Jump to content



Photo

Riders of the Red Fork + Bran the Builder's Legacy


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:55 PM

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?



#2 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:33 PM

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.



#3 sWhiteboy

sWhiteboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 318 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:47 AM

 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!



#4 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 02:08 AM

sWhiteboy said:

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.
Sorry I wasn't clearer. You are correct that Riders ignores all restrictions on the search. It is found by anything, no matter what limitation the text places on the object of the search.

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. 



#5 sabrefox

sabrefox

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 02:27 AM

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?



#6 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:54 AM

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.



#7 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:57 PM

 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.



#8 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:18 AM

Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.



#9 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 12:13 PM

Khudzlin said:

Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Mandark?



#10 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:35 PM

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



#11 Bolzano

Bolzano

    Member

  • Members
  • 344 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:01 AM

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").



#12 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:45 AM

Bolzano said:

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 then, a few months later, we got an entry in the FAQ (pg. 23) saying:

"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?



#13 Bolzano

Bolzano

    Member

  • Members
  • 344 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:56 AM

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



#14 tjstyles

tjstyles

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

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?



#15 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

tjstyles said:

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?

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.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#16 tjstyles

tjstyles

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

stormwolf27 said:

tjstyles said:

 

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?

 

 

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.

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?



#17 tjstyles

tjstyles

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

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.

 



#18 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:00 AM

tjstyles said:

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?
The ruling is that Riders meet the citeria for the search effect for the entire search effect. The reason Riders works with Rhaegal isn't because "attach it" is general (while "put that location into play" is specific); it is that the Riders, in meeting the criteria of the "search" part of the effect, also meet the criteria for the "attach" part of the effect. 

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.



#19 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:17 AM

ktom said:

tjstyles said:

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?

The ruling is that Riders meet the citeria for the search effect for the entire search effect. The reason Riders works with Rhaegal isn't because "attach it" is general (while "put that location into play" is specific); it is that the Riders, in meeting the criteria of the "search" part of the effect, also meet the criteria for the "attach" part of the effect. 

 

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.

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


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#20 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:48 PM

tjstyles said:

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. 

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?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS