At the Gates, is the card 'revealed'.

[dcdennis 39]

 When a deck is searched and a card is put directly into play, is that card 'revealed'? I feel like I have read somewhere that yes it is but i cannot find the reference. Asking for Weasel's Way purposes.

[radiskull 39]

 It was my understanding that the only effects which "reveal" a card are those that use a form of the verb "reveal".  Since At the Gates doesn't, I don't think you could use Weasel's Way with it.

[dcdennis 39]

 I tend to agree with you. The only thing that is bugging me is the FAQ entry that says:

"Any time a player searches his or her deck
for a card of a specific type, that player must
reveal the found card to his or her opponent(s),
to verify that it falls under the search
parameters."

 

This entry does not discriminate upon the final destination of the card of being to top of deck, hand, into play etc…So since with At the Gates you are "searching for a card of a specific type", the above passage seems to insinuate that the revelation of the maester would be inclusive to the searching, regardless of the final destination of the target.

[ktom 598]

That entry only applies when there is no other way to verify that the card met the parameters. It's not like you are going to go get something other than a Maester (yeah, yeah, yeah, Riders excepted…) and put it into play without your opponent saying "hey!"

[Ikaros 0]

 In this game, many times counterintuitive or useless effects take place. And they still take place, regardless of their effectiveness, impact on game, or "the card was intended differently from how it is ruled". So why, in this case, can we assume that a searched card of a specific type has not to be revealed, if there is no "player's need" for that effect?

I agree that this (not revealing the card) would be a logical and intuitive way of handling this situation, but rules are rules. And here rules states that player must reveal the found card. It is precisely stated, so how can I assume to ignore it, just because it has no practical use?

Thank you!

[ktom 598]

You are over-generalizing the applicability of this rule. Please note that dcdennis quoted the answer to the FAQ without quoting the question. The entire FAQ entry on this point reads:

 

"If a card effect allows a player to search his or her deck for a specific type of card, but the effect does not ask the player to reveal the card, how do I verify that that player is pulling the appropriate category of card from his or her deck?

Any time a player searches his or her deck for a card of a specific type, that player must reveal the found card to his or her opponent(s), to verify that it falls under the search parameters."

 

So taken in context of the full FAQ entry, this rule about revealing a card that you have searched for only applies when there is no other mechanism built into the search effect allowing opponents to verify the card. Putting the card into play allows for verification, and the full entry in the FAQ is pretty clear that when another method of verification is available, you do that, not the "rules are rules" imposed "auto-reveal."

 

[dcdennis 39]

 I think there is still legitimacy to both sides of this debate. I do not think that the inclusion of that clause in the original question precludes the answer from being able to be applied to a situation where the card is not verified in another way. The answer is a full a complete statement without conditions that should be applied as is. When a card of type X is searched for, it is automatically revealed before landing at it's final destination. Search -> Reveal -> Hand or Search -> Reveal -> Put into Play. Either way the reveal is appended in my opinion. 

[ktom 598]

dcdennis said:

I do not think that the inclusion of that clause in the original question precludes the answer from being able to be applied to a situation where the card is not verified in another way. The answer is a full a complete statement without conditions that should be applied as is.

So, if you ask me "how do I get to the post office from here?" and I answer "turn right at the stop sign and go another mile, it'll be on the left," that answer, being a full and complete statement without conditions, would be the appropriate way to get to the post office no matter where you start from? Or if I ask you how much a hamburger costs at McDonald's, I can rely on your answer of $1.19 when I go to buy a hamburger at Burger King or Five Guys?

 

The "from here" part of the post office question places a condition on the direction answer. The "at McDonald's" part of the hamburger question places a condition on the cost answer. So I fail to see how "but the effect does not ask the player to reveal the card" part of the FAQ question does not place a condition on the "automatically reveal" answer.

If the answer statement appeared in the main body of the FAQ in the "Official Rules Clarification" section without the question, I'd agree with you. But since it appears in the "question and answer" section, you can only apply the answer in situations similar to the one described by the question. The question is about verifying that a player is pulling the appropriate card for a search effect in the absence of the effect allowing for a way to make that happen. Outside of that situation, the answer shouldn't apply, anymore than my directions on how to get to the post office apply when you are starting from somewhere else.

[Bomb 66]

I just quickly looked up all "Search deck" and "Search top X of deck" effects. 

