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.