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?
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.