The only ones that do not literally state to "reveal" the chosen cards are At the Gates, Harrenhal, A United Cause, Bound by Light, Aeron Damphair, Red Warlock, Bran the Builder's Legacy, and No Use for Grief. 

Of all of those, Harrenhal and Red Warlock are not put into play effects.

Harrenhal doesn't care what card you take, so you do not need to reveal it for any reason.  Red Warlock is the only one that requires a search for a specific type of card while not literally stating to reveal it to any other players.

I do not think the FAQ would require such a question if it were not for, perhaps, the Red Warlock.  It's clear that you will see what is put into play as a player with "Search X and put into play" effects.  Otherwise, all cards that are put into play would be considered "revealed" for the purposes of responses.  The question in the FAQ would be better off as an ultimate "Search and Reveal" rule instead of a FAQ question if "put into play" search effects were meant to be "revealed" for Responses and passive effects to trigger for them.  Just my opinion.

[dcdennis 39]

 Gotta say I still respectfully disagree with your analysis and your analogy on this one ktom. The appropriate analogy of the question and answer for what was given in the faq would be:

 

Q: How do I know how much a hamburger costs at mcdonalds?

A: Any time you go to a mcdonalds, the hamburgers cost $1.19.

 

The answer does not say "WHEN you search your deck for a specific card type……." the answer states "ANY TIME you search your deck for a specific card type…." and certainly revealing At the Gates falls into that category

 

edit for formatting

[ktom 598]

dcdennis said:

Gotta say I still respectfully disagree with your analysis and your analogy on this one ktom. The appropriate analogy of the question and answer for what was given in the faq would be:

 

Q: How do I know how much a hamburger costs at mcdonalds?

A: Any time you go to a mcdonalds, the hamburgers cost $1.19.

Well, if you want to get really technical, the more appropriate analogy for this situation is:

Q: When I go to McDonald's and the price of a hamburger is not posted on the menu board, how do I know how much a hamburger costs at McDonald's?

A: Any time you go to McDonald's, the hamburger costs $1.19.

Then, next week, I go to McDonald's and the price is posted on the menu board as $1.09. Under your analysis, I have to pay the extra dime, anyway.

[Slothgodfather 270]

This discussion has been pretty amusing to follow,  but I'd like to get out of the analogy circles and try to get back to game mechanics and terms.

The OP is asking if a card is searched for and then put into play (such as with At the Gates) can this allow the triggering of Weasel's Way, which allows you to name a card "revealed" and force the opponent to discard it.
 

Since the FAQ portion in question explicitly applies to card verification, I don't think it would count as a "revealed" game mechanic, and is only a form of verifying the legitimacy of the card drawn. It is not part of the card interaction and is only used as proof that the card drawn was of the appropriate type.

So for this debate, I don't think At the Gates would be able to trigger Weasel's Way, because the card search function does not say to reveal it. The card is simply put into play. Since it is put into play, it is automatically verified that it is the correct type of card to be searched for, therefore the FAQ "forced reveal" is never required.

[dcdennis 39]

 unless i have a coupon

[ktom 598]

Slothgodfather said:

So for this debate, I don't think At the Gates would be able to trigger Weasel's Way, because the card search function does not say to reveal it. The card is simply put into play. Since it is put into play, it is automatically verified that it is the correct type of card to be searched for, therefore the FAQ "forced reveal" is never required.

I get (and agree) with that. But what about an effect that said "search your deck for an event card and put it into your hand"? (Cards like this did exist in the CCG - hence the FAQ entry.) That effect obviously requires the searched-for card to be revealed before being put in your hand under the rule in the FAQ. Can you Respond to that rule-impose reveal with Weasel's Way? The general consensus is that yes, you can. Whether the card says "search and reveal" or whether the card says "search" and the rule says "reveal," a viable "reveal" trigger is created. This is really no different that being able to Respond the same to, say, drawing a card - no matter whether it was drawn because of a card effect or because of a rule.

That's the confusion and disconnect when there is another mechanism on the card by which to verify the honest success of the search. If you read the FAQ entry as meaning "every search effect automatically includes a reveal, no matter what you do with the card after," then Weasel's Way should be able to Respond to At the Gates. But if you read the FAQ entry as meaning "only searches without another means of verification automatically include a reveal," then you cannot.

[Bomb 66]

I think that the word "reveal" is used in the Q/A for the purposes of it's literal definition.  If the word "show" was used, it would mean the same thing in the Q/A.  How do you verify the sought card meets the condition of the search?  You show it to the opponents.

