Guise card borrowing Questions.

I can't remember the resolution to these questions or find them in the playtesting stuff, and since it just came up I'm asking about it!

1.  Guise plays Lemme See That on KNYFE's Battlefield Experience, and then uses the power.  When the card is destroyed does KNYFE get to draw and play a card as well as Guise?  I said yes, because while Guise used the power, the other text doesn't care about why the card is being destroyed, and the card is being shared by Guise, it still affects KNYFE.

2.  "Uh, Yeah, I'm that guy. . ."  High 5 the Naturalist, the Naturalist plays Bestial Shift with Gazelle form in play.

Guise does not copy the text of the one-shot, but does he get to activate the effects because of the text that "Uh, Yeah" is copying?

This works the same with Adept's instruments being borrowed, can Guise use a borrowed instrument to play songs that are in Adept's area?

My argument is that both of these work, because we already know that Unity can destroy any card that has the Keyword Equipment on it with her base power, and DW Fixer does the same with any hero ongoing or Equip.  We also have Omnitron-X who can destroy Omnitron's components with Self-Sabotage.

None of those effects care whose card or what play area the card is in, only if they meet the listed criteria.

The only question I have is does it matter that Guise is not looking for keywords, but words in the game text?

1. Lemme See That replaces the original hero name with Guise and the word "you" with the word Guise. It no longer effects KNYFE in any way. Guise has stolen it basically. Plus…Battle Field Experience is not an equipment card, so Lemme See That can't be played on it. So this question is moot.

Now, if you used Uh Yeah Im That Guy, that card basically becomes a pure copy of Battle Field Experience which Guise can use, but it still does not effect KNYFE because any instance of the word KNYFE or "you" turn into the word Guise and only effects Guise.

Example: Lets say Guise uses Lemme See That on Wraiths Razor Ordinance. Wraith would still have to be the one to use the power, but it would be Guise dealing the damage.

2. Guise would get to activate the Gazelle text as well as Naturalist in this case with Uh, Yeah, I'm That Guy

I would also think that if Guise stole an instrument with Lemme See That, he could use Argents songs in play.

Two words, Caspit's Playground.

Edge case! haha

Even so, I do not think it effects KNYFE at all once Guise "steals" it with Lemme See That. 

False. Until Lemme See That is destroyed, Razor Ordinance is considered one of Guise's cards. Guise can use the power, The Wraith no longer has access to it.

I know we have talked about this before, but are you sure? This goes back to the discussion of "Can you use powers that are not in your play area". I'm not 100% convinced you can. Though it makes fine sense if the cards works this way. So I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Ronway is right.  Guise would be the only one who could use Razor Ordinance.  The Wraith would just hav eto wait until he gave it back.   The same would apply to HUD goggles.  Tach wouldn't be able to play an extra card until Guise gave them back to her.

Makes sense

Or would Guise having control of Limited cards allow a second to be put into play by the original hero?

No, Limited cards are limited for the entire table.

Cite?

Paul

I thought the whole purpose of Lemme See That going to the card was that the target card didn't leave the original hero's play area.  Also the instructions on the card do not change the wording, but say "It affects Guise as if. . ."

It does not say "That card is now treated. . ."  Just that it affects Guise as if the words were different.  It does not say that it affects Wraith as if the card was no longer hers, or give any instructions that the card should be treated as if the words on it changed, just that as far as Guise is concerned the card is his.

So when Guise looks at the card it looks like his, and he uses it as such, but to everyone else that card is unchanged.

The only thing that is changed is that the card now affects Guise in a very specific way.  Why would it no longer affect the hero who played the card?

Subnote:  Guise using Prejudice while Pride is in play would allow Guise to use Pride's power, which would cause Expatriette to deal damage.  Likewise if Guise used Prejudice when it was loaded with Shock Rounds Expatriette would deal all non-hero targets 1 damage.

Because it affects Guise as if the hero name on the card was Guise. If it is Guise, then logically it is not ExPatriette or anyone else. Plus, thematically, they aren't sharing it; he took it out of their hands, and then hands it back (they snatch it back) once he's done playing with it (they're tired of letting him play with it.)

It affects Guise as if the owner was Guise, but it says nothing about how it affects the owner.

I'm with Phantaskippy for this one.  It affects Guise as if the wording was changed, but the wording isn't actually changed - Guise is just pretending that it is.

Think there was a ruling on this during playtesting but not sure, would be good to get an official ruling on this here so everyone will know how to play the cards. Especially since this is a character that changes/breaks the rules.

Yes it does though. It says the word Guise replaces any instance of the previous hero name or the word "you".  It effectivly is no longer a card that belongs to the original hero. Try to extend the phrase "replaces" to the back of the hero card as well and it makes sense.

Replaces is the key word to understand here.

When Guise takes an equipment card, it's Guise's card (for a while) and the original hero doesn't have access to it. (Foote is spot on about "replaces")

And, yes, Limited is Limited for the entire table. Which is another reason playing multiple Legacies doesn't work well.

