Just checking that I have this right…if my opponent reveals RBD and I reveal Search and Detain, the card I choose to go back to hand becomes "moribund ->return to hand" but doesn't actually go back to my hand until after the discard effect of RBD, right? In other words, if I have 7 cards and my opponent has 6, I could not return a card to their hand to even out hand sizes so that nobody discards, right?

Similar logic would, I assume, apply to Threat from the East. If my opponent plays The Laughing Storm then reveals threat, but I somehow win dom (+init effect in play), can my Search and Detain return his TLS to hand before it gives him the opportunity to discard my hand without affecting his? I assume not, but just checking.

Thanks!

- - -

A second question…I know I've asked this before, but I can't remember. (Wish it were easier to search for the answers on rules questions.):

If I have a unique maester character in play, can I reveal At the Gates to search for a copy and attach it as a duplicate? Thanks!

Correct, correct, yes.

It's interesting that the opposite is not true for the moribund timing. For example, if I play a plot that allows me to put cards into play from my hand, then nothing goes moribund. So if my opponent plays RBD and I play City of Lies or Manning the City Walls, their RBD could backfire and hit them if I'm able to get to fewer cards in hand (if my plot goes off before theirs).

I understand why this happens with moribund but not as cards go into play, but it's very asymmetrical and at times the timing is counter intuitive. MTG's "the stack" timing rules are at first strange and non-newb friendly but ultimately quite consistent and result in few misunderstandings once you learn them.

Twn2dn said:

I'm not sure I agree. It seems like it would only be counter-intuitive if you think there should be parity between cards entering and leaving play.

I'm convinced that the real difficulty is that people decide how they want something to work, then try to work through the text on the cards to match. The process should go the other way around (work through the text on the cards - and that's how it works). When they can't make the cards do what they want them to do, that's "counterintuitive."

If you start want the answer to be "5," 2+2 is "counterintuitive." But if you start work through "2+2" without an answer in mind, neither "4" nor "2+2" is counterintuitive.

ktom said:

This is a very astute observation. I think it's the other edge of the double-edged sword of having a a game based off of such rich and well-constructed source material. When I see a card based off a character I have an already existing image of, I expect certain things out of that character. This whole idea of Nedliness makes the game that much more fun and interesting, but can also frustrate when someone thinks a card should be more or less poerful or effective. For example, I love how (at least two of) the versions of Bran Stark we have available in the LCG are generally vulnerable to removal, but can have very powerful effects. At the same time, a card like Sorrowful Man, with its effect not being as cool as it might first seem, or perhaps as people think it should be, will cause frustration, and the above-mentioned shoehorning.

Shenanigans said:

Sorrowful Man is kind of the perfect example of this "counterintuitive isn't really" claim I am making. Because of the characterization of Sorrowful Men in the books, it seems unthinkable that it should be so easy to dodge a kill from them - pretty much on a technicality - so the rules must be counterintuitive.

But if the same effect had appeared on a card named "Braavosi Street Thug," no one would have said anything was wrong with the rules - only that the card was bad.

The difference is how people want a card named "Sorrowful Man" to work, not the rules themselves. But no… Sorrowful Man is proof that the rules are counterintuitive.(?)

Twn2dn said:

I think you all have overlooked a VERY important part of the above questions, which is how Search and Detain really works! It says that you choose a card controlled by the first player, meaning that even though YOU win INT, if you want one of your opponent's cards to return to their hand, you must choose THEM to go first… and therefore your opponent will decide the order of the plots! If they are not entirely brain dead, they will not let search and detain's when revealed effect happen before their own plot as the quoted post suggests.

cha0s said:

Actually, due to the moribund status, it doesn't matter which plot is resolved first because the card chosen to bounce to hand is still on the table while the other plot resolves.

So if RBD is first, player 2 discards some cards, then player 2 choses a card to bounce controlled by the first player. After any responses to that "leave play" effect, the card is removed from the table.

Or S&D is chosen to go first, the card chosen is moribund:hand. RBD is next and Player 2 discards cards. After any responses to that "leave play" effect from S&D, the card is removed from the table.

ktom said:

It could also be an issue of sloppy design as opposed to counterintuitive rules.

HoyaLawya said:

But again, that doesn't mean the rules are counterintuitive - only that the exact wording can make a big difference in true functionality.

Take the new Bran Stark, for example. The cost of his ability is to kneel a "Direwolf." Adding one word to that - so that the cost of his ability becomes to kneel a "Direwolf character" - would have a big impact on the functionality of the card. But that "subtlety" of wording doesn't inherently make anything "counterintuitive."

ktom said:

Yes. I could not agree more.