On Cards Overriding Rules

[Jambo]

As we reach a lovely inconclusive conclusion I thought I'd throw another card into the mix:

Old Road
Short event
Allows a character at a Haven [H] to attempt to bring a faction into play. The length of the site path from this Haven to the site at which the faction can be played must be two or less (this must be verified by an available site card). The influence check for this attempt is modified by -1 and is not modified by the influencing character's direct influence.

Presumably, this card can currently be played at any time during one's turn? One could use an untapped character to tap (does one tap?) to play a faction during the untap phase then proceed to untap. Then during the Org phase bring in a character to reveal a new untapped haven site card and play another Old Road to play another faction before leaving the site during the m/h phase to play other things in the site phase? In fact, does the haven even tap and/or can Old Road be played on a tapped site?

Regarding Open to the Summons, can you show me the rule that states that playing this means you have to play the character during the Org phase and not whenever you like? Why does a permanent event not override the rules on a permanent basis as a short event is ruled to do on a short basis?

[Bandobras Took]

And, come to think of it, play it during the m/h phase on a company that's not moving.

I can see the idea of short events allowing a card to be played and perms only making things playable by their nature.

But I do not believe the card text of Chance Meeting justifies reading it as permission to play a character. I believe it is only permission to override the home site requirement. If I believed it enabled general character play, I could see the validity of the general argument.

[Bandobras Took]

Here's another fun one: can Chance Meeting be used to play a Unique character already in play?

[Wacho]

Ben, there isn't a really good answer to your question. The wording for ACM isn't really what it should be. The problem is that ICE decided at some point (ruling, original intent, whatever) that ACM allowed you to play characters outside the org. phase and in addition to the one character per turn. They also wanted to keep errata to a minimum so they left it with just that interpretation. I agree with you in that cards that override specific rules should state that specifically. ACM doesn't, but there isn't much we can do about it now. Your example of Old Road is a good case in point. I believe Old Road is only legal to play during the site phase, however it has the same type of language that ACM does, so to be consistent it should be able to be played anytime you are at a haven. I guess the thing to do is just to consider ACM to have an official unstated errata and leave it at that. One more reason to update the CRF and fix some of these problems.

[Konrad Klar]

I believe Old Road is only legal to play during the site phase, however it has the same type of language that ACM does, so to be consistent it should be able to be played anytime you are at a haven.

I think mechanism of this card is the same as ACM. I believe it may played in any phase.
If ACM would have phrase e.g "Playable during untap phase", then it would be explicite overriding rules. If resource short-event does not have such phrase it is equivalent of "Playable during any phase".
Of course, if Old Road would be restricted to site phase and ACM not restricted to organization then it would be inconsistency.

Here's another fun one: can Chance Meeting be used to play a Unique character already in play?

No.
"You may play character under xyz conditions" is not the same as "You may play absolutely any character under xyz conditions".

The same applies to Thorough Search and items.

Regarding Open to the Summons, can you show me the rule that states that playing this means you have to play the character during the Org phase and not whenever you like?

No.
Such written rule does not exist. Because Open to the Summons does not create immediate action "play character" it opens question "when character may be played?". My assumption is it works as "character is playable" and may be (potentially) played in org. phase. Similarly as "item/information is playable" means may be (potentially) played in site phase.

[Jambo]

One agent minion may be played....

A character may be brought into play....

This is the way those cards are written. What difference between them means that one is immediate and one is subsequently restricted to the Org phase?

A Chance Meeting supersedes the 1 character per turn rule, yet Khamul does not:

You may bring this follower into play during your organization phase.

[Konrad Klar]

What difference between them means that one is immediate and one is subsequently restricted to the Org phase?

Indirect. Compare it with Helm of Her Secrecy. Lacking phrase "discard it if agent is not played" or "otherwise discard this card" after "place this card with the agent". This may indicate that card remains on company by some time, until agent is played. Thus playing agent is not ummediate action.
Also if it would be immediate action it would result in playing two cards at once during draft.

[Jambo]

What difference between them means that one is immediate and one is subsequently restricted to the Org phase?

Indirect. Compare it with Helm of Her Secrecy. Lacking phrase "discard it if agent is not played" or "otherwise discard this card" after "place this card with the agent". This may indicate that card remains on company by some time, until agent is played. Thus playing agent is not ummediate action.
Also if it would be immediate action it would result in playing two cards at once during draft.

You're implying it's indirect simply on the basis that it doesn't have a mechanism to be discarded. Fine, but if you have an agent in hand at the time when Open to the Summons is played and resolves, conceivably the effect doesn't have to be indirect... or does it...?

The point I'm trying to get across is the wording on ACM and Open to the Summons regarding actually playing the character is much the same. What difference does it make if it's indirect or not? The effect could be just there and available to use on a permanent basis. This could be considered direct if you have an agent in hand at the same time, or indirect if you draw an agent later on.

[zarathustra]

I think you guys all need to realize that ACM and Open to the Summons come from different sets, and that ICE only slowly came to realize how bad many of the texts on cards were as they printed more sets. As such, finding a principle that applies to all cards from all sets is probably a wild goose chase.

[Bandobras Took]

I think you guys all need to realize that ACM and Open to the Summons come from different sets, and that ICE only slowly came to realize how bad many of the texts on cards were as they printed more sets. As such, finding a principle that applies to all cards from all sets is probably a wild goose chase.

Then you will agree that "A Card Does Not Override the Rules Unless it Explicitly Says So" is a rather lousy basis for making rulings? The reason I brought this up in the first place is that such was the reason given for not allowing RW followers to be played in addition to the one character/turn rule.

