You might want to read the reversal:
3 Likes
Very glad that was addressed quickly and in the right way.
Thereâs still no clear rule in the rulebook stating that dudes, not the player, use abilities on goods and spells (and so an Unprepared shaman cannot use totems). And General Store is still a mess, you have to explain to new players that it works differently from regular Shoppinâ rules, then you have to explain that this does not apply to gadgets and totems.
I agree with you mplain, the two cards do cause some interactions that are not obvious from the card or the rules to new players.
The FAQ does help somewhat, but yep they are a PITA.
The Rules Team are already re-writing and re-wording some of the core rules in the Composite Rulebook, so they have passed the point when they were only interpreting the rulebook, and issuing errata only in the most critical cases. For example, the rule on using shootout/resolution abilities from outside of the shootout to bring dudes into the posse got reworded (causing functional changes) and nobody noticed. So why donât they just fix the whole rulebook now, with all its holes and inconsistencies?
General Store can attach regular goods and spells to booted dudes / dudes in a location you donât control, but this doesnât apply to gadgets and totems. Why? Because thereâs one line in the rulebook (not under the general Shoppinâ rules) stating that in order to invent a gadget, the scientist has to boot in a location you control. This was interpreted by the rules team as a part of the cost to invent a gadget, but this whole passage was written at the time when you couldnât use Gen.Store in this way. So why not rewrite that passage about gadgets now? Same with totems - the rule on attaching goods/spells using card abilities was worded in such a way that it referred to dudes specifically, and so it has now been interpreted that it does not apply to totems because they are attached to deeds. Well this rule is not even in the printed core rulebook, itâs something added way later in digital form, so thereâs no real reason not to change it, if they wanted to.
When I brought all this up half a year ago, I was told that the Rules Team does not make the rules, they only make rulings by interpreting the core rulebook. Well thatâs not true now, theyâre rewording and rewriting the core rules themselves, not just inserting additional rulings into the rulebook. So why not address the problem fundamentally, instead of making rulings based on other rulings they made earlier by interpreting the imperfect rulebook?
5 Likes
Totally agree with mplain here. Maybe it is better to take a comprehensive approach to recent rules inconsistencies than apply band-aid after band-aid solutions?
Well at least this solves the confusions we were having in the previous thread.
Though sometimes I try to get behind a ruling for it to make sense just to have it reversed later on.
I was also rubbed the wrong way with the TYWM response regarding Shield of Faith. Iâm glad that was cleared up. This reversal has resolved a few mental blocks I was having 
I believe that one of the guys from rules team said on main fb group that they revised a rulebook, but they donât want introduce changes in the middle of sheriff evens season.
Right, but reversing 4 out of 7 rulings within two days is okay 
I mean, itâs really weird if theyâre making rulings based on the old rules while they already have the revised rulebook at hand =_=
I just said what I remember someone posted on fb group. I am at wrork now, is it really 4 out of 7 rulings reversed?
Three important ones
I was hoping that using techniques will be ruled as using ability by a dude and that all other abilities on action cards will be ruled as abilities played by the player.
My deleted ost from facebook comunity:
So even rule team member answered 4/7
questions wrong with his first take. Nothing to
say about us, mere mortals. Card templates
are counterintuitive, and rule book does not
cover a lot of interactions. This situation with
wrong card interpratations repeats after each
pack released.
I request comprehensive rule book. It's very
frustrating that we cannot predict how cards
work from rule book/faq.
1 Like
This was interpreted by the rules team as a part of the cost to invent a gadget
To be fair the line youâre talking about says:
Boot the Mad Scientist while theyâre in a location you control (this is a cost of inventing)
So when you say we âinterpretedâ it as part of the cost thatâs a little disingenuous - the rulebook explicitly states it is a cost.
Same with totems - the rule on attaching goods/spells using card abilities was worded in such a way that it referred to dudes specifically, and so it has now been interpreted that it does not apply to totems because they are attached to deeds. Well this rule is not even in the printed core rulebook, itâs something added way later in digital form, so thereâs no real reason not to change it, if they wanted to.
The rules for Totems are working as intended so there is no reason for us to change them at this time.
I stand corrected. Yet I still believe that Auto-Revolver should be inventable in an uncontrolled location.
And I am quite happy that totems cannot be attached to the town square this way. I just want General Store to work âas Shoppinâ (like it says on the card) for other goods and spells as well.
Ugh, Iâve been really unhappy with the Jia Mein ruling since pretty much the beginning. To make a couple of underpowered cards more useful they fundamentally undercut basic and simple principles about how the game works. This reversal just muddies the water even further.
As for Unprepared not affecting Kung FuâŚIâm fine with that as thatâs how I would read the plain text of the rules. Though I am now worried about not having it as a general counter for Kung Fu in terms of balance, but itâs still too early for me to be overly concerned.
I still think that Auto-Revolver should be inventable in an uncontrolled location, as I believe it was the original intent.
I think youâre probably right about the original intent there, I can totally see why you want it to work that way, and I would have no problem with it working that way.
I just want General Store to work âas Shoppinâ (like it says on the card) for other goods and spells as well.
I understand, I really do but for now it works as it is. General Store (or other effects that put cards into play) bypass the Shoppinâ Restrictions of control/booted but do not bypass costs or restrictions based on the card being played. So Gadgets still need to be invented, Hexes/Miracles/Spirits still need to go on Hucksters/Blessed/Shaman, and Totems still need to go on Deeds you control with an Unbooted Shaman present.
Yes GS interacts differently with different card types - but thats because they are different! Rather than looking at the differences between how it interacts and calling those differences âinconsistenciesâ, try looking at the ways in which the interactions are similar/consistent.
2 Likes
Hah, I figured out how to quote a specific poster, yay me![quote=âDarguth, post:16, topic:494â]
This reversal just muddies the water even further.
[/quote]
Could you explain your issue with the corrected ruling? It seems clearer and more consistent to me.
I donât know if anyone else is having this problem, but when I open the Composite Rules in Adobe Reader and try to use Search, it doesnât work and shows random stuff. Makes referring to the rulebook difficult. (Works fine if I open it in Chrome though.)
It seems to be working fine in Adobe Reader for me.