26 replies to this topic

[Mitch2480]

Rahns Guidance: Search the top 5 cards of your deck for a Jedi unit, reveal it, and add it to your hand.  Return the other cards to the the top of your deck in any order.

 

If I do see a Jedi unit do I have to add it to my hand?

[Utinni]

Best Answer

No. You can choose to fail the search. 

[TheJanitor]

Really? Any chance of being pointed to the relevant rule? I don't remember ever seeing anything about that, and I would like to be able to point out the source if it comes up.

[dbmeboy]

Really? Any chance of being pointed to the relevant rule? I don't remember ever seeing anything about that, and I would like to be able to point out the source if it comes up.

Sure.  It's been in the FAQ for a while:

 

(1.4)

Result of Search

When resolving an effect that searches a deck or part of a deck, a player is not required to find the object of the search.

[TheJanitor]

Thanks. Somehow never caught that. I guess it just never came up for us.

[yodaman]

This seems like a bit of a reach in the interpretation of that rule IMO.   In this Rahn's guidance example, you could search the top 5 cards and not have any Jedi units in which case you did not find the object of the search and that's okay.  That seems like what this rule is saying.  The OP talked about there actually finding a Jedi unit with Rahn's guidance and then choosing to not put it in your hand.  You still found the object of your search and you didn't "fail" at that.  You are choosing not to follow the last two aspects of Rahn's guidance which says after you search for a Jedi unit you are to reveal it and add it to your hand.

 

Of course, you only reveal if you're taking something to hand, this issue is probably moot since there would be no way to verify whether or not your opponent found any Jedi units in their top 5 cards with Rahn's Guidance if they don't take anything to hand.

 

Choosing not to take something to hand if you could, seems similar to the original way Falcon worked where you could bounce Falcon without putting a unit back in.   There was no way you could verify whether or not your opponent could have put something in with Falcon but chose not to do so or if they really didn't have anything to put into play with Falcon.  Since you can no longer bounce Falcon without putting a unit into play, it seems wrong to be able to use Rahn's Guidance to find at least one Jedi unit with the search, but be allowed to not take any of the Jedi units back to your hand.

[dbmeboy]

That section of the FAQ was actually added specifically to address choosing to fail a search. If the searched for object wasn't there at all, nobody had any question about what happened.

This particular choice to fail has been used in the past to combo with Along the Gamor run and set up Yoda or Obi-Wan as the card drawn (especially if used on DS turn 1).

[yodaman]

I figured the Gamor aspect was why you might want to fail a search.  I think the FAQ or Rahn's Guidance could be worded better then.

 

 Rahn's Guidance could say "...you may reveal it and add it to your hand." instead. 

 

 The FAQ states you are not required to find the result of the search.  To me I always thought about this in the case of YYSY where you could try to find a Yoda that you knew wasn't in your deck anymore just to potentially shuffle it (not sure why you'd want to do that for the cost involved, but you could).   However, if there is a Jedi unit in the 5 cards you look at with Rahn's Guidance you technically did find what you were searching for, but you are acting like you did not.  There is a difference between the object of your search not actually being found in the search and the object you are searching for being found, but choosing to act like it wasn't.

 

The interpretation of the FAQ seems to be that you may choose to act like you failed the search even if you really didn't.  I think the FAQ should be worded differently then to reflect this.

[dbmeboy]

I figured the Gamor aspect was why you might want to fail a search.  I think the FAQ or Rahn's Guidance could be worded better then.
 
 Rahn's Guidance could say "...you may reveal it and add it to your hand." instead. 
 
 The FAQ states you are not required to find the result of the search.  To me I always thought about this in the case of YYSY where you could try to find a Yoda that you knew wasn't in your deck anymore just to potentially shuffle it (not sure why you'd want to do that for the cost involved, but you could).   However, if there is a Jedi unit in the 5 cards you look at with Rahn's Guidance you technically did find what you were searching for, but you are acting like you did not.  There is a difference between the object of your search not actually being found in the search and the object you are searching for being found, but choosing to act like it wasn't.
 
