-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Broken Gates "out-of-play" #137
Comments
Discussed on Discord but adding the thoughts here in case they are helpful: Personally I do think it’s clear, as long as I understand the rationale correctly. It seems to me “would be placed” means “would normally be placed” or “would otherwise be placed if the gate were in play.” The “out of play” status is the only thing giving any meaning to “would be placed.” Thus, the piece that would normally be placed from Gatekeepers if the gate were in play gets rerouted. Meanwhile there is no separate rule rerouting pieces that would be placed where a path token exists. If FAQ or errata (not needed in my view) clarify this reasoning or add this wording, that would seem to close the loop. |
But Out-of-play was also defined as https://arcs.seiyria.com/#23.1.16-out-of-play
It's intuitive to think that includes "cannot place a piece in it". |
Indeed, but you are not interacting with/placing a piece on it. You are being told what to do in situations where you would place a piece on it, normally, i.e. if it were still in play. |
Passages states
However, this is technically wrong. In a previous ruling (which is currently not visible due to a bug #136), it was ruled that Gatekeepers would still put a ship into a gate with a Passage token (places it in the Twisted Passage instead).
This is distinctly different from what happens in base game with Path tokens. In base game, one would just not place the ship in a gate with a Path token.
I'd say this ambiguous nature of the broken gates was what led to a few other confusion, e.g.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: