At the Gates, is the card 'revealed'.

[Slothgodfather 270]

KristoffStark said:

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

 

Ah fair enough. That is why I get involved in these things, so I can learn more. So I guess the question is, since the FAQ mandatory reveal is only required upon verification of the card drawn, is it still required before the card goes directly into play…

So the framework is sort of like:  Search and draw Maester card.  Must reveal card to verify draw integrity.  Card is still revealed until it arrives at destination (in this case, in play) Responses to Reveal mechanic can be played during "reveal" stage.  Card arrives at destination (in play).

[ktom 598]

Slothgodfather said:

So the framework is sort of like:  Search and draw Maester card.  Must reveal card to verify draw integrity.  Card is still revealed until it arrives at destination (in this case, in play) Responses to Reveal mechanic can be played during "reveal" stage.  Card arrives at destination (in play).

What effect are you working with here? At the Gates? if so, there is no "draw" in At the Gates - and the whole controversy here is whether or not the "reveal" happens because the card goes directly to its "final destination," which is the in-play, "public information" state - therefore needing no additional mechanism for verification.

The framework of "At the Gates" is "search and put directly into play (it's at its final destination); passives to search and/or put into play, Responses to search and/or put into play."

The framework being (incorrectly, IMHO) argued for in the thread is "search, reveal, and put directly into play (it's at its final destination); passives to search, reveal, and/or put into play, Responses to search, reveal, and/or put into play."

[Slothgodfather 270]

ktom said:

- therefore needing no additional mechanism for verification.

That's been my point all along really, since it's not necessary to verifiy a "put directly into play" card, the FAQ "must reveal" rule doesn't apply.  And forgive my use of the work "draw" earlier, poor choice of words.

 

[bane2571 0]

ktom said:

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".

My point is that the rules leave no leeway for this interpretation. They clearly state - 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. There is no "Unless there is another way to verify this" clause there. It is a clear black and white ruling and you're saying we should follow the spirit of the ruling rather than what it actually says.

[KristoffStark 1]

bane2571 said:

 

ktom said:

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".

 

My point is that the rules leave no leeway for this interpretation. They clearly state - 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. There is no "Unless there is another way to verify this" clause there. It is a clear black and white ruling and you're saying we should follow the spirit of the ruling rather than what it actually says.

 

 

Except that the ruling in question is the answer to a specific question.

If the phrase "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" were presented on its own as a rule (like, say Shuffling After a Search is in the Search, Draw & Reveal section on page 7), there would certainly be no room for any other point.

However, that is not the case.  Instead, the rule is presented in an appendix, specifically, an answer to the question: "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?"

This is not a question that arises in this circumstance, as the verification takes place as part of the effect in question.

The rule was printed within a context, so why ignore that context when referring to it?

You're arguing against trying to divine the spirit of the ruling rather than following its letter, but aren't you trying to interpret the spirit of the FAQ by saying this is a rule should be enforced as written under circumstances other than the question to which it was an answer?

[dcdennis 39]

bane2571 said:

 

ktom said:

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".

 

My point is that the rules leave no leeway for this interpretation. They clearly state - 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. There is no "Unless there is another way to verify this" clause there. It is a clear black and white ruling and you're saying we should follow the spirit of the ruling rather than what it actually says.

 

 

this.

 

If you ask me: 'if i look at the sky in austrailia on monday, what color will it be?' and i answer 'any time you look at the sky in austrailia, it will be blue.', does that not mean that on tuesday the sky will be blue as well even though you didnt specifically ask about tuesday? 

 

everyone in this thread keeps on saying 'well thats what it says but clearly thats not how it was meant'; and to that i say, since when do we go by what was meant when playing this game…..?

[ktom 598]

dcdennis said:

If you ask me: 'if i look at the sky in austrailia on monday, what color will it be?' and i answer 'any time you look at the sky in austrailia, it will be blue.', does that not mean that on tuesday the sky will be blue as well even though you didnt specifically ask about tuesday?

No. Because the context of Monday is sufficiently similar to the context of Tuesday that the extension of the Monday answer to a Tuesday doesn't raise doubts. Your "any time" answer creates a need to judge when conditions are sufficiently similar to the conditions posed in the question to make "any time" applicable.

Because, next Monday in Sydney, the sky is overcast and it's pouring rain. But because of your "self-contained," independent answer that any time you look at the sky in Australia, it will be blue,  are we to look at the cloudy, gray sky and call it blue? No, because the clear sky conditions in the question and answer last week do not apply and "any time" is not applicable. Hell, what if you look at the sky at night on Monday? The black, starry expanse is "blue" because the answer, no matter how authoritative, was that "any time" you look at the sky in Australia, it will be blue?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Your Monday sky question implies a whole bunch of conditions - such as weather and time of day - that, if not true, will make the answer "blue" incorrect. So in order for "any time" to have meaning, those necessary (though implied) conditions must be met.

dcdennis said:

everyone in this thread keeps on saying 'well thats what it says but clearly thats not how it was meant';

I don't agree that's what people are saying. It is certainly not what I am saying. If the conditions that made "any time" true were implied, like in your blue sky example, I'd wholeheartedly agree that you are not to make assumptions based on "implied" anything in this game.

But that's not the case here. The conditions are express. The question specifically asks "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 that is a necessary condition of this answer that the effect not ask the player to reveal the card for verification purposes.

So this is a "do what it says, but only what it says" argument, not a "do what it means, not what it says" argument.

 

Look, it is obvious that no one is ever going to convince you At the Gates does not have a "reveal" step to it. I'd suggest sending the question to FFG to settle the controversy. Personally, I'm pretty confident I know what the answer will be.

[Ikaros 0]

 Still waiting for the highest/greatest thing

Joking aside, I'm interested into understanding it, it's always useful to learn something new.

[dcdennis 39]

 The funny thing is about all this i agree with ktom about what the official ruling will be. My main point in raising all these questions is that the wording in the FAQ should be sorted out.

 

edit: i did send the question in though. so we'll see.

[KristoffStark 1]

dcdennis said:

 The funny thing is about all this i agree with ktom about what the official ruling will be. My main point in raising all these questions is that the wording in the FAQ should be sorted out.

And I certainly also agree with that.  I'd like to see a later version of the FAQ present this issue in the rule explanation section with a generic statement, not just in an answer to a specific question.