs)?

Family, Duty, Honor card text:
When revealed, search the top 5 cards of your deck for any number of House Tully cards, reveal them, and add them to your hand. Then, shuffle the other searched cards back into your deck.

the1andonlime said:

You are still only allowed to search your top 5 cards, so those are the only ones you look at. You cannot search beyond the 5 cards. The physical card of Riders of the Red Fork still needs to be within the set of searched cards.

The use of this is more for something that says "search your deck for a Night's Watch character." You could pull the Riders. Or if a you use "To Be a Wolf" and your opponent says "no characters," you could still search for the Riders. Or if you use the plot that lets you search for a location, you could "find" the Riders. So it is the search requirements that are specifically contradicted, not the scope/number of cards you are searching through.

the1andonlime said:

What about Rhaegal's ability? I think I cannot use it, because Riders' effect allow to find them, but not to be turned into duplicate.

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

I mean CS Rhaegal: search your deck for a duplicate of Rhaegal and attach it to him.

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

By the way, are you going to make it to the NYC regionals this year? If not, you'll be sorely missed. That Targ deck you ran last year could have easily won the tournament (had I first played against the Seige deck you lost to in semis, you likely would have ran over my Stark deck in finals). It's always nice to see Targ do well

ktom said:

So you didn't see card of the week? I don't understand what you mean by "actual text".

Rogue30 said:

The text on the Riders says that it fits the bill for "any" search effect. That means that no matter what search effect you use, it can find the Riders. Looking for a cost 2 or lower location with Bran the Builder's Legacy? Riders of the Red Fork. Looking for a Lannister character with the Lion Herald? Riders of the Red Fork. Looking for any card other than a character with an appropriately limited To Be a Wolf? Riders of the Red Fork. Literally anything.

However, finding the card is not the same as being able to complete the search effect, depending on what it says to do with the card. Most of them say "put it in your hand," which is certainly something you can do with a 3-cost, 3-STR Stark Army character, so this is usually a non-issue. There are some potentially more complicated scenarios, though. For example, Aeron Damphair could find Riders of the Red Fork instead of a non-unique Holy character with printed cost 3 or lower. And Aeron Damphair could put "it" into play. So while a little more complicated, there is nothing about Aeron's post-search effects that prevent you from utilizing the Riders.

In contrast, while Abandoned Forge could find the Riders when it goes looking for Weapon attachments, it cannot, then, attach the Riders to the location. There is nothing about a character card that can act as a Weapon attachment outside of an effect that specifically - and pretty much continuously - either allows it or transforms it. Nothing of the sort exists on either the Riders or the Forge, so if the Forge finds the Riders, it will be unable to remove the Riders from the deck by attaching them to itself. The Riders stay where they are and you shuffle your deck. Wasted search.

Now, looking at Rhaegal, there is nothing stopping the search part of "a duplicate of him" from finding the Riders. And there is nothing inherently wrong - provided a card effect makes it happen - with attaching a card with a different title to another card as a dupe. The question is whether this is specifically allowed in the circumstance - something that is definitely a bit of a mental conundrum. The search effect itself says to attach "it" to Rhaegal, so the absence of Rhaegal's name is not stopping the attachment as a dupe. And we know that Riders can act as a dupe on a card that doesn't have the same name (for example, you could use Jory Cassel's ability on the Riders while it is in your hand). The difficulty is that the card acting as a dupe once attached is assumed because of what you found - another unique character card with the name Rhaegal - rather than because an effect specifically says to attach the card as a dupe (like Jory does). Personally, I would say the combination of the two effects (Rhaegal's "attach 'it'" coupled with the fact that the Riders were found as a copy of Rhaegal), plus the fact that Riders can act as a dupe when in play under the right circumstances would allow you to pull the Riders with Rhaegal's ability.

Others may want to take Rhaegal's ability on its own rather than in combination with Riders when it comes to "attaching" it.

I would say you cannot, because when you use At the Gates and put Riders into play, they do not turn into "Maester character of printed cost 3 or lower", so they cannot turn into dupe either. As for Abandoned Forge argument: both cards do the same "search and attach it" and we know that cards can turn into attachments (Doran's game), so I don't buy it.

Rogue30 said:

As for the Rhaegal/Riders situation, It all depends on how you interpret Rhaegal's ability. Some interpretation of Rhaegal is needed because there is technically no such thing as a "duplicate of Rhaegal" in your deck to find. There are only cards with the name Rhaegal, meaning that the term "duplicate of Rhaegal" could be read to mean:

1. "another copy of this specific card" (not allowing different versions),
2. "a card with the same title" (allowing different versions), or
3. "a card that could be used in the current circumstances as a duplicate on the one in play" (which would also allow for different versions, but would be a much more flexible in dynamic situations).

And honestly, until we had Riders, #2 and #3 were exactly the same thing.

No one is likely to read it as #1, given the consistency with which the game says that "copy" of cards is determined by title only. And I will freely admit that if you read it as #2, you come up with the result you mention - the actual title of the card determines if the card can be attached as a "dupe" for the purposes of Rhaegal's ability and thus you would not be able to attach (although you could search for) Riders. This is what I meant earlier by people could read Rhaegal's ability on its own instead of in combination with the Riders. But if you read it as #3, you open up the possibility for the effect on Riders to work in combination with the ability on Riders. It is the fact that the card was found by the first part of the effect that allows it to be attached as a "dupe," not anything inherent about the card that was found itself.

So that's the two sides of this interpretation. If you read Rhaegal's search effect as finding a card, which can then be attached as a dupe because of its title, Riders won't work with Rhaegal. But if you read Rhaegal's search effect as being able to attach whichever card it finds as a dupe, Riders will work with Rhaegal. This kind of conundrum doesn't come up with Abandoned Forge because the nature of cards that "become" attachments on locations is far more certain (and defined by the card itself) than the nature of cards that "become" dupes.

Ok, so I think it should be #2. We know that Riders are not "Weapon attachment" and they are not titled "Rhaegal". Rhaegal does not say "as duplicate", so we shouldn't assume it allows it.

I think it might be kind of easier to rule because Rhaegal ability does NOT attach the card it searches as a duplicate

This very specific wording is used for every single effect that allows to attach on a unique card a card with a different title : you can check all Hatchlings and Ser Jory Cassel specifically says to attach the card as a duplicate

And that's why the Knight of the Red Fork, can be attached to Rhaegal, but not as a duplicate. They will become a normal attachment and be discarded from play because of Rhaegal's "No attachement" keyword.

Bolzano said:

So it would have to be the same for the copy of Rhaegal that you pull out of your deck with Rhaegal's ability. He would come into play as an attachment on Rhaegal - not as a dupe - if it wasn't for the fact that it has the same title and turns into an duplicate. Not that it makes much difference.

The effects says that you search for a dupe and so I would say that it's legal to attach it to Rhaegal since its a dupe and not an attachement.

However ktom noticed rightly that it may not be possible to search ones deck for a dupe since a deck only contains cards -not dupes-.

The rules says a unique card in your hand is a duplicate if you have a unique card of the same name in play.

And so I would interprete that the notion of duplicate card type, defined only in play and in hand, might be extended to inside your deck. That would make Rhaegal work normally but anyway it's really not going to change the way it's played.

ktom: so the answer on the rhaegal/riders business is that riders may be pulled with rhaegal's text -- or is it going to require an official ruling? have any of you guys probed nate for an answer? and if the answer is "yes, rhaegal does pull the riders," they attach to rhaegal as a duplicate instead of simply coming into play, correct?

finitesquarewell said:

finitesquarewell said:

finitesquarewell said:

That's actually the whole point of this discussion - that just because the search effect finds the Riders does not necessarily mean it will be able to do with the Riders what it would do with the "natural" subject of the search.

I personally think it attaches as a duplicate for the same reasons ktom has stated. I'll send an e-mail to Nate in a bit. I'll post any response here.

Nate has answered the question by email and give the same explanation mentionned above.

That is, it is not written "attach as a duplicate" and so it does not.

Hatchling and Jory works because of this wording "as a duplicate".

Because of "No attachement keyword" it is not legal to attach the Knights on Rhaegal so you must search your deck for another card meeting search criteria.

The Riders of the Red Fork is valid for search for the To be a Wolf even if the opponent name Character card, right?

Play only if you have at least 1 Military Battle plot card in your used pile. Challenges: Stand a House Stark character you control to have an opponent name a card type. Search your deck for a card of a different type, reveal it, and put it into your hand.

Because I can say I search for a … location card - which would be the Riders.

Miklos - that is correct.