I believe the real reason for the ruling on general store actually has to do with effects that call out dudes. The design team wants that any time a card says to call a dude out, it bypasses all restrictions of being booted, or if the dude you are calling out is at home. Then they realized that if a card said it was a shoppin play, you would have to follow the same logic, and break the existing rules of being unbooted, controlled location, and the like.
Nah, it was a side effect of Jia Mein ruling. The card was simply too weak for its cost.
@jayjester judging by your question about Bairdâs on the rules forum, you seem to be under impression that if a card tells you to make a certain action, then it breaks all restrictions associated with performing that action normally:
- Dogâs Duster can be used to call out a dude at their home;
- General Store can attach goods and spells to booted dudes in unconrolled locations;
- Bairdâs should allow to place a deed in-between two existing deeds.
In truth, the logic of using card effects to override general restrictions in not as universal as you might think. All such cases are explicitly stated in the rulebook:
Regarding card effects that let you call out a dude, the core rulebook states the following:
Some card effects let you call out a dude. When using one of these effects, your dude may call someone out even while booted, and more importantly, can use it to call out a dude in their home.
Thereâs also a rule about card effects that move dudes:
Some card effects let you move a dude. <âŚ> When using one of these effects, you can use it to move a booted dude, and the move doesnât boot your dude.
Regarding card effects that attach goods/spells to dudes, the rule was not originally in the core rulebook, but was introduced at a later point:
Some card effects let you bring another card into play. <âŚ> If that new card is a goods or spell, a dude can attach it even when booted and/or in a location you donât control.
The same applies to card effects that make you transfer goods between dudes (trade):
Some card effects let you transfer a goods card from one dude to another. When using one of these effects, a dude can attach the goods card even when booted and/or in a location you donât control.
Ironically, this ruling is present in the core rulebook, unlike the one above. Although there are no such card effects in the game at present.
However, there is nothing in the rulebook to suggest that using a card effect would allow you to place a deed in between two existing deeds. On the contrary:
Some card effects let you bring another card into play. When using one of these effects, the new card enters play following these same rules, depending on its type.
1 Like
I said earlier that all problems with the Jia Mein Reversal could be solved by simply excluding the General Store from the list of affected cards, either by a separate ruling (since it says âAs Shoppinâ, unlike other affected cards), or by issuing technical errata.
However, I no longer believe that this would be sufficient, because of this one new card:
Laughing Crow
Noon: Reveal the top two cards of your deck. You may attach any revealed Spirits, paying all costs. Discard the rest.
Just like General Store, she allows attaching Spirit spells to booted shamans in locations you donât control. But sheâs also affected by the recent reversal on General Store + Totems, and thus she can only attach totems to locations that you control where you have an unbooted shaman. The confusion would remain.
It has been stated by the rules team that the current interaction between General Store and totems (after the recent reversal) is working as intended. I easily believe that the design didnât want players to use General Store to attach totems to the town square. This seems logical and practical, balance-wise.
One solution would be to amend the rule on attaching goods/spells via card effects to cover deeds as well as dudes, and also amend the rule on Totems to explicitly state that you cannot attach totmes to the town square or your opponentâs home unless you control either location.
A similar problem is present with this rule from the core rulebook:
Boot the Mad Scientist while theyâre in a location you control (this is a cost of inventing)
which got reworded in the Composite rules into this:
The cost of inventing a gadget is as follows: boot your Mad Scientist in a location you control, pay the Gadgetâs ghost rock cost, and then perform a skill test using the dudeâs Mad Scientist skill rating.
This separate rule makes gadgets unaffected by the general rule on using card effects to attach goods/spells. Thus it prevents inventing Auto-Revolver in an uncontrolled location, as well as using Horse Wranglinâ to invent a Mechanical Horse.
This rule could be amended to something like this:
The cost of inventing a gadget is: boot your Mad Scientist <âŚ> Remember that, as with all Shoppinâ plays, your mad scientist needs to be in a location you control in order to invent a gadget, unless youâre using a card effect."
However, we would then have an undesireable side effect in that William Specks would allow another mad scientist to invent gadgets in uncontrolled locations, rather than simply provide a discount. This could be prevented by ruling that Williamâs âinventâ clause does not directly says âattachâ but rather instructs you to perform a general âinvent a gadgetâ action, and thus is not affected by the rule on using card effects to attach goods/spells.
1 Like
Iâm curious as to what the current state of affairs is with these rulings? Anything changed or any new cards related to them?