Omg I was right about something!

*excited clapping*

The word replace is not used on Lemme See That. . .  It is used on Uh, Yeah, I'm that guy!

Also Guise isn't taking the card, he puts his card next to it.

The entire wording and effect of the card seems carefully designed to do exactly what it is intended to not do.

I'm cool with official ruling, but the card seems intentionally misleading if that is the intent.

It could have used very similar wording to Uh, yeah, I'm that guy!

It just seems strange that in order to affect Guise it has to stop affecting the hero it was originally played by.

There were several suggestions in the playtesting of the card that seems to fit the intention of the card better than the final wording.

I thought it did say replace? I know it didnt on the most current version of proofs, but I thought I saw it on the real printed thing. I think either way, it still changes the actual text on the equipment card from any use of the original hero and "you" to the word Guise, with or without the word replace, which is effectivly the same thing.

Full Card Text:

Play this card by an equipment card.

That card affects Guise as if the hero name on that card were Guise and "you" on that card means Guise's player.

At the start of your turn play air guitar and destroy this card.

It Affects Guise as if the text were changed.  It doesn't change the text.  Replace would have been a much better choice of wording, or placing the equipment in Guise's area.

Switch to Ronway's side more often then.

You ain't kiddin

Sure, it would have been a little bit more concise if it said "this card now belongs to Guise, as if..." but I think you are about the only one having trouble with it. It seems pretty obvious what it means.

I think the intent is clear, but It's not at all obvious and I totally see Skippy's argument. Its 100% valid.

I'm cool with the ruling and the way the card will play, just annoyed by the wording, which happens to me frequently.  It isn't a big deal.

Become a playtester so you can see that cards before they get printed and give suggestions on how to… Oh wait, nevermind.

So I decided to play my first game with WCOS stuff mixed in with everything else later tonight.  I'll be playing Guise, Visionary, and Prime Warden Captain Cosmic vs Skinwalker Gloomweaver in the Omnitron IV environment.  I was looking at the heroes and realized something really intriguing about comboing Guise with Prime Warden Captain Cosmic.

If I play Guise's card "I can do that, too!" to copy PW Capt. Cosmic's "Absorption" power, wouldn't that mean  Guise could steal some of Cap's constructs and shuffle them into his(Guise's) deck?

I can do that, too! :

"Oneshot

Guise uses a power printed on an active hero character card in play.  If that power has the name of a hero in it, treat that name as if it were Guise instead."

Absorption :

"Power

Until the start of your next turn, whenever a construct card is destroyed, you may shuffle it into your deck instead and either draw a card or play a card."

No, it would mean that any construct that is destroyed before Guise's next turn he could draw or play a card.   The character card for PW Captain Cosmic doesn't allow you to shuffle the destroyed construct into his deck

And the frustrating thing is that there were suggestions made that work better for the intent of the card.

The final text was changed to Cosmic shuffling the Construct into his deck rather than them being destroyed.  It prevents him stacking the effect through multiple power uses since he can only shuffle the card into his deck once to "pay" for the effect.

That being said…I'm unsure about whether that means that Guise will get Cosmic's cards in his deck.  Seems somewhat strange.

Normally I'd throw the idea out the window, but considering Guise's "unusual" powers.  Even if you can't do it I may just have to house-rule it in since it actually kinda fits with his theme.  

The timing for the two powers would be simultaneous, so it would be players choice.  The way Guise scales with out of turn card play would work quite well with the power.

You would have to shuffle the construct into Guise's deck, which while wierd isn't any wierder than the other stuff he or other mini expansions can pull off.

We Played Guise-Naturalist yesterday, and even without getting Bestial Shift out it was ridiculou, esp. in croc form with Guise activating the croc text on one shots to make Naturalist do even more damage.

It also let's Cosmic use Cataclysm or Conservation while his base power is active, albeit on a different hero.

So if I play Guise's "Lemme See That" on The Wraith's "Razor Ordnance", the text becomes "Power: Guise deals 1 target 3 projectile damage", correct?  Does that mean the card is in Guise's play area or is it still in The Wraiths?  If the former, Guise activates the power and Wraith doesn't have access until the start of Guise's next turn (and air guitar is played).  If it's the latter, does The Wraith have to activate the power, cause Guise to do damage?

In regards to the Air Guitar, is it a full song or just a "Bill and Ted" type of chord?

Ben

Up to you, I do Wyld Stallions, and depending on the game flow of the moment determines whether it is a garage throw down or a futuristic moment of zen.

My one friend really got into it and we ended up going for snacks.

It remains in The Wraith's play area. Guise is the one who would activate the power.

This is a rare case where I'm going to strongly disagree with the game's creator.  The card says:

"Play this card by an equipment card. That card affects Guise as if the hero name on that card were Guise and "You" on that card means Guise's player.
At the start of your turn, play air guitar and destroy this card."

