Forms of the Ether et les ressources de l'adversaires...

Hello,

Bon, je cale sur cette carte (idée de deck putride inside):

Forms of the Ether
Event
Coût 2
Action: Choose a card attached to a domain as a resource. Put that card into your hand and attach Forms of the Ether to that domain as a resource.
It rose in tendrils, weaving together, moving against the breeze. Something was coalescing. Something dark and twisted.
Curse of the Jade Emperor F39 / Illustrateur Kelley R. Harris

Comme l'Itinerant Scholar, cette carte permet de cibler un domaine de l'adversaire... Je ne vois absolument rien dans les règles qui l'interdirait.
Est-ce qu'on est bien d'accord qu'attendu que

When you have taken control of a card,
you are considered to be that card’s
controller, but not its owner. When that
card leaves play for any reason, or at the
end of the game, you must return it to
its owner. If it leaves play as the result of
a game or card effect, it is returned to its
owner’s control, but still is placed out of
play. So, for example, if the card would
be sent to a discard pile, it is placed in its
owner’s discard pile. (FAQ v.2:§1.9)

la carte de l'adversaire étant déjà "hors jeu" quand elle est sous le domaine, mais que

Out of Play
Out of play is the Draw Deck, Hand,
Domains (and resources), and Discard
Pile.
If a card would go to an out of play
zone, it goes to its owner’s out of play
zone. A card that moves from an in play
zone to an out of play zone is treated as
though it were a new card. Any effects
connected to the card will no longer
affect it. (ibid.: 2.

ce qui implique que l'origine de la carte se baladant hors jeu n'a pas d'importance (le possesseur la récupère),
jouer Forms of the Ether a pour effet de renvoyer la carte adverse dans la main de l'adversaire et d'ajouter une ressource à un de ses propres domaines?
On est d'accord?

Doubtful.

mzi a écrit:Forms of the Ether
Event
Coût 2
Action: Choose a card attached to a domain as a resource. Put that card into your hand and attach Forms of the Ether to that domain as a resource.
It rose in tendrils, weaving together, moving against the breeze. Something was coalescing. Something dark and twisted.
Curse of the Jade Emperor F39 / Illustrateur Kelley R. Harris

My guess is that the card will receive a clarification/errata to better reflect its intention. If anything the card should be returned to its owner's hand and not 'your' hand.

We already have a similar issue with one or more cards that say 'shuffle the card back into your deck' when it should really say 'shuffle the card back into its owner's deck'. It's just sloppy wording, imho.

Definitely a question to forward to Damon for inclusion in the next FAQ.

Jhaelen a écrit:If anything the card should be returned to its owner's hand and not 'your' hand.

That is exactly what I wrote.
At least, part of it: I also think that without further clarification, FotE should be attached to one of its owner's domain, even if it targets one of his opponent's.

OK, If I understand well, what you say is:

1) You play FotE, targetting another card (let's call it C) under an opponent's domain
2) C goes back to its owner's hand (the opponent)
3) Instead of putting FotE under the opponent's domain (in place of the card C), you put FoTE under one of your domains!

The point 3 seems strange to me, I would have said that it goes under the opponent's domain. But of course it is less attractive that way...

One fair way to play it would be (without checking if it violates the rules/FAQ/errata): put FotE under the opponent's domain, and get the card C in your hand (stealing it). So you do not weaken the opponent's domain too much (just making the ressource matching more difficult if playing different factions), and at the same time you steal on card. Of course, after that, you must be able to pay it (ressource match?) or using it another way (discarding to pay an effect, come into play by a card effect,...).


I also think like jhaelen, I'm not sure the way you're proposing to play it is the design intent...

C'est bien ce que je dis, en vertu du fait qu'une carte ne peut pas être "hors jeu" du côté d'un joueur qui ne la possède pas et que, dans ce cas, elle retourne dans la zone correspondante chez son possesseur.

Je ne pose pas la question de savoir si ce que je propose est le "design intent" ou pas. Je veux juste évaluer ce qui se passe quand on suit le wording à la lettre. Si qn veut écrire à Damon sur cette question, il peut [EDIT: bon, je l'ai fait].

mzi a écrit:

Jhaelen a écrit:If anything the card should be returned to its owner's hand and not 'your' hand.

That is exactly what I wrote.
At least, part of it: I also think that without further clarification, FotE should be attached to one of its owner's domain, even if it targets one of his opponent's.

Ah, sorry. I blame GoogleTranslate

Thanks for forwarding the question to Damon!

Damon est toujours en train de réfléchir à un errata.
L'idée fondamentale est qu'il voudrait qu'on puisse attacher FotE à un domaine adverse, mais pas récupérer la carte ciblée (qui irait dans la main de l'adversaire).

L'idée fondamentale est qu'il voudrait qu'on puisse attacher FotE à un domaine adverse, mais pas récupérer la carte ciblée

Il y a un intérêt réel ?