Similarly, you are supposed to "reveal" your cards that you play or put into play as step 1 in player actions.  However those are not actually considered revealed for triggering a Response, otherwise I'm sure Grand Maester Pycelle would be a more valuable character to have as a draw engine than many other draw engines for Lannister.

There is also a FAQ entry for shuffling your deck any time it's searched.  This is not a Q/A addressed issue, it's an explicit Rules Clarification and Enhancement.

An additional FAQ entry that may help set a precedence:

"Revealing your hand is not considered
revealing any of the individual cards in your
hand, and adding a card to a revealed hand is
not considered revealing that card."

In the plot phase we "Reveal" plots.  "Revealed" is a key word used to define interaction with Plots. I'd hate to think that those are considered "revealed" cards for the purposes of triggering responses.

Cards are also "revealed" during setup.  Not that it matters because you cannot trigger squat from revealing setup, but it's still another place the term "reveal" is used loosely.

The point I'm making is that the words "reveal" and "revealed" is used loosely throughout the game in rules beyond what is printed on a card.  Therefore, I believe unless the word "reveal" is printed on a card as part of the effect specifically, then you are to only reveal a card per the normal rules and verification and that it does not open a response opportunity for a "revealed" card.  Otherwise we should have this response opportunity for every card played, sought, put into play, brought out of the shadows, etc.

Now perhaps I am now the one with the over-analysis, but we have key words used all over the place that are strictly in place for the purposes of opening response opportunities and for setting limits.  Revealed is yet another one of these where I believe if it is not printed on the card, it does not open one.  Where also instead of "show" the term "reveal" is used for verification considering reveal is used everywhere else in the FAQ to discuss the rules!  :-)

[bane2571 0]

ktom said:

"If a card effect allows a player to search his or her deck for a specific type of card, but the effect does not ask the player to reveal the card, how do I verify that that player is pulling the appropriate category of card from his or her deck?

So then by implication if you don't need to reveal the card because of this rule then the card has been revealed by the search effect. Either way at the gates as it is searching for a specific card type must reveal what it is searching for. Whether or not you go on to put it in to play is irrelevant as something might prevent that from happening (Fear of Winter for instance).

Someone mentioned Pycell, it should be noted that he expressly says After an opponent's effect reveals which in my eyes removes any issues with the word reveal on plots and even the rule that says to reveal the card. The effect that triggers pycell would need to use the word reveal. Weasel's way has no such clause.

[Ikaros 0]

Afterall, I think I agree with Ktom, but these rules are sometimes so ambiguous and scattered throgh many documents that I feel the need for a well-written comprehensive manual. I'd start writing it myself but I need an english-speaker person to review it.

Anyway, in this case, I think a better analogy would be:

Q: "How do I get to the McDonald's from here?"

A: "Any time you want to go to McDonalds, go to the Train Station and take the north street."

The question is specific for a context. The answer, instead, is generic an valid for every situation. What changed my mind is the place where this rule is listed. It's in the Q&A section, which, usually, only explains in a better way rules already covered by the main book and faq. Q&A do not add informations, only clarify informations.

So this seems to me that it is like:

If a card effect allows a player to search his or her deck for a specific type of card, but the effect does not ask the player to reveal the card, how do I verify that that player is pulling the appropriate category of card from his or her deck?

Hey, any time a player searches his or her deck for a card of a specific type, and that card is hidden (i.e. added to hand instead of put into play, for example) it is always stated by the effect that the player must reveal the found card to his or her opponent(s), to verify that it falls under the search parameters. If not said, it is an oversight and assume "reveal" is part of that effect. It is like we add an errata for that card.

A bit strange, because this could be managed by the Card Errata, but ensure the mechanic even if Errata for that card is missing.

 

[Ikaros 0]

 Also, I disagree with the thing "reveal" is different from "show". In this game, if two words mean the very same thing, sometimes are treated as the same word. An example is lower / reduce for costs.

If a card says "you can't reduce costs" and another says "lower the cost for the next card", the second one cannot be used.

Instead, I once understood that greater and higher are somewhat different. Higher means "the only one, no other one could be as high as me", while Greater means "one of the best, but admit a tie with others". Is it true?

