Rider's text - "While Riders [...] is in your deck, it meets the criteria to be found by any search effect."

Legacy's text - "Dominence: Pay 3 gold to search your deck for a location card with printed cost 2 or lower, and put that card into play. Then shuffle your deck."

So "search your deck for a location card with printed cost 2 or lower" is the search effect that the Riders satisfy, despite the cost restriction. Since the rest of the Legacy's text only refers to "that card", I see know reason why I couldn't put the Riders directly into play using this event card. And doubley so if I had Rickon in play to copy the effect.

Any disputes on this?

Why would there be? If Riders of the Red Fork can be found as "Rhaegal" and become a dupe on CS-Rhaegal by his effect, it's pretty clear it can be found and put into play by Bran the Builder's Legacy, original or copied.

The question was about the cost restriction of the searched location. We were wondering if the cost restriction also applied to the Riders of the Red Fork, which they would not satisfy. Apparently that is not the case. Thanks for the speedy response!

sWhiteboy said:

I was trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek and say that if it could ignore a very specific limitation like the title of the card searched for, it should ignore a more general limitation like the printed cost. Obviously, I should not attempt humor when answering questions.

Now that you mention the Rhaegal thing, I do remember that. Didn't specificaly remember the Riders in that discussion. I was focusing my search in the forums specifically on these two cards and coming up empty. Thanks as always, ktom. You're a regular encyclopedia of AGoT LCG knoweldge.

Curious - if the Legacy event specified "put that location into play", that would seem to be a deal breaker for this combo. The Riders card would meet the criteria of the search , but since it isn't a location, it couldn't be put into play by the rest of the effect - correct?

It would not be. The ruling on Riders/Rhaegal, letting the Riders be found and attached as a dupe, pretty much confirms that no matter what the search effect is supposed to do to the found card, it will do to the Riders.

I very nearly put 3x Riders of the Red Fork in my No Use For Grief / Sand Snake deck, but didn't for space reasons.

Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Khudzlin said:

Nope. The Laughing Storm (except I should have used !'s).

From the post on Rhaegal, the ruling was that the Riders cannot attach to Rhaegal :

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=486320&efpag=1#488351

The statement from Nate was :

"There is nothing in Rhaegal's text that will turn the Riders into a duplicate of Rhaegal -- you can "find" the Riders in your deck while searching, but the "attach it" will then be illegal when you try to complete the resolution of Rhaegal's effect.

The "as a duplicate" text on cards like the Hatchlings, Loyal Guard, and Jory is what enables the non-duplicate to be attached as a duplicate."

But anyway, it still work with Bran of the Builder's Legacy because of the "that card" wording (instead of, say, "that location").

Bolzano said:

"If I search for Riders of the Red Fork (Forging the Chain F22) with Rhaegal (Core Set T109) can I attach the Riders of the Red Fork to Rhaegal as a duplicate?
Yes. Rhaegal's ability allows for the search of a duplicate, and the Riders of the Red Fork's ability allows them to be searched for as that duplicate. When Rhaegal's ability resolves it attaches the Riders of the Red Fork to itself as a legal duplicate."

I think we can agree the FAQ controls over the email ruling reported on the board?

Of course, I didn't see that entry. Thanks again

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but this thread is the closest thing I could find through Search.

Does Maege Mormont work with Riders of the Red Fork?

Sabrefox's question about the hypothetical scenario where Bran the Builder's Legacy read "put that location into play" is true with Maege. She reads:

"…search your deck for a [stark] location. Put that location into play knelt and shuffle your deck."

People have stated that Rheagal sets a precident that these effects would work, but I don't think the situation is similar. Rheagal reads:

"…search your deck for a duplicate of Rheagal and attach it to him."

The reason I think they are different scenarios is because Maege Mormont's ability specifically references "that location" when putting it into play and it is part of a separate sentence than the search effect (not sure that part matters). Rheagal's ability simply references "it" in the attach effect. It just seems to me that there is an argument to be made that while Riders of the Red Fork would be a legal target to search, it would not be a legal target for the "Put that location into play…" part of the effect. I do get why it works for Rheagal and Bran the Builder's Legacy; I just don't see Maege as being the same situation. Am I wrong?

tjstyles said:

Aye, there's the rub. Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The Riders' text allows them to become whatever you're searching for until the search effect is completely resolved (hence why you can attach it to Rhaegal, and keep it there as a dupe). So, with Maege Mormont, the Riders […] are "that location" until the effect fully resolves, by which point, it is already in play.

stormwolf27 said:

I don't mean for this to come across as it is likely going to come across as, but I don't buy that expalination. First, The Riders of the Red Fork simply "meet the criteria of the search effect"; they do not "become whatever you are searching for". For example, if you were to play Bran the Builder's Legacy and put it into play, you could not draw a card with the old-school King's Landing (I looked for a similar effect in the current card pool, but couldn't find one, and I frankly don't care enough to find another scenario; there is probably one with the Maester plot card). Looking over the FAQ and the card itself, I see nothing that remotely suggests that Rider of the Red Forks card type actually changes. It is simply makes itself legal target for the search effect.

The reason Rheagal works is because once the card is searched, the game text says: "…attach it to him". It does not specify a card type. The FAQ does not say anything to suggest that Riders of the Red Fork take on the characteristics of the card you are searching for. It simply says "Yes, you can attach it as a duplicate to Rheagal". It doesn't really explain what is happening. In fact, I find the ruling to be quite bad. To me, saying that "search your deck for a duplicate of Rheagal" means that Riders of the Red Fork actually "become a duplicate of Rheagal" when they are in play suggests that playing Riders of the Red Fork with Bran the Builders Legacy would mean that the Riders become a Location…forever; just like they become a duplicate of Rheagal, forever.

I have actually changed that deck, so I don't have those set of cards together, but I think the whole thing is a mess. But, for the sake of arguement, how does Riders of the Red Fork work with Maester Luwin's ability? The FAQ says that Luwin does not work with Galbart Glover because searching the top 5 cards of your deck does not count as "searching your entire deck" (even though Galbart Glover doesn't say "entire deck"). The Riders of the Red Fork have the same exact working as Galbart, so are they also not considered to "be in your deck" if you are just searching the top 5 cards?

Yeah, rereading my post, I did come across as I didn't want to. I don't mean to ask a question, then blast someone for answering. I am basically asking if there are references in the FAQ, Rules, or other publication from FFG explaining how this works and why? I need to be able to show someone where in the rules this is or how the interpretation of the rules creates this scenario (I play with a couple of rules lawyers, including myself), so they are not going to take "I was told by someone on the forums that it works" as an answer.

One of the people in my play group, in Star Wars, refuses to put damage on the Death Star dial with Trench Run when you attack it, because Trench Run only says "can be engaged like an Objective (but is not an objective)" and the rules say to put damage on the objective after winning. He will spend an hour arguing semantics just to be right. I will too, so not much game playing will get done if there isn't an actual clear answer that can be had through the FAQ/Rules. I'll probably just avoid playing the combo, but if there is a reference out there that clearly outlines this, I would appreciate seeing it.

tjstyles said:

So, for the "search your deck for a location" portion of the search effect, they meet the criteria of "a location," right? We can agree on that? The point is that for the "and put that location in to play" portion of the search effect, they still meet the criteria of "location."

Your comparison of Riders and Gallbart in relation to Maester Luwin is not a good one.

Gallbart says that you search your deck, you can search your discard pile instead. The ruling for how that works with Luwin is dicta, saying that if you are only searching a subset of your deck, Gallbart doesn't apply. "Search your deck" therefore does not count when searching anything less than your deck. However, the Riders say that while they are in your deck, they meet all search criteria. Well, if the Riders are in the top 5 cards of your deck, they are still "in your deck." Being part of the subset does not stop it from also being part of the general set. So the text/ability of the Riders is still in full force whether using Luwin's ability because the Riders themselves are still part of your (entire) deck, even though Luwin is only searching through part of the deck.

ktom said:

Thanks for the clarification on that ktom. I guess I should have worded my response better when answering that question.

tjstyles said:

So, by his interpretation, how does it ever take any damage at all? Even if you were able to do all 10 damage in a single challenge (which doesn't pass the 'duh..' test in my book), how could you ever put that damage on it?

ktom said:

It wouldn't. He doesn't care about the card working, he cares about being right. See what I have to deal with? That is why I am going to ask my next question: Is there any official publication of that ruling for Riders of the Red Fork? My playgroup remembers you from old-school days, so I can probably get away with "ktom said so" and people will listen, but it would save a lot of time if I can just point at a bit of publication that states this.

