Guise card borrowing Questions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.