[ktom 598]

bane2571 said:

So then by implication if you don't need to reveal the card because of this rule then the card has been revealed by the search effect. Either way at the gates as it is searching for a specific card type must reveal what it is searching for. Whether or not you go on to put it in to play is irrelevant as something might prevent that from happening (Fear of Winter for instance).

Not sure I agree with that. The identity of the card searched for is verified. Just because the identity of a card has been verified does not mean it has been "revealed". Just because two mechanics have the same result does not mean they are same thing. For example, Deathbound puts an event in the dead pile, but that doesn't mean it kills the event. That said, if something prevents the card from being put into play (or otherwise prevents the non-reveal "verification" mechanic), then the "auto-reveal" rule will kick in. But that's not the same as saying the reveal always kicks in, just to no effect.

Ikaros said:

Instead, I once understood that greater and higher are somewhat different. Higher means "the only one, no other one could be as high as me", while Greater means "one of the best, but admit a tie with others". Is it true?

Your meaning for "higher" is actually the meaning for "highest." I can have a "higher" score than someone without having the "highest" score in the class. So "greater" and "higher" are fairly synonymous. Both would allow for ties in the game. "Highest" (or "greatest") would not.

[Ikaros 0]

 Sorry ktom, I meant highest and greatest. I was remembering this quote from yours:

"So, "ties" for the most STR do not count as "highest," so if you have 2 5-STR characters in play (and no one with more than that), you could not play the event. If the card said "greatest STR in play," then ties would be OK."

[ktom 598]

Ikaros said:

 Sorry ktom, I meant highest and greatest. I was remembering this quote from yours:

"So, "ties" for the most STR do not count as "highest," so if you have 2 5-STR characters in play (and no one with more than that), you could not play the event. If the card said "greatest STR in play," then ties would be OK."

Which card was this in reference to again? I think I see my mistake and where I confused you (and probably myself), but I want to make sure I get the context right.

[Ikaros 0]

ktom said:

Ikaros said:

 

 Sorry ktom, I meant highest and greatest. I was remembering this quote from yours:

"So, "ties" for the most STR do not count as "highest," so if you have 2 5-STR characters in play (and no one with more than that), you could not play the event. If the card said "greatest STR in play," then ties would be OK."

 

Which card was this in reference to again? I think I see my mistake and where I confused you (and probably myself), but I want to make sure I get the context right.

 

Was Azor Ahai Born Again: link

[Slothgodfather 270]

How about this concept:

Paraphrasing, the FAQ says "If you search your deck for a specific card type that is put into your hand without an explicit 'reveal' effect, then you must reveal the card to your opponent for verification."   However, I would argue that I don't even have to show you the name of the card, much less it's abilities.  All that is required is that the card is revealed for verification.  So if I am only able to obtain an attachment card, as long as I reveal the chain link boarder, the card is revealed and verified.

Or "If you search your deck for a specific card type that is put into play without an explicit 'reveal' effect, then the card is immediately verified as being of the correct type, and no further action (or reveal) is necessary."

 

The main point I see is that the FAQ is only for verification purposes, so even if you wanted to argue that after At the Gates is played I MUST reveal my card for verification purposes before it can enter play, I only have to show you the trait of Maester to verify the correct card type has been pulled.  You don't have to see any other aspect of the card for this verification.

 

As an extra question, do cards put into shadows require verification and are therefore potentially "revealed" also?

[Ikaros 0]

Slothgodfather said:

As an extra question, do cards put into shadows require verification and are therefore potentially "revealed" also?

cit.

At the end of each game, players should reveal all of
their cards that are in Shadows to their opponents,
to ensure that no cards have been illegally placed in
Shadows. Failure to do so is a breech of tournament
sportsmanship, and could disqualify a player from the
tournament. If a player has a strong suspicion during
a game that a card is illegally placed in Shadows, the
TO can be called to verify its legality.

[KristoffStark 1]

Slothgodfather said:

The main point I see is that the FAQ is only for verification purposes, so even if you wanted to argue that after At the Gates is played I MUST reveal my card for verification purposes before it can enter play, I only have to show you the trait of Maester to verify the correct card type has been pulled.  You don't have to see any other aspect of the card for this verification.

The only purpose for the reveal is verification, true, but the face is that "revealing" in this game means that your opponent(s) get to see the entire face of the card.  There is no exception for special circumstances.

"(1.3) Duration of "Reveal"
Whenever cards are revealed, they remain
revealed until they arrive at their final
destination."