The plain english meaning of this seems to me to say that, while from Guise's PoV, the card text has changed, the actual text has NOT changed.  "affects … as if … were" are all cues that these changes to the card are conditional/situational, not absolute.  If you had intended Guise to steal the card, then you should have written something else for the second sentence, such as for example: "Replace any instances of the hero name or "you" on that card with "Guise" for as long as this card is in play."

A weaker, but perhaps-still-relevant argument is that neither I Can Do That, Too! or Uh, Yeah, I'm That Guy! remove any functionality from the targeted player.

If you want to issue an official erratum to the card text, I'd accept that, but until such time, I'm going to abide by what the card says, not by your ruling.

The other question I see is Lemme see that does not specify to change the nature of "You."

Um, Yeah. . . deals with that by having the text on Guise's card, so no issue, and I can do that too specifically mentions it.

I assume that the player using the power counts as "You," not the owner of the card.

While I don't like the wording of the card vs. the intent, the intent of the rule makes sense, as I can do that too, and Uh, yeah, I'm that guy. . . both deal with Guise acting like another hero, while Lemme see that is Guise taking the equipment in question and using it himself.

It makes sense that if Guise takes Expatriette's Shotgun, she doesn't still have it.

I also like the idea (and yes this happened in a game when our Guise took my Shotgun right after I drew Unload) of Expatriette asking for her Shotgun back via Rocket Launcher.

Given Guise's other abilities and origins, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that he is actually copying the equipment with some sort of ectoplasm, or summoning a copy of it from Hammerspace.

But look at the card, Adept is not happy about Guise using his instrument.  That is how it works.

I'm all about using flavor text and artwork to help support fun role-playing during a game.  But for *rules*, it's the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.  This card's text is completely clear, and doesn't do what you and Christopher say.

Matriarch's wording didn't match up with intent either, it happens.  But now that we know the intent and how the card is intended to work, what is your argument?

Thematically it makes sense, the official ruling has been handed down, the cards wording is unfortunately unclear.

Luckily we have an official answer to solve that unclear status.

It's fine to take a game that you bought and play with it however you want, but the right way to play is now clear.  If that isn't good enough for you then what do you expect?

And the unclear bit isn't even really objectively true. It's unclear to YOU, but to me -- a communications major, who is very experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to nuances and implications of terminology -- it is completely unambiguous. It affects Guise (as opposed to not affecting Guise, which is what it normally does) as if the name on the back of the card (the ONLY THING on the card that indicates ownership) were Guise. Logically, the name can only be one thing at a time. If the name is Guise, then it is NOT Wraith, or Argent Adept, or whatever other name it was originally. Therefore, the card is Guise's. He steals it. Then you play air guitar with it (which is weird if it is anything other than a musical instrument, but it's Guise. Throwing Knives make GREAT guitars, I guess.) and reluctantly give it back/get bored with it and toss it on the ground/have it snatched from your hands.

You may not be entirely clear on it, and that's fine, but when it comes to the grammatical interpretation of the words and simple, conventional logic -- supplemented by the art, the name of the card, the flavor text, and Christopher's DIRECT INPUT -- there are really no other ways that it can possibly be argued to mean anything else.

Creator clafitifcation trumps that however. It's a missinterpretation of the text (specifically, a missinterpretation of how the word "affects" plays out mechanically) . But as Skippy said, you are free to play the cards anyway you want to. 

I agree it's been erratad and now we know what was meant. I also agree that the actual writing on the card is wrong, not unclear. If the designers meant for the card to be unusable by the owner, they really needed to add that to the card, and should add it in a future reprint. It's not murky, it's "geez, we left that part off".

This isn't a case of what "affects" means. If we take a card like Expatriette's shotgun and play that card on it, sure, Guise can use it, but if Expatriette's using it on her turn to shoot someone, Guise isn't involved in the equation at all. So "affects Guise" doesn't come into play.

I'll play the card as the designers intended in this case, but it's not what the card says and not what I'd have done not knowing there was *errata* (distinct from clarification) for the card.

And this is exactly what I mean by having a misinterpretation of how "affects" is used here.

Expats card is now affecting Guise. How is it affecting Guise? By reading any use of the hero name or "you" as the word Guise. There is no more "Expatriate" on the card. Even the name on the back of the card changes to Guise, because thats how the card is now being read. It cannot, therefore affect Expat in anyway.

Let us take note that the phrase is not "this card also affects Guise, as if…". There is no phrase in the text that would indicate an inclusive nature with both heros. Hence this is a misinterpretation. One that will be common no doubt, but a misinterpretation none the less.

I do not disagree that the term "replaces" would have been more appropriate to use in the card text, however, my reading of the text seems just as valid and follows the designers intent.

And as always, feel free to house rule any official rules you do not like/agree with. That is always ok.

So to get back to the other questions on this thread, and to add some more:

I gave my current answer after each question, just so people can see how I resolved it in game and know my thoughts why.

1.  Would Guise Borrowing Pride allow Guise to use Prejudice's power?  If he borrowed Prejudice would Expat be able to use Pride's power to use Prejudice?

If so, does it work like above suggested:

Guise borrows Pride, Uses its power to deal 2 projectile damage, then activates Prejudice's power, causing Expatriette to deal 2 projectile damage?

Reversed would it work the same way (Expat uses pride to make Guise deal 2 projectile with Prejudice?

If Expat no longer has access to the card, does that cancel the interaction between the two guns?

A.  It would work exactly as stated because the powers reference each other, and don't care who is triggering the power.  The current wielder of Prejudice would deal the second shot of damage because using the power doesn't change the name on the card, only Lemme See that is doing that.

2.  If Guise borrows a gun loaded with Shock Rounds and uses the power, does the Ammo go off, causing Expat to deal 1 damage to each non-hero target?

A.  Yes, the ammo triggers off the usage of the gun power and doesn't card who is using the power.

3.  How Does Guise-Adept work when Guise borrows an instrument but not his music?

A.  Guise uses the power on the instrument, and can use songs in Adept's play area, because the powers refer to the card effects they can activate, it doesn't matter where those cards are.

4.  How does copied text of a form card interact with Bestial Shift?  If Guise is copying Naturalist (which is pretty much the best idea ever) and Naturalist plays Bestial shift while in Gazelle, uses the free power to shift to Croc, what does Guise do during this time?

A.  When the Symbol enters play the text on a form card activates it, so both would activate the text.  For this resolution Players choose to let Guise resolve the effects first:

  1. Guise Causes the Naturalist to regain 3hp, then uses a power.  Naturalist causes Naturalist to regain 3hp, uses a power to change to Croc Form.

  2. Guise Causes the Naturalist to deal 1 target 3 toxic Damage, then Guise uses a power.  Naturalist causes Naturalist to deal one target 3 damage then uses a power.

This would work this way because the "You" is referrant to the player activating the text, which is being done by two seperate heroes, so both would treat The Naturalist as The Naturalist, and "You" as their own player.  The idea of "You" being the player activating the effect is from "I Can do that too" as it pointedly leaves out any covering of "You" being changed to Guise's player, presumably because the player using the power is "You."

5.  If Naturalist or Guise use Nature Forms power does the other get to trigger the effects because it is symbol based?

A.  This is different from the one-shot because the one shot puts the text into play, but with a power the text is in play, and we know that playing Nature Forms power doesn't let Naturalist use the text without activating the power.  Both Guise and Naturalist have a copy of the power's text, and activate theirs when they use the power.

I understand the argument that playing a card is as personal as using a power, but using a power is activating the effect of the text, playing a one-shot is playing the text to the field.  Anything can react to a card entering play, when they react to a power they react to a player using a power.

The problem with using "affects" in that way with "Lemmee See That"  is that if we are talking a card used by Expatriette to for example shoot Citizen Blood for 3 damage, how the card affects Guise isn't relevant, because he isn't being considered in the action. What is relevant is how it affects Expatriette and how it affects Citizen Blood. Now perhaps if it said "For all purposes, treat this card as though...", it would work right, but as it is, it's a grammar fail.

I don't see how Lemme See That can FAIL to mention how it affects the original owner of the card and still be considered to be written correctly. All the wording on the card does for me is tell me that if there's a weird case where the card would seem to affect the owner instead of Guise, it affects Guise, not that Guise hangs on to the item and keeps the owner from using it.

I do write a lot of game rules (for publication, not my own use), so I do spend time thinking about how to words things like this from the design perspective as well.

I know I'm trying to get away from this debate, but that "Back of the card" thing was my argument in playtesting, but it was never verified as accurate.  It may support the official ruling, but it is not official.

Also, yes the card isn't worded as clearly as it could have been.  That happens.  We know the official ruling and can choose to follow or ignore it at our leisure.

I don't see any point in this continuing.

I think I have a basic rules question around Lemme See That... and I'm sure this has a super simple answer.  I think the answer is "Christopher said early in this thread this it works some way", but let me put this out there.  

Looking at the Rulebook, during the Power phase, Heroes can use a Power on one of their cards.  

When Guise plays Lemme See That, he does not change who the "owner" of the card played next to is.  

So when Guise wants to use a power, the Razor Ordinance is not one of his cards.  So even though the card text was changed, he can't use the power on it.  Guise could use a power on Lemme See That, but it doesn't have a power.  

but it IS one of his cards, because it interacts with him as if it has his name on it. That, by definition, makes it his.

Probably because it doesn't affect the original owner at all anymore. That seems to be the point. 

Let me frame this another way. How do equipment cards affect their hero?

Equipment cards while in play largely grant additional powers to be used (there are a few exeptions where equipment doesn't provide a power, but the same logic applies). What is being "affected" by Lemme See That is not the effect of the power being used (like you seem to indicate above. The damage dealt is irrelevant), it is affecting the granting of that additional power in the first place.