The interpretation of the FAQ seems to be that you may choose to act like you failed the search even if you really didn't.  I think the FAQ should be worded differently then to reflect this.

It's not my favorite wording of an FAQ entry, but I'm confident on the intent of the entry given rulings at previous events. If people are willing to accept my word on it, I can ask Erik in person on Wednesday at Origins. I can, of course, email FFG through the usual channels too, but Origins will probably delay email answers.

[yodaman]

Oh, I believe it's the intent. Sorry if I wasn't coming across like that.  I'm not arguing with the ruling, just the way it's worded.   Much like Lightsaber Deflection and Survivors, etc... needed to be worded so they play as intended,  this probably should be worded differently to do the same.  

[dbmeboy]

Sounds good. I can at least mention to him that the wording of the FAQ entry could be better, no promises that it will change.

[Jarratt]

"Reveal it to add to your hand" seems like it would cover everything. If you don't reveal it then you move onto the return to the top of your deck stage.

I agree with Yodaman that the wording is off, but given the context of searches in this game I see no reason why you be forced to do something.

[dbmeboy]

I think that the wording of the card is fine, the FAQ entry could be a little more clear.

[Utinni]

This seems like a bit of a reach in the interpretation of that rule IMO.   In this Rahn's guidance example, you could search the top 5 cards and not have any Jedi units in which case you did not find the object of the search and that's okay.  That seems like what this rule is saying.  

I honestly thing the FAQ is clear as is too. What would be the purpose of the rule if it was interpreted how you are saying here? Just to say that if you did the search and didn't find a card, you are not creating an illegal game-state? I don't know if what my brain is seeing is clearly portrayed in text. So basically what I'm saying is that without the FAQ entry, nobody would question that when you use Rahn's guidance, there doesn't have to be a Jedi unit within those 5 cards. 

 

The FAQ entry would be an useless entry unless it was written to specifically say that you are not required to find what you are looking for if you see it. You could add "even if the card being searched for is located within the search", but it's redundant. It's like saying, "If you are looking for a shoe, you are not required to put it on." If I don't find the shoe, of course I'm not required to put it on. Not being required to put it on would only be a factor if I actually found the shoe. 

[Ikari]

I honestly thing the FAQ is clear as is too. What would be the purpose of the rule if it was interpreted how you are saying here? Just to say that if you did the search and didn't find a card, you are not creating an illegal game-state? I don't know if what my brain is seeing is clearly portrayed in text. So basically what I'm saying is that without the FAQ entry, nobody would question that when you use Rahn's guidance, there doesn't have to be a Jedi unit within those 5 cards. 

 

The FAQ entry would be an useless entry unless it was written to specifically say that you are not required to find what you are looking for if you see it. You could add "even if the card being searched for is located within the search", but it's redundant. It's like saying, "If you are looking for a shoe, you are not required to put it on." If I don't find the shoe, of course I'm not required to put it on. Not being required to put it on would only be a factor if I actually found the shoe. 

The spirit of the FAQ is that you can initiate the action further you know you can fail a search, for example Yoda, you seek Yoda, against two Tatooine Crash, you can fail the search because you don't know both Yodas are captured by Tatooine Crash, but you cannot play Yoda, you seek Yoda to raise the dial and get that unit damage needed to kill the executor, so for me it's the same, you can initiate the Rahn's guidance but if you find at least one Jedi unit you must reveal it and add it to your hand, because the Rahn's Guidance don't say you may, the same way Yoda, you seek Yoda don't say you may search for Yoda.

[Jarratt]

The spirit of the FAQ is that you can initiate the action further you know you can fail a search, for example Yoda, you seek Yoda, against two Tatooine Crash, you can fail the search because you don't know both Yodas are captured by Tatooine Crash, but you cannot play Yoda, you seek Yoda to raise the dial and get that unit damage needed to kill the executor, so for me it's the same, you can initiate the Rahn's guidance but if you find at least one Jedi unit you must reveal it and add it to your hand, because the Rahn's Guidance don't say you may, the same way Yoda, you seek Yoda don't say you may search for Yoda.

