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.
Additionally, I think this will allow me to have a rule I can work with in general context of an interaction question comes up.
I would love to know where the official rulling you mentioned is, because I thought I did a good job looking for it and didnt' find anything. I didn't see it stated clearly in this thread, though maybe I missed it.