When you play Lemme See That on Expats card Shotgun for example, the physical card now affects Guise by granting him the use of an additional power as if the name on the card was his. Since we know a player may not activate another hero's cards which grant them additional powers, in the same way Expat could not normally activate Wraith's Razor Ordinance, Expat can no longer activate Shotgun because the card is no longer affecting her by granting her the power use, its affecting Guise.

This is why, due to the official ruling, Lemme See That also changes the name on the back of the card to Guise as well. This effectivly switches ownership of the card and the additional power granted to Guise. This is why Guise can indeed use the power.

I agree that it's getting pointless to argue this any further, but what you've just said changes how *the card affects Expatriette*. That's my whole objection right there, if she can no longer use it, the card affects her differently, not just Guise differently. The card doesn't do what the text on it says it does. It's changing how it affects its owner, so it needs to say it changes that IN ADDITION TO how it affects Guise.

I don't have any trouble understanding what the card is supposed to do. I have trouble understanding how any one could expect that to be where you get from the text on Lemme See That, which fails to state any change to how the card affects its owner.

It's not how I would write that sort of ability for publication, particularly with blank space left for more words.

It changes how it affects its owner because it doesn't any more. It affects Guise. If it affects Guise, then it doesn't affect its previous owner. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

It does exactly what it says it does. The card affects Guise as if the name on it was his. This is still a misinterpretation of what the text means in a mechanical application.

But you can't say it doesn't do what it says. It does.  

There is nothing on the card about affecting the original owner because it doesn't affect the original owner anymore. Again, that seems to be the whole point. 

The one thing this ongoing thread has settled for me is that a lot of folks don't know how to use "affects".

It might be worth considering how you'd write the card to let both people use it. I'd write it exactly the way it's written now, possibly throwing in a clarifying sentence at the end.

The problem here is that the change to the card text is intended to affect more than just Guise. It really needs to say "for all purposes" or words to similar effect. Because the change to the card affects all interactions with it, not merely Guise. And in particular, the card does not say it affects the owner. The logical contortions involve in saying that "it affects the owner because it affects Guise" hurt my head. If you want to change the card for everyone, bloody well say that on the card rather than torturing English until it screams.

It's a terrible idea to have a card where the straightfoward reading is apparently not the right one, but the grammatically tortured one is. If I'm offending with that sentence, so be it.

Verb 1. to   act   on;   produce   an   effect   or   change   in

This has nothing to do with what "affects" means at all. I'm not sure I see your point.

Easy. It would say "Play this card by an Equipment card. That card also affects Guise as if the hero name on that card were Guise and "you" on that card means Guise's player"

The word "also" would indicate an inclusive aspect, that the card affects Guise as well as the original owner. But it doesn't say that. There is no language on the card at all that could be construed as "inclusive". It's indeed exclusive. Since every instance of the original hero's name is now read as Guise (and that includes the card back), the effective outcome of that change switches ownership of the card to Guise. It doen't matter what the specific equipment does or what the power is. The entire card is now Guise's card and players cannot use powers on cards that belong to other players.

My interpretation of that text would be that it only affects Guise…hang on, let me dig up the text from earlier in the thread…

"That card affects Guise as if the hero name on that card were Guise and "you" on that card means Guise's player"

Okay, so how I interpret this is that when Guise looks at the affected card, he reads the hero's name as "Guise" and the word "you" as referring to himself. It doesn't say anything about how it affects anyone else, only Guise, so I would take that to mean the other hero can still use the card because they still read the card as containing their name. I'm a bit confused how so many people can't seem to get that interpretation. Surely to clarify that it doesn't "belong" to the original hero for the time being, it should instead say "That card is considered to belong to Guise, replacing the hero name with "Guise" and with the word "you" on that card meaning Guise's player", or words to that effect?

Ok, this is the thing that makes sense to me, and gave me some clarity.  Let me restate for sanity in case it allows the card to make more sense to others having an issue

Lemme See That says " Play this card by an equipment card. That card affects Guise as if the hero name on that card were Guise and "You" on that card means Guise's player.   At the start of your turn, play air guitar and destroy this card."  

The phrase "hero name" means two things on this card.  

1.  The actually name of the hero on the rules text of the card.  So on Razor Ordinance "Wraith" becomes "Guise".  

2.  The name on the front of the card that indicates ownership of the card is changed.  This indicates that Guise now "owns" the card.  

Card's arn't only seen and read by the person playing them however. It doesn't make sense that only Guise would see the text but no one else would. That's like saying only Chrono Ranger should see the text of "By Any Means" and only his damage would be increased. We know thats not the case.

The phrase "hero name" means one thing. Any place where the hero name is found on the card, you replace it with Guise. The back of the card is still part of the card, right?

The ruling is found in this thread here:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/93562#comment-93562

Christopher says it's Guise's card (for a while). The only way it would be considered his card is if the name on the back also said Guise.

Yes, but cards can affect different things in the game differently. So, by the wording on the Lemme See That card, we change the wording of the selected card only for cases involving the card's affects on Guise. That's why "affects Guise" is such a horrible word choice for the intended game effects of the card.