On a side note, I am actually a bit disappointed with the ruling they decided to use. Since they have already errattaed several cards, I don't see why they don't just change Rhaegal's text to ready "…search your deck for a copy of Rhaegal and attach it to him as a duplicate." That clears up any lingering rules holes with their ruling and clearly establishes the Riders of the Red Fork as a duplicate. They would still be a legal target and all other uses for Rhaegal's ability would remain untouched. As is, I still don't see anything on the card that would cause Riders of the Red Fork to be a duplicate after the effect resolves. And, if it were to stay a duplicate after the effect, I would still argue that this scenario would create a presidence that the Riders would remain to be a Location after Bran the Builder's Legacy puts it into play.

Lastly, this is semantics, but I think my example of Galbart and Luwin was a "good example". Based on the actual documentation that FFG has published, I don't see anything that would address my scenario, so that is a legitimate question for a new player. How the heck am I supposed to know every ruling that an FFG judge has made at a tournament or in an email reply over the course of the last 3 years that I haven't played? When these rulings are made, they should be added to the FAQ. It shouldn't be "common knowlege" that players just have to trust from other players that they have never met or have any idea what their actual qualifications are for giving rulings. With you, ktom, I just trust the rulings because I know you, and I know that you have a very strong understanding of the game and keep up with all of the current rules. But, even then, without the official, published, ruling from FFG, there is chance for mistake. Take the email example earlier in this thread, where FFG ruled one way, then published a reversal in the FAQ. Or there is simple misinterpretation on occassion. In WOW, I was playing against the state champion in a sealed event, and corrected him on the use of a quest. Seems his entire play group had read the quest wrong and were using it incorrectly for several months before I pointed out a word they had missed when they were reading it. That sort of thing happens all the time to me, as well, and I have been a judge of several different CCGs. Games like this are hard enough to keep up with when there actually is good official documentation of rulings and errata. When there is a bunch of rulings being circulated by word of mouth, it makes it a nightmare to try and keep up.

And, to be clear, I am not saying that FFG should post every question that anyone asks about a card. I am talking about sweeping rules clarifications like Luwin's ability representing a "subset of your deck" versus simply "searching your deck", or things like Riders of the Red Fork "qualifying as the searched card type(s) for the entire effect". A simple "yes it work with Rhaegal" is far to vague to be used as precident in the future. It's great that someone from FFG cleared that up at some point along the road; now they need to take the next step and add that verbage to the FAQ.

The FAQ does contain the ruling about Maester Luwin and Galbart Glover, as well as the one with Rhaegal and Riders of the Red Fork.

Khudzlin said:

It does contain a vague explaination of Rhaegal and The Riders of the Red Fork which actually makes the waters muddier than they started in my opinion. They have created the precident that the Riders' card type changes while in play based on being able to be searched to begin with. Nothing in Rhaegal's ability actually states that Riders of the Red Forks becomes a duplicate of Rhaegal, which implies that meeting the criteria of being searched by Rhaegal made a change to The Riders that persisted after he was put into play. To me, there are much more questions now than there were before.

As for Luwin and Glover, yes you are right; it does address that scenario and explain that searching the top 5 of your deck is not searching your "entire deck". But, it does not address how Glover is magically "searching your entire deck" when his game text clearly states "search your deck". That is the part that needs to be cleared up. That is my point. Why address two single cards out of the game and how they react with eachother when you can address the situation as a whole and clean up the mess once and for all. Put a global rule in the FAQ that says that referencing searching your deck/discard/dead pile without a limitation on the number of cards is considered to be "searching your entire" deck/discard/dead pile, and you're done. Otherwise, people need to know that there is another scenario with other cards that create a similar scenario to the one they are looking at to find the correct ruling. I mean, if I search the FAQ for Maege Mormont, am I going to find the ruling on this? Nope. I have to search for Rhaegal or Riders of the Red Fork to find this ruling. Then, I have to understand both of those cards well enough to know that the situation applies to Maege as well. And then, once I look into it, I find that the wording between the two is actually different, and the reason Maege still works is because a judge said so once upon a time.

I may sound like I am being unreasonable in my expectations here, but I am just trying to make things easier. If you have never had a 4 hour discussion about a ruling before, than I am happy for you. But there are people out there that use the rules to create unfair advantages and negative play experiences. I know that FFG tries to address this by giving the judges the ability to penalize players for trying to "abuse" the rules, but all that actually does is create inconsistant rulings across their tournaments. Judge A may think that someone building a deck around a particular loop-hole in the rules is abusive while Judge B thinks its perfectly reasonable (i.e. that FFG designed intended for that scenario to exist, which is perfectly reasonable without explicit confirmation from FFG themselves). That means I could be playtesting a deck for months within my local meta, then show up to worlds and get thrown out because of the OPINION of a judge, not an actual ruling from FFG. That is, in my opinion, absolute garbage.

Fix the loop-holes when you find them and publish the stuff you put out there. It gets frustrating for the rest of us when we post a question about a ruling, and the response is "I got an email from so-and-so that says this…". That is great that FFG responds to people like that; now take the next step and put that information into the FAQ. The FAQ has not been updated in 4 months, and I am sure there are plenty of rules clarifications that have happened since then. They don't even have to update the official FAQ; just publish an adendum with the question/answer stuff that they send to people in emails so that everybody has the same access to the ruling would be nice.

Actually, you don't need to convince me (or any regular reader of this forum, I bet) that FFG needs to be clearer with its card text and rules. If I was in charge, I'd make a pass on all cards to standardize wording, rewrite the whole FAQ and rule bool into a web site called "Comprehensive Rules" or some such thing and appoint a team of high-level judges from all over the world, supervised by someone from FFG to help make rulings (with said team answering on this forum and updating the aforementioned website).

tjstyles said:

If you're looking for an official, from someone at FFG, reply on these forums you're, unfortunately, SOL. Did you e-mail them yet? As far as the "that location" issue, remember that the card is searching for a location. The writer is not going to say "that card" as they "know" you are getting a location. This means that "that location" is referential card text referring to the card you just searched for. Hence, the kneeling effect will apply to the card you just searched for even if it is not a location. The same is true of the Rhaegal example. Rhaegal referring to itself is simply because there is no reason to write the card text in a way that assumes you are not getting a copy of Rhaegal. This is poor editing, but the fact remains that further instances of the referential text refer to the card searched for. When you get the card you searched for, it becomes the thing that all referential text referring to the card you searched for now refers to.

I can't believe them on the Trench Run example…

If you are engaging something "as if it is an objective" that means that until the end of the duration of the effect (in this case the end of the engagement) the thing is treated as an objective. What do burst icons do damage to? Objectives. Is the Death Star currently being treated as if it is an objective? Yes. Put damage counters on Death Star.

It is absurd that he is unwilling to abide by the card text. It says to engage the Death Star as if it were an objective and he refuses to allow the engagement to proceed as if the Death Star was an objective. That's asinine. The (it is not an objective) is to avoid confusing interactions with cards that specifically can deal damage to the objective card type (i. e. Rebel Assault). I would even make the argument that Target of Opportunity and Rebel Assault could do damage while the Death Star is engaged as an objective because for the duration of the engagement, the game treats it as an objective. At least he would have a leg to stand on if he disagreed with that assessment.

Also, the Luwin search top of deck vs. search whole deck is pretty straightforward. New players will play it wrong as it is an unintuitive ruling, but that does not mean that it is a logical fallacy to make the distinctions that FFG has made. It does suck that FFG doesn't really do a good job of communicating this information out to new players, but it's been the status quo for a while.