Konrad Klar is making a far more convincing argument with the idea of short events being immediately implemented, while continuing effects must wait for their normal time/conditions.

As far as early card texts, go, though, there is We Have Come to Kill, which is in this case similar enough to Chance Meeting that the question remains open.

No. "You may play character under xyz conditions" is not the same as "You may play absolutely any character under xyz conditions".

So even you will admit that a character must be otherwise playable before Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill Will Work. If a rule interferes with its play, you can't use the card. Our only difference is the way we read the text of Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill.

I still believe the phrasing is only meant to override home site restrictions. "A character may be brought into play" is not meant to be read separately or imply a separate action from the rest of the card text.

I would, for example, have a far easier time accepting it if such a card read, "A character may be played and this character may be brought into play at any etc." The current phrasing of Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill still only suggests to me "If a character may be played, then a character may be brought into play at whatever."

[zarathustra]

WHCtK actually says almost exactly what you want it to say, I think: "This does not count against the one character per turn limit."

While Konrad is certainly right about most short events, some short events (e.g. Secret Passage) set up effects whose declaration is delayed. I'm not saying that ACM is one of them. It isn't. But things are not as simple as one might hope and expect here.

Regarding your question whether card text vs. rules is a "lousy basis for making rulings," I'm afraid I have to disagree. Here's a direct quotation from the CoL Tournament Policy: "Card Text vs. Rules - A card's text takes precedence if it contradicts a rule of the game." Now, whether a card's text contradicts the rules may sometimes be a vague or ambiguous matter, but it is important. By the same token, it's not the only important aspect the NetRep team considers when making a ruling. So, in the end, I would say that card text vs. rules is lousy as the only basis for making rules, but we would also be foolish to ignore it.

[Jambo]

I think you guys all need to realize that ACM and Open to the Summons come from different sets, and that ICE only slowly came to realize how bad many of the texts on cards were as they printed more sets. As such, finding a principle that applies to all cards from all sets is probably a wild goose chase.

Fair point.

But based on this wouldn't OttS have stated "Playable [during the Org phase] on a minion company " or "One agent minion may be played [during the Org phase]...." if it were to be restrictive on phase like the text for Khamul and The Witch-king?

Without those restrictions it's just like ACM or WHCtK but on a permanent basis rather than a short event.

[Konrad Klar]

So even you will admit that a character must be otherwise playable before Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill Will Work. If a rule interferes with its play, you can't use the card. Our only difference is the way we read the text of Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill.

You agree with fact that text "Playable on an untapped non-Warrior non-Wizard diplomat during the organization phase" on Hour of The Need allows playing faction in other phase than phase where it may be normally played. Yes?

Why if resource short-events by default may be played in any phase, lack of text "Playable in xyz phase" may not be interpreted as "Playable in any phase"?
Is "Playable in any phase" needed? Is "Playable in any phase" printed on any short-event?

[Bandobras Took]

Regarding your question whether card text vs. rules is a "lousy basis for making rulings," I'm afraid I have to disagree. Here's a direct quotation from the CoL Tournament Policy: "Card Text vs. Rules - A card's text takes precedence if it contradicts a rule of the game." Now, whether a card's text contradicts the rules may sometimes be a vague or ambiguous matter, but it is important. By the same token, it's not the only important aspect the NetRep team considers when making a ruling. So, in the end, I would say that card text vs. rules is lousy as the only basis for making rules, but we would also be foolish to ignore it.

Yes; I'm afraid I wasn't as clear as I might have been. I meant as the only reason.

However, that did seem to be the only basis for the ruling on the Witch-King/Khamul's RW Follower ability.

You agree with fact that text "Playable on an untapped non-Warrior non-Wizard diplomat during the organization phase" on Hour of The Need allows playing faction in other phase than phase where it may be normally played. Yes?

Why if resource short-events by default may be played in any phase, lack of text "Playable in xyz phase" may not be interpreted as "Playable in any phase"?
Is "Playable in any phase" needed? Is "Playable in any phase" printed on any short-event?

Because through nothing more than rules annotations, the phrase "Playable on an attack" has been downgraded to "Playable on a non-automatic attack," ignoring that such phrasing already exists on other cards. Short events are by default playable at any time, but the rules currently provide limitations on the play of even short events that one cannot ignore.

Accepting that a faction may be played by Hour of Need is fine -- the question is whether Hour of Need could be played in the first place. Specific permission is given for its play during the Organization Phase.

Depending on how you read Chance Meeting, though, the ability to bring a character into play can be taken as an active condition -- which would prevent its play unless it had specific permission to be played in another phase.

I would maintain that there is a bit of inconsistency in allowing Chance Meeting to be played at any time but disallowing cards that say "Playable on an attack" instead of "Playable on a non-automatic attack" to be played on an auto-attack. In one case, the rule prohibiting card play takes precedence; in the other, it has not, but both have the same possibility of interpretation.

[Konrad Klar]

Short events are by default playable at any time, but the rules currently provide limitations on the play of even short events that one cannot ignore.

So why Bounty of The Hoard, Thorugh Search, Catch an Elusive Scent, all are "Playable during site phase" by its own text? Ach, vicious circle...

I would maintain that there is a bit of inconsistency in allowing Chance Meeting to be played at any time but disallowing cards that say "Playable on an attack" instead of "Playable on a non-automatic attack" to be played on an auto-attack. In one case, the rule prohibiting card play takes precedence; in the other, it has not, but both have the same possibility of interpretation.

What should takes precedense? "Playable in any phase", which is default for resource short-events* over general rule "may be played only in xyz phase", or inversely?


*) and for the same reasons omitted, likewise 2 in square root, in my opinion.