And, really, if the intention is to rewrite the flippin' card for everyone, say that, because it's not like that's a hard sentence to construct. For example, "For all purposes, treat this card as if" rather than "That card affects Guise as if".

What's the corner case the current wording fixes?

For all purposes, they mean the same thing in this case. That's the intention.

This is correct. If Guise stole Shotgun and Expat was incapped, Shotgun would remain in play because the card currently belongs to Guise. Once "Leeme See That" leaves play, Shotgun goes back to Expats ownership and would instantly get put in the trash. That's intended.

Many people in this thread -- on both sides! --feel that the meaning of this card is completely unambiguous.  The fact that people with multiple significantly different interpretations can believe that proves that, objectively, the card's wording IS ambiguous.

I, personally, HATE ambiguous rules text.  And I'd like to ensue that future editions of the card, and its implementation in the App, have wording that is NOT ambiguous.  That is why I am asking for an official erratum, rather than a "ruling".

Really?  The Vengeance rule book states "When YOU (emphasis added) play a card with an icon that matches the form THE NATURALIST (emphasis original) is currently in, you may activate the additional abilities listed after the icon."

Guise never (unless I'm missing some extreme edge case) plays a One-Shot with a Naturalist icon on it, so Guise can't ever activate Naturalist-icon-based abilities on those cards.

Are there any other cards that cause a player other than the one playing the card to activate their text?  Without actually mentioning on the card itself that they do so?  That whole idea seems really unprecedented to me, and thus I am inclined to accept the plain meaning of the rule book's text in this case.

I guess Guise could use Natural Form's Power, since, technically, the text that Guise is activating is on Uh, Yeah, I'm That Guy!, which Guise did play.

I find it very funny that a character meant to be so lighthearted and comical is one of the most mechanically complicated with nuanced rulings and implied hard rules text.

I feel like this character will go into the same category as Absolute Zero. “I know he looks awesome, [new player], but this character is WAY too complicated for a newb!”

I deleted that because I firgured people would miss the point. Yes, right now it works that way WITH THE RULING, as it would if the card correctly said "for all purposes". As written WITHOUT THE RULING, the card would leave play, because the owner of the card keeps the original text (they're not Guise, after all). So that would be a corner case that works the same way with the text adjusted by the ruling as it does with text altered to fit the ruling, but differently with the text as written on the card.

I pray if I ever wrote a rule like that with that same intention, my editor or developer would notice and fix it.

Current fun corner case: if the "stolen" card gets destroyed or returned to a deck, it goes to Guise's deck the way we're being told to treat it. Definitely not the intent, and won't do it that way. Especially since doing so destroys the association with Guise's card, so it wouldn't get fixed unless the card got destroyed / returned to a deck at a later time.

Related, it's pretty clear to me that if you make Wagemaster discard another hero's card, it discards to the original hero's deck. There's several ways this can happen without said card hitting the top of the deck.

The card is still Expats.  It may affect Guise as if it were his, it may pretend not to be Expat's card, but it is.  It leaves play when she is incapped.  Because the one thing the card does not do is make the card Guise's card.

My opinion:

"I gave Bob a cookie.  I gave Sarah a cookie." is equivalent to "I gave Bob a cookie.  I also gave Sarah a cookie."  Similarly, "That card affects Guise as if..." is equivalent to "That card also affects Guise as if..."

If you accept the two statements as equivalent, then the card's text as written would allow the equipment's owner to use the equipment while Guise is using it.  If you accept the two statements as not equivalent, then the equipment's owner is denied access.  As I demonstrated above, 'also' can be removed from some statements without changing the meaning.  That doesn't neccessarily mean that the text on "Let me see that" is one of those statements (although as stated above, I believe that it is).

From a perfectly logical standpoint, you could argue that since the current phrasing creates ambiguity that would be removed by including 'also', the fact that the 'also' was not included indicates that it is not equivalent.  However, language does not follow perfect logic.

This corner case actually shows up somewhere else as well:  If Guise uses "I can do that too" to copy PW Captain Cosmic's power, and a construct blows up, it will get shuffled into Guise's deck.

Not if we're rewriting the text on the back. Which supposedly we do to fix the other problems it not really being Guise's card causes? In any case, regardless of text, I know the right thing to do with this case is put it in the unmodified discard pile or deck :)

Except that Christopher just said it does. "It belongs to Guise" seems pretty definitive to me.

So if destroyed it would go into Guise's trash, and if shuffled into a deck it would go into guise's deck, right?

The name on the back of the card changing as of right now is speculation, if not please provide a quote.  The card is from Expatriette's deck.  Even if the name on the back is treated as changing it still is not a card from Guise's deck.  If it is a card from Guise's deck then it is a character card because it has a different back.  Even if you change the Freaking name on the card the art is different, which would cause an equipment card borrowed by Guise to become a Character card, unless the deck the card once belonged to was from the base game or Unity, or an ongoing card owned by the Scholar with Caspit's playground in play.

