Strider's Replacement Ability

[zarathustra]

Manuel pointed out to me on GCCG some potential for abuse in the replacement of Strider by Aragorn.

You may bring Aragorn II into play with Strider's company, removing Strider from the game and automatically transferring all cards on Strider to Aragorn II

In Digest 14 it was ruled:

The replacement may be done any time during your turn as per the logic of A Chance Meeting.

Now, if this is done after Strider is assigned a strike from an attack, Aragorn will not face the strike. It will have lost its target, and thus be considered successful, but not against Aragorn. Nice way to avoid a Rain Drake!

Also, you could pull the switcheroo in response to the revealing of an on-guard card that targets Strider. Since Aragorn was not in play during the mh-phase, he cannot legally be the target of that card, and it will fizzle.

These are both nice tricks, but I wonder whether the original ruling is perhaps incorrect. After all, Strider is from MEBA, and by MELE ICE had figured out that ACM was ambiguous....

Any thoughts?

[miguel]

Yeah, it's a tricky card... I don't even like the way you can just replace a wounded Strider with an untapped Aragorn II...

I'm not sure if there's any other way the switching could work though... unless Aragorn would have to be played according to the normal rules (during org. phase, haven/home site etc.) but I doubt that's the case.

[Sauron]

This can lead to alot of abuse.

I can think of a 1/2 dozen ideas off the top of my head to abuse this ability.

And of course there is no other precedant to work off of.

[Manuel]

Not only it can lead to a lot of abuse, but also to a lot of confussion (think of all the weird situations this replacement could create, since it can be done ANYTIME during yout turn...)

In my opinion it would be goof to rule it in a way that it would be switchable only during the org. phase - after all, that's the way many people does it (esp. the ones that haven't checked that digest)

Of course, this is just my own personal advice.

Btw, I don't see the comparison between ACM and strider/gorn very clear. That digest is still unclear.

[miguel]

In my opinion it would be goof to rule it in a way that it would be switchable only during the org. phase - after all, that's the way many people does it (esp. the ones that haven't checked that digest)

Goof or good?

I'm assuming good. Yes I thought of that as well, because one could argue that the text of Strider merely allows to bring into play a manifestation of the same character, which otherwise of course isn't allowed... I don't think it's very far fetched, but I'm still doubtful.

[zarathustra]

How is this different from the RW-followers stuff? In my view, rw-followers have a better case to be made for their playability in addition to the normal 1-only-during-the-site-phase rule. Since we've made the distinction between 'play' and 'place' in the past with regard to items (e.g. the difference between Phial of Galadriel and Necklace of Girion), why not now as well?

Also, WHCtK speaks strongly against the analogy with ACM.

My view is that Strider should only be replacable during the org phase as your 1 character that phase.

[miguel]

So only during org. phase but at any site? And regardless of the presence of a wizard?

[Manuel]

Heh, yeah it should be gooD, not goof.

IMO if Strider is now forced to be changed where the wizard is, etc, it's gonna be a too dramatical change of things. I don't even like the fact that he counts as your 1 character played (if you want to see it that way, then you are discarding a character and playing another, which is not allowed anyway...)

Perhaps it's better to say only that he can be replaced during the org. phase, for the simple reason of avoiding abusive uses of this card and further unclear situations?

[zarathustra]

Hmmm.... We try to be as principled as possible, and not simply create rulings because they would be nice if that's what the rules said. Is there an argument to be made for the replacement ability over-riding some conditions (e.g., Wizard present) but not others (e.g., org phase)?

This is a tricky one...

[Manuel]

Yeah, I'm afraid there are no such conditions...

Even understanding it as bringing a character into play as usually during your org. phase, it's kinda hard to justify... you are removing a character from play and playing a different manifestation of the same character, not simply bringing a character into play...

I'm afraid there's no "right" decission on this one.

[tharasix]

I see no compelling reason from a rules standpoint to overturn the existing ruling. Strider's text says nothing about a phase restriction, only an implication if you choose to interpret the text as saying that you play Aragorn as you would play a normal character. It may be abusive, but it can only happen once a game. Is it really that big of a deal?

[miguel]

I'm propose we let the previous ruling stand.

[Wacho]

Why don't we just say that if Strider is a target of a strike, card, etc. when replaced Aragorn is still the target of said strike, card, etc.

That would seem to solve most of the abuses, and since this is a unique sort of deal we wouldn't be upsetting any other rulings. I think it makes a lot of sense too. Can you imagine Smaug attacking your company and Strider straightens up and throws off his coat and says "I'm actually Aragorn II the heir of Gondor" and Smaug gets confused and says, "Now where's that blasted ranger I was about to eat?" and flies off?

[zarathustra]

But there's no argument for it, David.

I'm going to side with Mikko and Chad on this one.

No need to make a ruling so: Done Locked