Pretty sure you can play YYSY even if Yoda is on the board.

The difference is definitely the wording. Rahn's Guidance doesn't give an out clause. It says look, reveal, put into hand. It directly tells you what to do. Yoda has a cost and an effect and the effect has an if able clause which lets you get away with not playing Yoda.

RG is a series of commands if you will, steps you must perform.

I'm not saying that is how it should be played, more than Incan see how it can lead to confusion.

In the Decipher game a failed search meant you had reveal you deck (or pile) to your opponent. You actually had to get the object you were searching for. You could never leave it behind. Obviously they have gone the other direction in this game which is better IMO. But clearer text with regards to that would be better, either on the card or in the FAQ.

I have no doubt in my mind that you don't have to grab a unique Jedi unit here if you find one, primarily because there are no rules in place to enforce your choice to reveal or not reveal a Jedi unit.

[Utinni]

I go back to my point that why would there need to be an FAQ entry to tell me that if I fail my search because there is no eligible unit, that's ok. Of course it's ok. Why wouldn't it be? The only reason it would need to be in there is to say that If I do come across an eligible unit, I can still choose to fail my search because I am "not required to find the object of my search". 

[yodaman]

I think it's just a case where the FAQ should be reworded to match the intent, just like Lightsaber Deflection, etc..   I believe Rahn's Guidance works like everyone is saying.  I don't agree that the FAQ statement accurately reflects the intent.

 

Perhaps, "when resolving an effect that searches a deck or part of a deck, a player may choose to fail the search" would be a  more accurate wording and reflect the true intent.

[Utinni]

LS Deflection and those others were reworded because they don't work how they are supposed to under a changed way that damage is processed. The FAQ is just clarifying that you are not required to find the card. If you were required to find the card when performing a search and you use Rahn's guidance bu didn't find a jedi unit, it would create an illegal game state. Just like you are required to pay 1 or discard the BS Headhunter.

 

I think people are used to questioning aspects of this game because of past mistakes in wording or design. I really don't think this is a problem. What is being suggested for a change is simply wording it in a way that you would prefer.

 

"You are not required to find the object of your search." Is the only intent of the FAQ entry.

 

You are not required to find the object of your search if:

• that object of your search is within the parameters of the search
• that object is not within the parameters of your search

Both apply so why would we need more words added? And the second of those bullets would be completely unnecessary to add to the FAQ. Are there any other scenarios in which that last clause in the FAQ entry could be interpreted?

[yodaman]

I can agree about the reason for Lightsaber deflection being reworded being different from this FAQ.  However, they are similar in that if something literally doesn't read  like it's intended, then it should be changed to make it clearer. 

 

There are a few people who have said they thought it could have been worded better, so it's not just me. 

 

 I think the earlier post related to YYSY and not finding a Yoda with the search is a good illustration of the "not being required to find the object of the search" clause being needed. 

 

I think the issue is that there doesn't seem to be an agreement on what it means to "find" something.  One definition of "find" which seems to apply in this case is "to come upon or discover by searching or making an effort".   FFG doesn't define the term "find" anywhere from what I can tell. 

 

For example,

 

You use Rahn's Guidance and have Gamor Run out clearly hoping to set up a draw for it.  The only Jedi unit is a Yoda which you want to leave on the top of your deck for the 5 pips when you use Gamor.  

 

 I think it is fair to say that you found a Jedi unit using the definition above.  You came upon (or discovered) that Yoda after searching.    The fact you "found" Yoda is why you can even rig the Gamor draw in the first place.  You discovered him in the first 5 cards and are choosing not to take him to your hand even though he's the only unit that met the search criteria.

 

What is really happening is you are choosing to act like you did not find a Jedi unit to avoid having to follow the rest of the instructions on the card about revealing the unit you found and adding it to your hand.   That's fine.  I believe the card is intended to work that way.  I don't think the current wording on the FAQ accurately reflects that intent based on how I would define "find".