So either the card leaves play when Expat leaves play or it becomes a Character card when Guise takes it.  Yeah, this is absurd.

Every card from Expatriette's deck leaves play when she is incapped.  If playing that card means that the card is no longer part of her deck then this card has left behind the wording on the card, the rules of the game and common sense.

Not at all. When its destroyed, it ceases to be effected by Leeme See That, reverting back to belonging to Expat so it goes into her trash. It doesn't perma become Guises card. 

And the name on the back of the card changing is just a straight literal reading of the card combined with Christopher saying "It belongs to Guise". 

Not sure what your talking about with becoming a character card. You arn't changing the art of the back. Youre replacing any instance of the original heros name with Guise. Same art, same back, but you pretend it says Guise for all intents and purposes.

I think people might be forgetting what mechanically an equipment card with a power does. The effect of Shotgun is that it grants an additional power, and Guise changes which hero character is affected by that effect.

The mechanics and theme don’t really match up with Expat very well. The shotgun is not even the source of the damage for one thing. It is as if she waves the shotgun around like a magic wand and then shotgun pellets spray from her fingers.

All of this occurs because the card is part of Expatriette's deck.  Which means it leaves play when she is incapped.  

But its not part of Expats deck while under the effects of Leeme See That I dont think. It still belongs to Guise during that time.

We'll see when it goes up on Mega Computer I guess. I doubt we'll get any further clarification on this card until then anyway.

@Agent Bon: Yeah thats exactly what I said a few posts ago. I agree with you.

If it leaves her deck and is part of Guise's deck while Lemme see that is next to it, than for that duration it is a character card.

Honestly, I think the card was more clear without the ruling. The original wording does not suggest that Guise really owns the equipment at any time, so it would never go to Guise’s trash or deck. I doubt it was intended by the ruling.

How? Common sense tells you its never a character card. It's not double sided. 

First, thanks for keeping it civil so far, folks.

Second, please don't use phrases like "common sense" (implying the other person doesn't have any) as it starts things down a bad path.

Sorry! You know that wasn't my intention

The exact definition of a character card is a card with a different back to the other cards in the deck.  So I think phantaskippy meant that if the name on the back changed to Guise then it'd be by the most exact definition of a character card, a character card.

Personally I'd say it'd leave the game as soon as the original character is destroyed, but I've been wrong on these forums before.

I understand the argument, but It just doesn't hold much water. It's not fundamentally changing what the card is. A Character card is fundamentally different than other cards in a deck, not to mention that Character cards are also always double sided (hence the "different back" thing). It is still a normal equipment card just like any other, its just changing ownership. The printed name on the card still matches the rest of the deck, but you just don't recognize it as belonging to that original owner as long as it "belongs" to Guise.

But I've been wrong often as well. We will have to wait for the Mega Computer. Theres no doubt I am splitting meaningless hairs here. Regardless which way you play it, it won't break the game (but I will point out that Guise's whole theme is breaking normal rules).

Oh, I do - but there are a lot of folks going back and forth, here, who might not.

And I wanted to catch it before it went bad.

You totally don't want to read a certain person's thoughts about Lemme See That over on BGG. I have a feeling that thread will end up extremely uncivil before long.

So thank you everyone, for not being dicks when you don't agree with each other (or with >G).

I think, for simplicity's sake, if ever Lemme See That gets played, we'll just toss whatever card Guise is borrowing to his player. It helped when I played Guise (the one and only time thus far) and stole Tempest's Gene Bound Shackles to mercilessly slaughter Wager Master for a full round with his 'discard to play a card schtick'. This way, the shackles clearly are assisting Guise and clearly are not assisting Tempest, text be damned. Once Lemme See leaves play (or the item borrowed) whatever was taken is returned to whatever deck it came from without question. Again, text be damned.

Guise is definitely not a character I will allow many players to choose, unfortunately, due to the clever antics he needs to abide by to play the game. It's a good thing there are so many other characters I can use to distract those players! Huzzah!

Originally the equipment in play was put into Guise's play area, much as you suggest.

I think that version was removed because it raised too many questions!

looks at comment

looks at thread

This may be the funniest thing I've read all day.

+1 guess a game breaking character was to pump the blood in the rule lawyers, my inner one gave up a while ago

My intuitive reading of the card is that Guise treats it like it's his, and everything else in the game treats it like it belongs to its original owner. The way "affects Guise" is used implies that it affects him differently than it affects everything else. In Linguistics, there's a principle of discourse analysis called the Maxim of Relevancy. People generally don't include information in a statement unless they believe it's somehow relevant. Listeners get confused when irrelevant information is included because their brain is trying to figure out how it factors in. Specifically calling out Guise when describing how it interacts with cards and players violates that maxim, which is why we have misunderstanding. If you wanted everything to treat it like it's Guise's there's no reason to call him out individually, you can use a more general wording and avoid confusion.

