Kaymakli Fragment

Actually Lonkka, the issue here is that your third rule has become the first rule. LSJ's ruling here has contradicted the rulesbook, thus begging the question whether the rulebook or LSJ's rulings take precedence.

LSJ's rulings for the most part clarify how cards work in certain instances or go into more depth than the rulebook does. In the case of Villein, LSJ defined what it means to "move" blood from a card. His ruling on that did not directly contradict the existing rules. Yes, why go back on it?

But in this case the ruling contradicts rule 6.1.6 of the rulebook. The ruling was made quietly in September of last year, after the game was discontinued. To me the NRA rules are already a bit hard to teach and retain, so I figure, why change them just for one or two cards?

And for Kevin: LSJ did a fine job, but I don't think every ruling he made found unanimous approval.

This whole topic is subject to review by the Rules team.
Until something else is issued, LSJ's reversal stands.
In the future, either the rulebook will be adapted so that the NRA is properly defined for actions from cards in play, or this ruling will be reversed.

Thanks Pascal.
I do hope that any 'game-wide' applicable rulings are incorporated into the core rules, rather than standing alone as rulings. It will return the 'rule book' to the first reference for game-play in general and the rulings for specific cards.

To that end, I do think it would be worth glossarising key words such as "Steal", "Move", "Transfer" and having them be specific meanings (e.g. if transfer equipment is the same as move equipment... then only one of those words should be used).

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

To that end, I do think it would be worth glossarising key words such as "Steal", "Move", "Transfer" and having them be specific meanings (e.g. if transfer equipment is the same as move equipment... then only one of those words should be used).

If someone thinks something isn't clear in the rulebook (or the outline, or the tournament rules, or the judges' guide, ...), please let me know. I'll try to handle it, if I think it is necessary. Notifying me won't mean I'll change it, but at least I'll be aware of it.

Can't ask for more.
Thanks Pascal.

Aaron wrote:

And for Kevin: LSJ did a fine job, but I don't think every ruling he made found unanimous approval.

With all due respect, that's a meaningless statement unless you want mob rule.