But shrug. The intent was made clear when Christopher made a ruling. I'm going to play it the way it was intended to be played even if the wording feels wrong to me. This isn't the first time I've disagreed with the wording of something in a game, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

New plan: I'm just going to tell myself that the card has been errata'd to "For all purposes, treat that card as if the hero name on that card were Guise and 'you' on that card means Guise's player."

That's what I was trying to say - it only says that Guise treats the card as if it's his. It doesn't say everyone else has to as well. But yeah, I'll probably just add an imaginary errata to it as well, once I've actually got it I mean ;).

At least in this discussion, I feel it answers most of them by clearly showing in physical space just who has what! I am so curious to see what goes in in those PlayTester forums. It seems like a strange, violent place.

It is a confusing place, with tons of threads discussing lots of questions, not at all neatly organized.  Many of the questions come from reports of a game someone played, and it is nearly impossible to gather all official rulings into one location, since any number of threads that ask a question could be the one that it was answered in.

(Silverleaf and Spiff can vouch for that process)

Then suddenly new versions exist and things have changed and we dig though it all to see what is actually going on, and repeat the process.

If the case of Guise borrowing equipment, a late change of the card to its current format ended the debate, but apparently because different people read it differently and assumed the dilemna had been cleared up, while holding very different views on what it actually meant.

Then you add in when you have an idea you think would really work for a deck, you playtest that yourself, and others playtest their ideas (somewhat) leading to even more chaos.

It is a lot of fun, but by the end of WCos testing I was so burned out on those decks that I didn't even want to play them.  My wife still hates Sky-Scraper, and won't play her, just because I was playtesting her so much and talking about her deck a lot.

I still have no desire to break out Omnitron IV.  We tested it a good bit when it was absurdly hard, and even though I know it is a much better deck now, and put in a lot of work trying to help it get where it is, I don't even want to play it.

There are things about playtesting that aren't fun, one big one is I found all kinds of cool combos and tricks and had fantastic games, but the only people I could tell were playtesters, and the entire experience wasn't as much "Look at this awesome thing I did," as "These combinations can do this, is this what we want?"

The main positive is when a card's final form is your idea.  I have a few of those now, and it is really cool.

100% agree on everything here.

In other words, you're burnt out on playing it when it was hard, even though it's somewhat reaosnable now? I can understand that.

Honestly, the lack of organisation drove me crazy. I'll totally volunteer to pull stuff together, since it'll help everyone play things "correctly" and thus give better feedback, rather than missing critical rulings due to said rulings being hidden in page 4 of someone's session report thread.

And a sneak peek into PlayTester World I've received! Thanks, team. It's always fascinating to hear even just small views from the inside.

Playtester World is crazy. So much fun, but crazy.

Playtester world is often contentious, but we try to be respectful of each other.  Even when the other person is totally wrong and just doesn't understand your magnificent VISION! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem.  I'm trying to say that we disagree occasionally.  Which, all hyperbole aside, is absolutely for the best. 

I would imagine. A world where PlayTesterLand was full of nothing but agreements and tea wouldn't generally equate to a good game in the end, would it? 

Whatever it is that goes on in those dank dungeon halls, keep it up! You've my support, as the peachest princess.

Sometimes it's fun to see the world as a non-playtester does, seeing the end results of the cards without the crazy shenanigans in the middle.  It's always great to hear peoples' opinions of the decks when they haven't been playtesting them for the past bazillion weeks.

No, it isn't.

And I respect that opinion.  And… Is so!

I wonder, with three games being playtested at the same time and all...if there's room for more willing individuals to playtest.

I highly doubt they'll all be playtested at the same time.  That would be a ton of work for EVERYONE involved.

Yep. I still like to brag about how I wrote Friendly Fire, as well as generally proposing a lot of minor changes here and there that got implemented.

Paul specifically said that they will be done serial.

Parallel leads to mass insanity. Both with the playtester group and the design group.

But is it the good insanity or the bad insanity?

More thread resurrection, since I'm now playing Guise for the first time...

There didn't seem to be much argument that Guise using I Can Do That, Too on PW Captain Cosmic could end up with CC's cards in Guise's deck.  (There's precedent, or rather antecedent, for having the wrong deck's cards in your deck in Shinobi Assassin, so that's not totally impossible.)

However, the construct card's text hasn't changed, including the name on the back.  So by the same logic as Lemme See That, if Guise played it, the construct would go into Guise's play area (assuming it doesn't go next to some other card), but belongs to Captain Cosmic?  I can't think of anything that breaks offhand, I just want to make sure because of how strange it is.  And clearly it goes back into CC's deck when destroyed (or discarded).

The only Construct that doesn't attach to anyone is Cosmic Crest.   In the video game currently the cards Guise can have in his hand which don't attach to anyone is Tool Box or Mechanical Golems and in the Video Game if Guise plays those they go to the play area of the hero they belong to.  That hero also gets any benefit from them coming into play not Guise.  So if Guise played Cosmic Crest it should go Captain Cosmic's play area.  

Now if only the Video game let you see the back of a card that you played Lemme See That by. . .